Loading...
CC - 11-12-91APPROVED CITY OF ROSEMEAD MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING DATE ~~~=5 a ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 12, 1991 BY The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to 1 order by Mayor pro tem Clark at 8:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman McDonald. The Invocation was delivered by Pastor Bill Miller of the United Methodist Church. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmen Bruesch, McDonald, Taylor, and Mayor Pro Tem Clark Absent: Mayor Imperial - Excused APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 8, 1991 - REGULAR MEETING Mayor pro tem Clark requested that Page 6, second paragraph be amended to read "...disagreed with the tra€€4e-engineer4s-estimate developer's engineering report of the traffic count." Councilman Bruesch requested that Page 6, third paragraph be amended to read "Councilman Bruesch upon ascertaining from staff that the proposed parking would permit up to three restaurants in the development was opposed...." MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 8, 1991, be approved as amended. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: Imperial Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 22, 1991 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 22, 1991, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: Imperial Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. PRESENTATIONS: - None I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE A. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, reported a problem with party music on November 2, 1991, and that he had called the Sheriff's Department several times. Mr. Nunez also disagreed with having to pay his trash bill in advance. Councilman Taylor requested a copy of the Sheriff's phone log for that night. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS An explanation of the procedures for the conduct of public hearings was presented by the City Attorney. CC 11-12-91 Page #1 0 A. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM MICHAEL CIRRITO TO CERTIFY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-534 WHICH PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF A CAR WASH AT 3606 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD, BY AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CAR WASHES IN THE C-3 ZONE UPON ACQUISITION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A MODIFICATION OF A CONDITION REQUIRING ADDITIONAL OFF-STREET PARKING VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: You have this evening the Ordinance Number 693, which amends the Municipal Code allowing car washes in the C-3 zone. Currently, car washes are not a permitted use in the C-3 zone. It is therefore necessary that the Municipal Code be amended to allow such a use. Staff believes that car washes consume significant square-footage and have the potential to noticeably impact the areas in which they are to be established. It is therefore recommended that subsection 35 read car washes, automobile laundries and other similar vehicle service establishments in the C-3 zone be added to Section 9181.1 of the Code which would be uses permitted in specific zones. Planning Commission approved on August the 5th the conditional use permit which proposed the establishment of the car wash business by remodeling the existing service station at 3606 Rosemead Boulevard in order to house the restrooms, the cashier area, vending machines, a patio, 180 square-foot retail space and two car detailing service bays. The curb cuts providing ingress and egress from Glendon Way into the southwest portion of the site from Rosemead will be removed and landscaping installed in their place. The sole means of access will be the northerly curb cut onto Rosemead Boulevard which will be widened to accommodate existing traffic. Circulation will be in a clockwise manner beginning from the northwest portion of the site and exiting from the same access point as shown on Exhibit B. The arrangement is in accordance with the comments of the Traffic Engineer. At the August 5th meeting the Planning commission also added the following condition that a covenant providing for a minimum of six additional parking spaces at an acceptable location be submitted to the Planning Department. Unfortunately, the applicant has been unable to satisfy this condition and has presented an alternative proposal that is in his letter of September the 18th. Both staff and the City's Traffic Engineer have reviewed the proposal and feel that the ridesharing program can fulfill the intent of Condition 5 and satisfy the City's concerns with regard to employee parking. However, staff will closely monitor the car wash on a periodic basis to insure that the business does maintain a ridesharing program. Attached for the Council's review this evening is Ordinance No. 693, the Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-39, minutes of the Planning Commission dated August the 5th, and letters from the Traffic Engineer and from the applicant. After closing the public hearing this evening, it would be appropriate to introduce Ordinance No. 693 for first reading. In addition, a vote can be taken by minute action modifying Conditional Use Permit 91-534. I should state that I believe the staff delivered to you this evening a letter that was FAXed to us this afternoon from the owner of Montgomery Ward shopping center which is adjacent to this particular location voicing his opposition to the project. It would be appropriate to open the public hearing at this time. CLARK: Public hearing is now open. Is the applicant in the audience? Please state your name and address for the record. AUDIENCE: Michael Cirrito. Address is 237 W. Bonita Avenue, Suite F, San Dimas, California, 91773. I have proposed to build the car wash at the Glendon and Rosemead intersection. Formerly the site was a Texaco facility which was also an automotive use and we have proposed to develop a very eye appealing type car wash which will be more detail oriented and provide a high quality type car wash for the intersection and also for the community. We have paid close attention to the detail and the environment that we're trying to create for the surrounding structures and also to make sure that the CC 11-12-91 Page #2 CIRRITO CONTINUES: existing architecture