Loading...
CC - 09-24-910 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY O ROS_~NIEAD ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL DATE SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 RY The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Clark at 8:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman Bruesch. The Invocation was delivered by City Treasurer Foutz. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmen Bruesch, Taylor, and Mayor Pro Tem Clark Absent: Councilman McDonald - Excused Mayor Imperial - Excused APPROVAL OF MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 10, 1991, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark No: None Absent: Imperial, McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. - None I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE A. Kenneth Pike, no address given, stated that the fees charged for various permits are too high and that tickets for street sweeping violations discourage shopping in Rosemead. Mr. Pike asked the Council to consider changing the schedule to allow streets feeding into the major arterials to be swept at the same time, to wit, during the night. Staff was directed to investigate. B. Bob Laidlaw, owner of Harley-Davidson, Garvey Avenue, requested that one of the planters planned for in front of his establishment be eliminated. Staff was directed to place this item on the Agency agenda for October 8, 1991. C. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, reported that gangs are gathering in the various parks in the late afternoon and evening. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS An explanation of.the procedures for the conduct of public hearings was presented by the City Attorney. A. 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 AUGUST 27, 1991 The public hearing was opened. 1. Mike Pearson, representing Janstar Development, asked this hearing be continued to allow the various developers in the City to prepare information regarding this issue. There being no objection, the hearing remained open and was continued to October 8, 1991, at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Rosemead City Hall. CC 9-24-91 Page #1 B. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM JAMES B. LIM TO REZONE A PARCEL OF LAND FROM R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO PO-D (PROFESSIONAL OFFICE WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) LOCATED AT 9223-9225 GLENDON WAY (ZC 91-183) CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 C. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM SHIGERU MINAMIZONO TO REZONE A PARCEL OF LAND FROM R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO PO-D (PROFESSIONAL OFFICE WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9215-9217 GLENDON WAY (ZC 91-184) CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 10, 1991 The public hearings on these items were considered as one. The public hearing was opened. 1. James Lim, owner of 9225 Glendon Way, asked approval of these projects. There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. The following ordinances were presented to the Council for introduction on first reading: ORDINANCE NO. 690 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 TO PO-D AND A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9223-25 GLENDON WAY (ZC 91-183/GPA 91-3) ORDINANCE NO. 691 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1 TO PO-D AND A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9215-17 GLENDON WAY (ZC 91-184/GPA 91-3) VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: TAYLOR: Madam Chairman. I have reservations about arbitrarily picking one or two properties and this has nothing to do with the owner. What I'm saying is that throughout the City unless we consider this matter very carefully we set a precedent and I in good faith could not deny anyone that came in to this Council and pleaded a hardship and who are we to say what a hardship is? And I'm not disputing what Mr. Lim was saying. There may be a hardship and our intent is not to do that but by the same token everyone must be treated equally as far as whatever the ordinances are and I'm not opposed to his request or application for the reclassification but what I am saying is that every zone that we have in the City... it needs to be weighed very carefully and I would like a written opinion back from the City Attorney and Mr. Lim's actual hardship because legal non-conforming uses, they can function as far as being fully operative but the 75% replacement factor, that applies with most of the zoning that we have, even if it's residential within a certain area, if it's... I'm just reluctant to arbitrarily go ahead because we set a precedent from here on out, it's pick and choose and I'm not prepared to just vote on this particular item. I understand his request and his need but this is a City-wide concern as far as what I'm thinking of. BRUESCH: Madam Mayor pro tem. Looking at the zoning maps the request is to return it to what it was and there are contiguous areas around that area that are multiple housing. I mean they're right up against there so it's not like we're going to place a large building where there aren't any there and we're not changing the character of the neighborhood because it's already and there are apartments all around it. In this case, I see the hardship and I don't think we're offering CC 9-24-91 Page #2 BRUESCH CONTINUES: a special privilege to a particular person. I just see leaving is as is and I don't see where the problem would be to return it to what it was so that the hardship would be removed. It was our promulgating that ordinance which caused the hardship, in this case making it more difficult to finance or refinance or to sell the property. I think we can easily with this resolution resolve that problem. CLARK: Are there any other comments? BRUESCH: I would like at this time to move that we accept the recommendation for the zone changes for both Ordinance 690 and Ordinance 691. CLARK: It's been moved that we approve the staff recommendation on Ordinance No. 690 and Ordinance No. 691. I would second that motion. BRUESCH: Call for the question. ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: The motion includes introduction of those two ordinances and waiving reading? BRUESCH: Yes. CLARK: I would second the motion based on my feeling that we are not giving a special privilege because I feel we should have grandfathered those apartments in when the zone change was made originally and I think we're rectifying something that we did before so I would ask you to vote please. Yes: Bruesch, Clark No: Taylor Absent: Imperial, McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor pro tem declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. TAYLOR: Madam Chairman. I'd like the comments on this item in the Minutes verbatim. KRESS: Your no vote does not mean that you want the ordinances read in full? TAYLOR: That's correct. END VERBATIM DIALOGUE III.LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 91-50 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $288,264.63 NUMBERED 37652-37676 AND 34510 THROUGH 34612 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that Resolution No. 91-50 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark No: None Absent: Imperial, McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor pro tem declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 9-24-91 Page #3 0 • IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC-B AND CC-D REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION) CC-A APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEER BIDS FOR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN WALNUT GROVE AVENUE (RUBIO WASH/MISSION) AND MISSION DRIVE (WALNUT GROVE/EARLS) CC-C AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND HEWLITT PACKARD TRAINING CLASSES OCTOBER 7-11, 1991, IN DALLAS, TEXAS CC-E AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE ADDITIONAL COMPUTER EQUIPMENT MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark No: None Absent: Imperial, McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor pro tem declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-B COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN WALNUT GROVE AVENUE AND MISSION DRIVE Councilman Taylor stated his intention to vote no on this item. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CLARK that the Council approve the agreement. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Clark No: Taylor Absent: Imperial, McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor pro tem declared said motion carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor stated that he was in favor of the project but believed it should be City funds and not redevelopment funds. CC-D APPROVAL OF ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT FOR CHARMING KTV, 7940 E. GARVEY AVENUE, SUITE 106 This item was deferred for further information including a map showing the surrounding land use designations. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION A. COST PROPOSAL FOR BULK MAILING ADDRESS LABELS This item was deferred to October 8, 1991. VI. STATUS REPORTS - None VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. AB 1505 (Farr) VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: TAYLOR: Madam Chairman. I am opposed to this particular item because in reviewing it there are many loopholes are far as the all of the counties throughout California now have a vehicle where the Board of Supervisors has the potential of establishing improvement zones or county service areas. It is eliminating some of the restrictions that were placed on the almost arbitrary decisions where fees could be increased. So, I had asked that this be on the agenda and I don't know if the Councilmembers have been able to read through it but I CC 9-24-91 Page #4 TAYLOR CONTINUES: understand that it's on the Governor's desk right now awaiting signature. So, it's something that's already been acted on by the Legislature but I am opposed to this particular item. I'd like to make the motion that we oppose this particular bill. BRUESCH: Madam Mayor pro tem. Maybe staff can correct me if I'm wrong but the State already has over 800 of these districts established is that not so? And this is just re-defining the things that they can do. Now, I grant you that I didn't read word-for-word every... it's a voluminous thing but I did read the staff report. I did read the report of the Senate staff and I did ask some questions at my assemblyperson's office and these are like if I'm not mistaken, are like mosquito abatement districts and what is it, sewer districts and like that and there's already 800 of them. They were established by law in the early 150s; 1955 if I'm not mistaken. And basically what AB 1505 as it was explained to me was it's cleanup legislation to more clearly define what those entities can do and basically it limits them in what they can do. It doesn't give them any further taxing authority. At least this is the way it was explained to me. Correct me if I'm wrong. Don? DONALD WAGNER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Yeah. You're right, Councilman Bruesch but you know there seems to be a feeling that the Governor is going to sign it so if it is the desire of the Council to send a letter we should make a decision on it tonight.. I don't pretend to be an expert on this. BRUESCH: I would like ...maybe if...I know it's going to be too late but maybe if Mr. Gonsalves could send a memorandum as to...I think the basic question that Councilman Taylor has and I didn't see it mentioned in the bill but of course I didn't read it carefully is their taxing authority. Does this enhance? Does this eliminate? Does it delineate the already existing entities taxing authority? If there is a question about that I think Anthony Gonsalves's office can surely do some research and find that out for us. TAYLOR: Madam Chairman. I think Mr. Bruesch was given a snowjob. I'd like my comment in the Minutes verbatim. I don't care what he does with his comment. I'm going to read to you what this provides for. Article III, page 11, the services provided. A county service area may provide any.governmental services which the county is authorized by law to provide