coincides with the surrounding shopping center and also gives a warm feeling as people enter into the City because this is the first parcel they probably see if they are coming northbound. We're very sensitive to the City's needs on those concerns. Traffic was a concern. Initially I believe an AM/PM Mini-Market was going in. That would have been probably a 24-hour operation facility. Our business hours are normally going to be from about 8 am to dusk where we will not have nighttime traffic. To further facilitate the City's concern on parking whereas the AM/PM could not utilize just one curb cut we have agreed to close off the entrance and exit curb cuts on Glendon Way. That will help alleviate any traffic congestion coming out of the Rosemead Square Shopping Center. Our traffic pattern is in a clockwise direction which will allow traffic to smooth in much more easily with the intersection just south of us. Our detail and layout I feel is workable with the type of traffic pattern that we have and we've worked with the Traffic Engineer and also car wash consultants that have been in the business for 25 years. Are there any questions? BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. I have one question. In terms of the parking for employees you negotiated with the people to the east. Did you ever think about doing that same type of negotiation with the people to the west? CIRRITO: No, I did not. I tried the Toys R Us facility but they're through a broker that represented them on the land. They have peak times during the seasonal and that would have... BRUESCH: I'm thinking about the hotel because it would seem that the hotel across the street would have hours just the opposite of yours. They would be operating at a heavily congested time between dusk and dawn and you'd be going from dawn to dusk. Did you contact them? CIRRITO: No, I have not. I did not. I figured with their type of business that possibly wouldn't work for them and I didn't feel at the time but that is a good point. I could look into that. The reason why...we did anticipate with leasing space from Rosemead Square. They have an abundance of parking. But I don't know if you're very familiar with the situation. The current shopping center owner is waiting just for the property owner, who is here tonight, to more or less be in a position to be almost desperate and have to give him the property. Where the shopping center owner... if this happens, regardless of what goes on that corner, that shopping center owner will be here to ask for your permission for approval of some type of development that he can put there and generate profit and it's kind of a situation where the big shopping center owner is putting pressure on the small guy. Well, I feel our plan will work very well. I called on Mr. Lee personally, or Mr. Chen rather, and he had nothing to do with this ...we would have paid him more than a fair market space rent for the cars. He has a three-story structure on the site but it was just a matter of his willingness not to cooperate with us. Our business is not going to compete with his business. It would only complement his business and I felt that was a concern and more or less so... our alternative was there is a Park and Ride facility on Santa Anita Avenue and the 10 freeway. Most of the employees use public transportation now and we are strongly in support of doing that, getting a company van and monitoring. We don't have a problem doing that and we think that's even better for our employees to help pitch in and do those kind of things. CLARK: Is there anyone else on the Council that wants to address this? Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience in favor of this project? Is there anyone opposed to this project? AUDIENCE: (No name given but speaker was recognized as Juan Nunez) I'm not opposed to the project. I don't know when they build that and I don't want them to build anything like they did over at Thrifty, over on Del Mar. That the islands, the pumping islands for the gas, there will be no gas pumped here, CC 11-12-91 Page #3 NUNEZ CONTINUES: but the pumping islands on the gas station there on Del Mar are north/south more or less and when they on the lane that's to the south there's only one lane actually there. When two cars are parked there the front car happens to be filling up, the back car is already filled up, he can't go through because there's an island, a planter there that doesn't give him access to go out. He has to back out and either back out into traffic or even into the sidewalk and into traffic as I say for the traffic that's going north on Del Mar and maybe that should be taken a look at by the Planning Department whenever that was built that that thing poses a problem there. They had plenty of room where they could have moved their pumps further into the property or eliminate part of that planter area there. CLARK: Is there anyone else that wishes to speak in opposition? AUDIENCE: Mayor and Councilmen. My name is John Wang. I'm representing the owner of the Rosemead Square Shopping Center to oppose this project. But the reason we oppose this project is not what Mr. Michael Cirrito has suggest and we oppose this project is strictly because the location of that particular corner as you all understand is very very busy highway offramp. Every time I come down to shopping center around 4:00 or from 3:30 to 6:00 it probably takes 20 minutes just to go down the ramp into the Rosemead Boulevard. I'm sure you're all aware that the traffic congestion situation at that particular intersection not to mention this is a freeway offramp and the way I understand you're going to close out the egress and the ingress of the...along the Glendon Way and the south entrance of Rosemead Boulevard, only leave the north entrance open and that north entrance it's only about ten feet away from the main entrance of the Rosemead Square Shopping Center. And I'm sure you all understand that a car washing business not only generate a lot of car traffic, also creating a lot of queuing problem because people want to go into the car washing and have to wait. Okay? This is a very common problem of all the car washing. Okay? There's simply no place to queue those cars waiting go into for service. Another problem is you create a lot of slow traffic going into the service and going out of service and only have one entrance and that entrance is very close to the main entrance of the Rosemead Square Shopping Center. I just anticipate it create a nightmare for the entire area. That area, traffic is already bad. I understand you have a signal upgrading plan coming up. Okay? That signify there is already has a major traffic problem. Now, putting this car washing business in there I think is just make a situation worse and also the employee, they're requesting additional street parking and I don't know which street can be parking in that area. So, we are opposing this project. It's purely from the safety and the traffic congestion point of view. TAYLOR: Madam Chairman. Question to Mr. Wang. How long have you been representative of Mr. Chen? WANG: About two years. TAYLOR: Did you have any participation or involvement in the last request? When the owner asked for the office complex to go in there? WANG: No, not at all. TAYLOR: Were you aware of it? WANG: No, I don't. TAYLOR: And you've been with him two years? WANG: Yes. I represent him on a case by case basis. TAYLOR: Okay. There was another proposal to put office buildings in there about a year ago. CC 11-12-91 Page #4 WANG: I'm not aware of it. TAYLOR: Would you suggest that they put a driveway on the south side if this item is approved? WANG: I have no suggestion for what are they going to do. I just see having one entrance very close to the main entrance of the shopping center, that will not work. As far as how they will make it work, I don't know. TAYLOR: Well, I think it's been an eyesore to the City for the past few years and when they came in with the office proposal I thought that was reasonable but how long do we put a stranglehold on a business and say we don't like what you're doing? We don't like the first proposal. We don't like the second proposal. He's in a legitimate business as far as whatever he's made proposals to put in there and it borders on inverse condemnation of saying we don't like what you're doing even though you have a right to do it. WANG: Well, certainly the councilmen has the right to decide whether they want to approve but we are opposing this project. It's not just for the purpose of opposing the project. We're opposing the project with a legitimate reason. TAYLOR: Well, since you had reasonable concerns and valid concerns about only one entrance to that, do you think there should be a second entrance to it? WANG: As long as it will not hinder the traffic going in and out of the shopping center area or for that matter hinder.the traffic of the Glendon Way or the Rosemead Boulevard, I have no objection. TAYLOR: I personally believe that that south back corner would be a good location to get the side traffic into it. Southeast corner ...Yes. That is not in the direct path of the offramp as far as that left-hand turn that goes to Rosemead Boulevard and I've lived in this area for forty years and I've been there since the Ward's complex has been built and it was a Texaco gas station every since the time that was built in there so your point is well taken. I do think that the traffic could be a problem, limited to one ingress and egress but I do believe that it's a reasonable project, also. BRUESCH: Madam Mayor. Mr. Wang. This item of the traffic on the offramp has come up quite frequently in the last eight to ten years and Caltrans has come to us quite frequently and said, yes, we can reconfigure that offramp but we would need the cooperation of the property owner. Since your concern is so great about the offramp traffic would your boss, Mr. Chen, be willing to meet with Caltrans to find out what they need in order to reconfigure that offramp so the traffic would be alleviated? WANG: I understand when we develop the parking structure one of the condition is we have to work with Caltrans on the signal modification. That's the only thing... BRUESCH: No, they're talking in terms of reconfiguring the offramp itself, of coming at a wider turn and then coming and making a turn around into Rosemead Boulevard, then having another going north bound much the same as they have it on most of the offramps and onramps which would mean of course taking some property. Would Mr. Chen be amenable to that situation? WANG: We have not seen the proposal and we'd we more than happy to take a look at the proposal and I cannot tell you one way or the other, the answer. BRUESCH: Thank you. CLARK: Is there anyone else wishing to speak in opposition? Seeing none, is the applicant ready for rebuttal? CC 11-12-91 Page #5 CIRRITO: I appreciate Mr. Wang's concern for traffic congestion. While people that do such a business as a car wash, they do anticipate a large amount of traffic. With our layout and our traffic pattern I do not feel it'll impact Rosemead Square at all. If anything, it'll benefit Mr. Chen's business. I don't know how familiar the Council is with the Center, but I've grown up in this City. The Rosemead Square Center was owned by a large real estate developer and about ten years ago he did sell it to Mr. Chen and it's kind of coincidental but Mr. Chen was able to persuade the Council to build out about 10,000 square feet on the northwest corner where traffic is coming in. They were able to build out a facility for the Boot Barn and for the Holiday Spa. Now, Holiday Spa, if you drive by Holiday Spa tonight there's probably a hundred cars out there and it didn't seem that that was a concern of his at the time because it was benefitting him. The owner of the property, Mr. Harry Mar is here tonight. He's been sitting on a parcel, working with the City, trying to resolve this issue with an AM Mini-Market which included an ARCO gas station. Also, an office building, a shopping center, he's been very workable and we felt our plan incorporated pretty well with what the City was looking for. We've taken every suggestion from the Planning Commission and I more or less feel it's not so much impacting traffic as it is not benefitting the shopping center owner and that is something that I feel our project will benefit him but not financially for him. Thank you. CLARK:. Could you address the problem of queuing that he mentioned if the cars do line up on Rosemead Boulevard how are you going to shuttle them in so they don't...? WANG: With peak days on a car wash will be a weekend, probably Saturdays and Sundays will be our peak times. We're able to stack about 15-18 cars