and which the county does not also provide to the same district within and without the cities including -but not limited to police protection, fire protection, park and recreation, parkway maintenance including landscaping, medians on public property or on the property dedicated, libraries, water systems, sewer systems, pest and rodent control, local road and bridge improvement, maintenance including related activities such as drainage facilities and structures, lighting, sweeping, utility, cable installations, litter, refuse, garbage collection, recycling, abandoned vehicle control, ambulance service, paramedic service, animal control, weed abatement, street lighting, disaster preparedness, geological hazard abatement, soil conservation, drainage control, land use planning, the purchase of electrical generation within the boundaries of the counties, television translators, channels, FM radio signals, flood protection, services provided by municipal advisory council, transportation services including transportation management systems, cemeteries. It includes just about any service that they can provide and it states that a proposal for the formation of a county service area may be made to the local agency formation commission by a resolution of the Board of Supervisors and this can be done if they determine by not holding an election. There's requirements but they can do it without an election of the people in these areas and it is quite detailed so as I said, Mr. Bruesch, you did say you didn't read it but you were given a snowjob as far as what they're telling you because this is just another way to circumvent the public control over taxation and you're absolutely right when this comes out of Sacramento who's trying to get taxes every which way they can, the vote on this, the Assembly vote was 61-6; the Senate vote was 38-0. So, my motion still stands. We're out of time and I'd like to just go on record of opposing this particular item. CC 9-24-91 Page #5 • 0 BRUESCH: Madam Mayor pro tem. Just in defense of the information I got. These special districts, which they are, already are set up to provide all these things. TAYLOR: No. No. No. No. No. They can establish these districts. BRUESCH: They already can. TAYLOR: They can but they're regulated. Why do you think they want to do away with the control of it? If we already had all this, just ,ask yourself why are they doing it? They don't vote more restrictions on themselves. BRUESCH: All I'm saying is I serve on a mosquito abatement board that was not existing two years ago. The County did exactly this under the existing law. TAYLOR: Madam Chairman. My motion stands on this particular item. If it wasn't due to the urgency of it sitting on the Governor's desk I would certainly defer it. CLARK: I'm going to second the motion because I have some literature here that basically says that it is a way of getting around Proposition 13 and anything like that really bothers me because I think the people need to have a say in what they're being taxed and this is particularly insidious I think because it's taxing those in the county areas who do not have as much access to local government as we do here in cities you can come down here to the City Hall and yell and scream if you want to but it's very difficult to oppose taxes put on by the county because they're so big.- Our county for example is humungous and so I'm going to vote that we... I'm going to second this motion that we send a letter opposing this to the Governor immediately. Please vote. Yes: Taylor, Clark No: Bruesch Absent: Imperial, McDonald Abstain: None BRUESCH: Madam Mayor pro tem. I'd like the record to show that my no vote was because the fact that the county already has the power to set these up, already has the power to put special assessments on property. I'm sitting there looking at it every month in the mosquito abatement district. They have this power already. I think by sending a letter we're just opposing something that is already a fait accompli. END VERBATIM DIALOGUE B. SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT STATUS REPORT REGARDING AN INCIDENT AT IN-N-OUT BURGER Councilman Taylor requested that a portion of a meeting on March 12, 1991, be incorporated into these minutes as Page 7 and Page 8. C. COUNCILMAN BRUESCH 1. Appreciated the report that staff compiled on the trailer park conversion laws. 2. Asked about the resolution for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) San Gabriel valley office so that it could be presented at the next meeting of the San Gabriel Valley Association of Cities. 3. Asked taskforce meetings. 4. Noted at the I-10 freeway for LA County. for a written report on the progress of the gang that the Hellman and Walnut Grove Avenue offramps were included in the Congestion Management Program CC 9-24-91 Page #6 ITEM NO. VII-B UNAPPROVED TRANSCRIPTION OF A PORTION OF THE ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 12, 1991 JOE VASQUEZ - 3633 MARYBETH AVENUE JOE VASQUEZ: What I want to speak on is my disappointment on the last City Council meeting of February 26th, on the gang related community survey, the $90 survey, is that how much it would have cost? Something like that. MAYOR MCDONALD: Joe, the background was that is that I found that afterward they thought we were tying into an individual program by going through that survey and I think if -it's brought back and discussed in the manner that it was presented, what it was is, that we've got a big book, o.k., like it was a major program, and that was kind of information taken out of it as far as that survey was concerned. And, several of the Councilpeople thought that if we start, that was tying us to that particular program. What they want to really do now is to just look at all the programs that we have, and I think you've mentioned it sometimes that we needed that coordination of all the drug related gang groups programs that are working on that thing so it's coordinated in effort and people are working together toward that end; but, that's the reason it wasn't passed. VASQUEZ: O.k., do you have any idea because the reason I ask is that, you know as this past Friday here at