as they come in. We have three lanes of traffic. The conveyor that is at the east border of the property has a mechanism that you can speed it up when you are busy, you just speed up the conveyor so it pulls the car through quicker and if you every notice a car wash, when a car wash is busy, if there is a line, people will not wait because if it's too long, people's time and they'll just come back and it's disadvantageous for us because we'll lose business but then again people are not going to park in the street and we will not encourage that. We will enforce that and if we have to hand out coupons to our customers or something along that guideline we will move that. We will strongly discourage that. Working with the Planning Commission, that has been a big concern and I feel by closing off the south perimeter there we're really helping. I don't any other business that could really thrive with one'curb cut, especially being the way they had four curb cuts there before so we're willing to take the risk. I think we'll be able to make it work okay and still have a successful business that will be able to turn a profit. CLARK: Thank you. Okay. Now we close the public hearing? Oh. Is there anyone...? AUDIENCE: I would like to ask a question. My name is Gio Hom. I'm the property owner of the said property. I have a question for Mr. Wang as he represents the Center? How much would he ask for access to his property? That we have at least no less than a dozen corporation come in and ask to lease the property but because of the only one ingress the City allows there is no other opportunity for any sort of fast food or any type of business to go in there would require two access or ingress or whatever you call it. Now, we have people, a corporation, went to them. I'm sure the Planning or the City people have known about it, like Mr. Taylor said, and how much is he asking for it, for the right-of-way or whatever you call it to go and use his premises? That's my question. Thank you. CLARK: The public hearing is now closed. We'll have discussion amongst the Council. CC 11-12-91 Page #6 TAYLOR: Madam Chairman. I don't know how long it's been vacant to tell you the truth, if it's been three, four, five years, whatever but I seriously believe that they have been and I have to say denied the use of that property and they've come up with a reasonable proposal that staff is recommending and I think it's time that we get that property cleaned up and back into service for the community and also realistically it's a revenue producing business, a job producing and how many times could it be turned down? So, I'm in favor of going ahead with the project. BRUESCH: Ms. Mayor. I agree with Councilman Taylor. I think that this has been kicked around for three or four years and I think the plan shows a business that is thinking about the way it looks on that corner and how it is going to be screened from the exiting traffic from the freeway and from the shopping center. I've got two questions. One question and one suggestion. On a change in the zoning can we add that all of these car washes would need a CUP? TRIPEPI: That's what you're doing. It's in Section 9181. BRUESCH: It doesn't say anywhere that it is a CUP, though. ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: If you went to this particular section, you're adding subsection 35 which is a list,of conditional use permit... BRUESCH: So, this is part of the CUP. Okay. And then as part of the CUP could, and this is my suggestion, that adequate safeguards are in place to prevent water from going into the streets and that at the discretion of the Director of Planning the car wash adopts the most effective water conservation devices available for such a business? Could those two things be part of the CUP? PETER LYONS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Mayor pro tem. If I could just answer that real quickly. If you look on the ordinance 693, we've got section 35 there, car washes, and we have three letters there, A, B, and C which somewhat address that concern but if you want to be even more specific whenever conditional uses for car washes are presented in front of the Planning Commission, if you want to be more specific and say that these conditional uses should address water conservation, etc. that is... BRUESCH: And water spillage, both. LYONS: Sure. That is possible. BRUESCH: Okay. Where would that be added in then? LYONS: You could just as letter D, I assume. KRESS: Just something real simple that applications for conditional use permits for car washes under this section shall provide as part of the application a water conservation plan and anti-spillage plan, for lack of a better word, subject to the review of the Planning Commission. BRUESCH: Would the addition of that force it back to the Planning Commission or could we...? KRESS: On this one? BRUESCH: Yes. KRESS: No. You can do this one administratively. BRUESCH: I would propose the addition of that D that would address both the water conservation and the avoidance of any type of over spillage into the City streets. CLARK: If there's no opposition to that, that will be added to the ordinance. CC 11-12-91 Page #7 McDONALD: Madam Mayor pro tem. I certainly appreciate the rest of the Council trying to figure out an intersection workable solution that I use three and four times a day and I don't imagine the three of you utilize that but I think this is a good project, it looks, it's a pretty project but I don't...I use that corner four times a day and the traffic is bad and this is going to make it that much worse. I think if it does go in, the circulation on that facility should be counter-clockwise. If you look at it, the way they go in and the way they come out, they're actually crossing there. All the traffic that comes up north or that comes down from... comes up from north going into that project, then going out is going to make a U-turn on Marshall there and we have so many U-turns there already because they can't make ...they can't go across from that area there, the shopping center I think is and Mike pointed it out, has a couple of new things built in there but that actually has five entrances. We have the entrances on the back side, several entrances on the Marshall side and two entrances on the Rosemead side. Those people that come actually into that facility off the freeway actually go right into that. They have the choice of either turning directly into that or going down to the left to go up north on Rosemead Boulevard. People coming down south to use this car wash are going to have to go through the shopping center to get there. And so that's going to create a lot of traffic as I see in the shopping center which already has a lot of traffic and which is good for it. There's no doubt about that. But I think it's a traffic problem. No matter what we put on that corner, I think it's a traffic problem. It looks like it's reverse condemnation here but I don't think, okay, that we put something there that's going to increase the problem with traffic there such as this. Even the gas station was a problem. When the people came off they backed up down the freeway offramp going into the gas station, sometimes. It's just a weird, complex corner where Caltrans has brought those people on and off the freeway right there at the light that happens to go into a shopping center. It would be my druthers for the City to buy the piece of property and to go with Caltrans and to work something out so it's something that's attractive and workable as far as the circulation is concerned. I've probably been the most vocal in trying to get that corner developed in a fashion that's presentable because that's the first thing you see when you come into Rosemead from the south. But traffic wise, folks, that isn't going to work. There's certain times of the year that we get the Santa Anita Race Track traffic backed up between lights from Valley Boulevard past, okay, Glendon Way there. There's times during the year on Saturdays and Sundays and even during the days, during the shopping season, that Toys R Us are backed up. We even have the Sheriff's out there, guiding them in, days or weeks before Christmas time. But I just think it's going to be a problem. I don't think there's a way that it can be worked out traffic wise. The most and I'm not in favor of Mr... I'm not in favor of one way or the other but I...the most workable solution is to have something in there that you have access through the shopping center so all the people going to the shopping center, they can come back out to that point and shop just like on the other side. But I don't think it's up to us to make the decision between two developers here, an owner and a developer here, of which way they should make the solution come out but what we should be worried about is just what is going to affect the people in that entire area, part of the City and that's going to increase the traffic problems and I'm sorry. It looks like I'm on the low end of the totem pole here but I'm totally against it. BRUESCH: Madam Mayor. I direct my question to Councilman... what development that goes there would ever alleviate that problem with traffic? McDONALD: Double access. So you can have access come in from ...you can come into the shopping center and out to that point. If you notice there's a cellular telephone place back there in the back. Okay? That's in the shopping center. People go into the shopping center and go over there. . CC 11-12-91 Page #8 BRUESCH: But that's not going to happen. They've already said that there will not be any eastern access because they've tried to buy that over the last what six years, five years? How many times have you attempted to buy that access? Five years? (Mr. Hom speaking from the audience repeated something about the number of offers he has received regarding this location.) McDONALD: It's a prime location because all the traffic goes by there. Traffic just flows ...what I'm saying is it's a prime location because of where the traffic comes by there so it looks like it'd be a great spot to put something. However, when you put something there it's going to draw that much more traffic and this configuration isn't going to help. Would you sell the piece of property to the City? AUDIENCE: I only own a small percentage of it. McDONALD: Oh, I see. It's a multiple owners, okay. Do you think...I don't know what the solution is. TAYLOR: Madam Mayor. What ...has there been a dollar figure set by the owner of the shopping center? AUDIENCE: I have one of the corporation, they wanted like a million (dollars) a year. TAYLOR: How much? AUDIENCE: A million (dollars). Just six feet wide. TAYLOR: That figure... is that a valid figure? Or are you throwing that out of the air? AUDIENCE: No. I don't have nothing to prove. That's what the kickback from the corporation. TAYLOR: A million dollars a year just for access. McDONALD: Well, I think Mr. Taylor, it's clear that Mr...no matter what the cost, the access isn't available through the shopping center. That's what you understand, right? And he's putting it at a million dollars a year, he's not interested in'selling any access whatsoever. TAYLOR: This is what's so unfair about. There was a proposal to put an office in there, which was not high intensity use as this would be, and this Council turned it down. Now, we're back to a situation where again it's...a person's entitled to use their land and I just agree with what you're saying. It's not the perfect corner but how did Texaco exist with four driveways? McDONALD: But you look in the last 10 years on the increase in traffic at that corner is just unbelievable as it is on Valley Boulevard, Rosemead Boulevard, everywhere. 'It's just unbelievable. BRUESCH: Madam Mayor. I agree. I seem to be in the middle here. I agree with Councilman McDonald entirely. That is"a terrible corner for traffic. However, I think we're between a rock and a hard place. Either we decide to actually take all ability for a person to develop that piece of property away from them and force them into selling it to somebody or something or some entity or give them the right to proceed with some type of project which will decrease the ability of that corner to handle traffic or increase the traffic on that corner. It's one of those you call the shots type of question. It doesn't seem fair that by continually denying the use of that property to the owner because of traffic, simply because they cannot get access to the north because the owner to the north will not negotiate that access. In so doing, saying you can't use that for anything. It seems to me that we're becoming an CC 11-12-91 Page #9 ! BRUESCH CONTINUES: arbiter between two parties that should be negotiating