In-And-out Burger, there was a drive-by shooting and my son works there, and a mother with her son were standing there and the boy got shot in the hand. In looking at the Tribune, I saw no Police Report. It kind of makes me believe, why? Are we trying to hide something? Also, I started thinking about at Beach's Market, I have some friends that were over there, and they were afraid to get near their car because there was two boys with guns holding it to another kid, and he was stumbling, trying to run away from them. And then I started thinking about isn't there some kind ..we can build some rapport between our neighborhood with the Sheriff's Deputies because I think there has to be something there too. I was just talking to a young man taking home his three kids from Janson, and some Deputies made a mistake and threw him on the ground and started to frisk him because they thought he was a child molester, and he said, "excuse me, we madea mistake," while his children were frightened in the car, crying. And then my son, a few weeks ago, was followed. Got out of his car and was harassed, and they said "excuse me, we thought the car was stolen." Now, couldn't you check the... just from looking at the license plates, know that it was stolen or not? There has to be some kind of rapport. MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL: Can I answer that Mr. Mayor. McDONALD: Go ahead, Jay. IMPERIAL: The reason I requested not to go in that survey is because I want to know what's available to us as far as activities are concerned before we go into a survey. There's no reason having a survey if we don't know what we've got available. First let's find out what's available in all programs, and then let's talk about a survey. I do, Mr. Mayor, want a Police Report on if these incidents actually did happen. And if they did, why this Council hadn't been notified. But that's the reason for the survey. Now, you know Joe, I've spent a lot of time out on these streets too, and I haven't seen this. And, you know, on a Saturday and a Sunday, primarily in the evenings, I get in my car and travel both north and south of the freeway and I'm looking for this kind of activity too so I'll know where our shortcomings are, and I haven't seen this. If you've got these kind of programs, we should know about it so, and bring us some facts back on how you son might have been harassed, or what have you, maybe what Unit, what time at least so we'll know what we can go on, o.k. VASQUEZ: Yes. CC 3-12-91 CC 9-24-91 Page #7 ITEM NO: VII-B • • IMPERIAL: We're not going to be stupid enough to think there.are no problems in this City, but for an example, I was in Monterey Park the other day, and I seen a drug buy, right there in front of me, I couldn't go down the aisle to park my car because the drug buy was happening right there. What we're talking about is problems all over. But if you can be more specific, this Council is going to do what they can to take care of it. VASQUEZ: How more specific are you saying? McDONALD: Joe, let's not get into that. VASQUEZ: O.k. McDONALD: I think you need to, if you get an opportunity, and you could ride along with the gang group that we have here through the Sheriff's Department, you'll see what's being done. We just don't have enough bodies. That's why we're looking at all the different programs, going to try to coordinate those, and try to get some hot-lines going so we directly respond to an incident, no matter how small it is. All right, so we can develop that rapport. Our City Manager went back to an ICMA Conference and came back with a major new program on the police services working with the public and trying to develop a relationship that is a little bit more community oriented rather than an enforcement oriented. And, we're working with the Sheriff's Department right now to put that program into effect. But, Joe, as you know in the school district, it's a little overwhelming. VASQUEZ: Oh, I know that. McDONALD: And we don't have the money to spend on that so we're trying to spend_as much money as we can. We sponsor SANE, you know, for the drugs, both the school districts there. We add extra money to our budget so we have the gang group that works out of the Sheriff's Department and tries to get those kids off the, you know, off of those problems. We have Pastors throughout the City working with their churches trying to alleviate that problem, get the kids in some other type of program so they get their attention through, you know, successfully doing something. rather than destroying something or getting involved in drugs or peer pressure. We don't have an answer, Joe. VASQUEZ: I know, I know,....it's hard to find. McDONALD: But, what we're trying to do is ..we can certainly help take any suggestions and work with that. It's a little tough looking from the outside looking in. You can come in here and look at our budget, you can talk to the Sheriff's, we can get you on the ride arounds, you can see what their doing in the schools as far as the public education is there. And, if there is any problem at all, we want to know about it. Our Sheriff's guys that are in this City do something wrong, we certainly want to know about it because we have the contract with the Sheriff's Department, not like L.A. city or some big paid department. We can ask for somebody to be transferred out of our City if there is a problem with an officer that just has an attitude problem or anything that is, you know, hinders the relationship that we want to develop with the community. So we need to know those and we appreciate those points that you're bringing up and we'll look into those. VASQUEZ: Thank you, I have just had to bring it to your attention, but what better else, a public meeting like this. Thank you very much. McDONALD: I appreciate it, Joe, thank you. Transcribed by: Nancy Valderrama, Administrative Secretary CC 3-12-91 CC 9-24-91 Page 118 D. MAYOR PRO TEN CLARK 1. Asked that Ms. Taliaferro be contacted regarding support for the INS field office. There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for October 8, 1991 at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Ci Clerk CC 9-24-91 Page #9