for that very access that should be allotted to that particular piece of property. McDONALD: I would make the suggestion that we continue it for two weeks and allow the City to at least talk to Mr. Mar and see if they would possibly sell it to the City. TAYLOR: Madam Mayor. I believe that ...I've got to ask a ball park figure. What would the property be worth? I don't mean to butt into it. We can probably find out...Yes, sir... McDONALD: It's probably not for sale. TAYLOR: No, I mean I want to get... AUDIENCE: My name is Harry Mar. I live at 18547 Regina Avenue in Torrance, 90504. That property on account the City refuse to permit any kind of...that's why even at they want to pick it up for nothing because nobody going to buy it because they can't use it. TAYLOR: I'm trying to make a point here. What do you think the value of it would be, reasonably? ...And what does that come out to?...over a million dollars? ...What I'm trying to put into perspective here if the owner of the shopping center wants a million dollars for access to it and the property's worth a million dollars he's obviously not willing to buy it for a million dollars. MAR: The reason he put that figure is he doesn't want to... TAYLOR: I understand that. That goes without saying, Mr. Mar. MAR: We did have offer of million and a quarter and the reason we didn't want to sell it because we want to leave something behind for the younger generation so that they can have some kind of property rather than make a fast dollar. TAYLOR: Now, let's carry this a step further. Now, it's always easy for the government to step in and we will buy it. Now, once we buy it then what do we do with it as a City? We sell it at a loss. That's what government's do. McDONALD: At least we could... it's at a cost for the expense of the people for improving the traffic flow through there, Gary. Good heavens. TAYLOR: They can improve that already. They had it... McDONALD: Well, you're willing to allow this gentleman to put a business there at the benefit for him but not the benefit of the community. TAYLOR: No, no, no. The community... they've got plans, Caltrans has had them for 15 years to put in double ramps off of there, leaving that the way it's always been. The plans have already existed. McDONALD: Yeah. You know how Caltrans works. It's going to be a couple of generations before anything like that comes about and it's down on the priority list. TAYLOR: So, let's take this gentleman's property because Caltrans can't get it done. " McDONALD: But in this situation, we could buy it and make the improvement. We could make the improvement on Glendon Way. We don't have to mess with the freeway. MAR: But you look at the present real estate price. Because all the hardship that we had to upgrade something and the price going down, even at market value it's not worth anything now because that place, you can do nothing with it. CC 11-12-91 Page #10 McDONALD: My apologies. I'm not saying that your projects aren't good, that they wouldn't bring ...this would probably bring some sales tax into the City. A little bit of sales tax but I just... I'm kind of fed up with the traffic flow and you're not going to please me, I don't think. MAR: Look at everywhere at this time, sir. Do you find any freeway that is not crowded? I mean you tell me anywhere that is moving so smoothly. McDONALD: But it's our responsibility as the community leaders here to provide quality growth. Things that won't ...makes that density or the concentration move slowly rather than fast. In this situation we're putting a facility on a corner that's already got a traffic problem that's I think...I believe is going to create more traffic. MAR: Maybe what we ought to do is leave another on the south side. That would be going out on the south side rather than come in on the same ...That would be maybe more... BRUESCH: Madam Mayor. Could I make a suggestion? I think we're at loggerheads here because really what we are positioning ourselves as between two non-willing negotiator property owners. I would like to propose that we do continue this and direct staff, the Planning Director, and the City Attorney if necessary, to sit down with the two property owners and see if we can work out an agreement between the two that would allow access to the east. TAYLOR: Madam Mayor. How long has this property... five or six years it's been sitting this way? And how many times have we gone back to the City Manager and this suggestion has come up. Frank, has this come up in the past? TRIPEPI: Yes, sir. Since you brought it up I guess... TAYLOR: It's like a yoyo. Who are we going to send this time? TRIPEPI: Mr. Bruesch, if I could say with all due respect, we have ...the staff has set up meetings in the past between the property owners, the developers. The owners and developers and the owner of the shopping center. There just is not an interest to cooperate between the two parties. It's that simple. I can appreciate Mr. Taylor's comment about the million dollar price that was thrown out. I think as Mr. Taylor being in the contractor business, what that basically is stating to somebody who continually says give me a price is okay, you want a price, here it is. It's a price that says I'm not interested in having anything to do with providing you with a way to get in or out of that center. It's that simple. And I just don't think it's there. BRUESCH: You see, what I'm trying to avoid is for the City to be the bad guy on either side. I don't want that to happen. And it's a no win situation for the City. It really is. Because whatever we decide somebody's going to say well you cheated us out of our rightful due. TRIPEPI: Bob, I think that's probably most anything you vote on. One side's and one side isn't. This is not unusual. CIRRITO: The question of the value with the traffic count on that site, I am a commercial real estate broker, that site would command at least $40 a foot. The leasing agent, Charles Dunn, has appraised the property in excess of that and if a MacDonald's or something were to go there, they would gladly pay $40 a square-foot if they could have all the necessary curb cuts. With regard to our traffic pattern. The reason why we have a northern entrance and a clock wise diagram with our traffic flow is because if you notice the traffic is not always consistent there. If you will sit there like the traffic engineer did or our consultants, there is a signal. CC 11-12-91 Page #11 CIRRITO CONTINUES: When the signal is red, all the north bound traffic is at a halt and give sufficient time, it's red for over a minute, for traffic to enter and to exit and that is why we were in agreement to close Glendon Way because if we had people exiting on Glendon there would be no way to get them out if the light was red so I feel our traffic pattern... normal car wash pattern, they say the rule of thumb is go counter clockwise but with the site and the traffic pattern, this is why we have agreed to go counter clockwise. I do feel our business, given the location, that is a very good location. Any retail establishment would give their eyeteeth to be there. What we are proposing is more of a high quality car wash. We're going to an upscale type wash. I don't think we're going to cater to the entire car wash operator. There's some people who'll be do-it-yourselfers and such but I do feel that our business will complement the intersection. Our environment is going to be very nice. our landscaping will be very nice. With regard to an AM/PM or anything, we will only be open for about 10-12 hours whereas we will have no nighttime business. Our business is going to be scattered. And on the weekdays is not our peak time. That's when peak traffic is, is on weekdays when people are coming home from work and they are exiting off the 10-freeway. On.the weekends is when we will be busy and the only time I do agree we will conflict is when ToysR Us or the shopping center's having seasonal sales but then can you get to them to regulate them and tell them oh you can't have too many people shop at Toys R Us because you create a traffic problem. I believe Mr. Mar has a right to develop his property. He should not, regardless of if I do it, Mr. Chen should not dictate what price he sells the property to him at 20 cents on the dollar because the property is worth more than that. TAYLOR: Madam Mayor. a perfect solution. We really been a poor site get out of it as far as and that place has been easy solution. At this staff recommendation. I know it's not an easy decision and it's not can't control all the issues but that has as far as what the community's been able to the comment was made you drive into the City boarded up all these years and it's not an time I'd make the motion we approve the BRUESCH: With the amendment? TAYLOR: With the amendment. BRUESCH: I'll second that motion. CLARK: I want to say something. TAYLOR: Go ahead. CLARK: I have to agree with Mr. McDonald on one point and that was the counter clockwise. I have to agree that it might be a problem there with cars crossing over and I would rather see it go the other way so that if it went counter clockwise like the original recommendation was. BRUESCH: The seconder would accept that. TAYLOR: Is that feasible with the development as far as if that's what it takes? CIRRITO: I would be willing to do tha merging our entrance is right ten feet Rosemead Square. If we start crossing the car wash you will be able to judge bound. And by having two entrances so probably be confused but I can... t but I feel that we are from the main entrance to traffic when you exit out of the on coming traffic, north far apart, people would TAYLOR: Well, I think Mr. McDonald does have a valid point and I agree with that point but it's a condition, we can't have everything we need. And I agree wholeheartedly that cross-over, the people CC 11-12-91 Page #12 0 0 TAYLOR CONTINUES: making a right-hand turn out of that driveway would still be able to you got to remember the people making the turn into Montgomery Ward's are the same people that can only go north bound so anybody coming out of that driveway is going to see that car before they can even enter the street. So, his point's well taken and I would still make the motion with that condition that the traffic be reversed the other way. If you can make it work, that's great. I think Mr. McDonald had a valid point on it. BRUESCH: I call for the question. LYONS: If I'd just like to add in the Minutes of the Planning Commission they did discuss that and they simply, the Planning Commission simply agreed with their architect's proposal and more or less went along with the clockwise proposal. I just wanted to clarify that. TAYLOR: Well the layout of the building I think it's a smoother flow for the operation but as Mr. McDonald pointed out as a community responsibility we now have traffic criss crossing which definitely isn't right. So, the point's well taken to reverse the operation of it and that's up to you to work it out. My motion still stands with the correction that it be a reverse flow. BRUESCH: And the seconder accepts that. CLARK: It's been moved and seconded to adopt ordinance No. 693 as amended. KRESS: Introduce. CLARK: Introduce ...to introduce Ordinance No. 693 as amended. Correct? McDONALD: Madam Mayor. I just wanted to state that I believe that the rationale that the rest of the Council is using here is for the satisfaction of the developer at the expense of the residents in that area. TAYLOR: Madam Mayor. This is fine with me. I'd the whole conversation is the minutes verbatim. Call for the question. CLARK: Please vote. END VERBATIM DIALOGUE The following ordinance was presented to the Council for introduction: 1 ORDINANCE NO. 693 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR CAR WASHES Vote taken from voting slip: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark No: McDonald Absent: Imperial Abstain: None A five-minute recess was called at this time and the meeting was reconvened accordingly. B. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CITY-INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING REGULATIONS TO ESTABLISH A FLOOR AREA TO LOT AREA RATIO TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES (PC RES. 91-21) - CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 8, 1991 The public hearing was opened and there being no objection, this item was continued to November 26, 1991, at 8:00 p.m. in this room. CC 11-12-91 Page 113 • • Councilman Bruesch asked if the flag lot section excludes or includes the required driveway; asked for clarification of section 12, last paragraph; and asked for the inclusion of a negative impact report on adjoining parcels. III.LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 91-61 - CIJTNG S DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91-61 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $812,412.88 NUMBERED 37730-37773 AND 34826 THROUGH 34969 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD that Resolution No. 91-61 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: Imperial Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor asked for a memo regarding Warrant No. 34925, Service Center Contribution, in the amount of $5,000 for the Chamber of Commerce. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC-H and CC-J REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION) CC-A AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY BY THE CITY OF SAN GABRIEL CC-B AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT APPLICATION TO PRESENT A LATE CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY BY HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CC-C REQUEST FROM TEMPLE SHERIFF'S STATION TO PURCHASE ALCOHOL SENSOR UNITS AND VIDEO PRINTER FOR USE BY THE ROSEMEAD SPECIAL TEAM CC-D AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND WE-TIP CONFERENCE IN COSTA MESA, MAY 1-3, 1992, AND AUTHORIZATION TO PLACE FULL-PAGE ADVERTISEMENT IN THE NATIONAL PROGRAM CC-E AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY MANAGER AND FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ATTEND ANNUAL LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES FINANCE MANAGEMENT SEMINAR IN MONTEREY, DECEMBER 11-13, 1991 CC-F AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOCIATION 25th ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE TOUR IN SACRAMENTO, JANUARY 14-16, 1992 CC-G AUTHORIZATION TO PLACE ADVERTISEMENT IN LINCOLN TRAINING CENTER'S 8th ANNUAL TRIBUTE DINNER ON DECEMBER 4, 1991 CC-I AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT JOINING THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COALITION MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: Imperial Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 11-12-91 Page #14 CC-H RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR 41st HANDYMAN BID PACKAGE Councilman Bruesch verified the bidding regulations as dictated by the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The deletions can only be offered to the overall lowest bidder. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that the Council receive and file all bids; accept and award the bid to Laverne Construction Company for the amount of $28,160.00; authorize staff to enter into a contract with the owners and contractor; and reject all other bids. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, McDonald No: None Absent: Imperial Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-J APPROVAL OF GRANT APPLICATION - MOUNTAIN AND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Councilman Bruesch asked if this grant would be used for the Recreation Center to be built on Garvey Avenue and if the grant would receive a better chance of acceptance if it was stressed that part of the use would be for senior citizens. Michael Burbank, Director of Parks and Recreation, responded that the application requires the stated use to be generic. Councilman Taylor requested the following to be entered verbatim: "I'm going to vote no on this item in the sense that when I first looked at the heading on this, I thought it was really great. Approval of grant application for mountain recreation and conservation authority and if there's one thing we need as far as the beaches, the mountains and the parks are concerned, more recreation areas and we have alternate financing as far as the Redevelopment money was going to be used to build that center but I'd like the first paragraph of page 1, the letter, from the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority be entered into the record as my reason for voting no on this item. I'm in favor or building the recreation center for the seniors or for the residents of Rosemead but this is another bond issue that the residents or citizens will be asked to vote on and they're being asked to vote on what appears to be they're talking about recreation areas, the beaches, the county parks, it just goes on about recreation and such so I intend to vote no on it for that particular reason. I think it's just another way to build community projects." GOVERNOR SIGNS LEGISLATION "We are pleased to tell you that Governor Wilson signed SB 659 (Hill) into law this month. SB 659 allows the County of Los Angeles to place a measure on the ballot that will fund acquisition, restoration and improvement of park, beach, recreation, and open space lands throughout the county. This measure is proposed for the June 1992 ballot and will include a specific plan modeled after the strongly supported Proposition B in November 1990. The measure will form a countywide regional park district to administer the program and will levy an assessment to secure the issuance of bonds to fund the park spending plan. SB 659 was modeled after similar legislation for Riverside, San Bernardino, Sonoma, and Marin counties." CC 11-12-91 Page #15 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD that the Council authorize staff to submit the necessary documents as its application for funding the proposed multi-purpose recreation facility on Garvey Avenue to the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, No: Taylor Absent: Imperial Abstain: None Clark, McDonald The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Mayor pro tem. Clark stated she was in favor of Rosemead getting its share of the money if this bond issue should be passed. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION - None VI. STATUS REPORTS - None VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS - None VIII. CLOSED SESSION A. TRANSPORTATION LEASING AND MODERN SERVICE LITIGATION At 9:40 p.m. the City Council recessed to a closed session pursuant to Government Code 54956.9 and the meeting was reconvened at 10:47 p.m. The City Council received reports from the City Attorney regarding pending litigation and no action was taken. There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 10:48 p.m. to November 19, 1991, for a study session to discuss the Valley Boulevard project and the Congestion Management Plan. Respectfully submitted: APPROVED: oz"~Iu ~ C' Clerk MA CC 11-12-91 Page #16