Loading...
CC - 01-08-91APPROVED CITY OF ROSEMEAD MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL RYlG~l JANUARY 8, 1991 The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor McDonald at 8:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman Taylor. The Invocation was delivered by Pastor John Wood of the Neighborhood Covenant Church. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmen Bruesch, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Imperial, and Mayor McDonald Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 13, 1990 - REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 27, 1990 - REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1990 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of November 13, 1990, November 27, 1990, and December 11, 1990, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. PRESENTATIONS: A Proclamation was presented to Mr. Tom Keller, Principal of Muscatel Junior High School, honoring the 8th Grade Flag Football Team for their championship play in the 1990 San Gabriel Valley Municipal Athletic Association Flag Football Tournament. I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE A. Hector Pena, 7608 Hellman Avenue, reported a problem with vacant property on Del Mar Avenue between Dorothy Street and Emerson Place. Councilman Taylor requested this be on the next Building Rehabilitation Appeals Board agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Imperial requested this property to be fenced as soon as possible. Mayor McDonald directed staff to prepare an ordinance requiring vacant properties to be fenced. B. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, reported that Modern Service trash trucks are driving on the wrong side of Del Mar Avenue to pickup trash. Staff was directed to investigate. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS An explanation of the procedures for the conduct of public hearings was presented by the City Attorney. The City Clerk then administered the oath to all those persons wishing to address the Council on any public hearing item. CC 1-8-91 Page #1 • ,i 0 A. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING A REQUEST FROM WARREN AND EVELYN JUNG FOR ZONE VARIANCE CASE NO. 90-210 TO ALLOW A ROOM ADDITION IN THE R-2 ZONE AT 3300 N. STEVENS AVENUE, ROSEMEAD. CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS DO NOT ALLOW AN EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE IF THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED TO A DENSITY WHICH EXCEEDS THE R-2 VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: McDONALD: The first item up is the public hearing and we'll have the staff report. FRANK TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: The first item is a public hearing to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision regarding a request from Warren and Evelyn Jung for Zone Variance Case No. 90-210 to allow for a room addition in the R-2 zone at 3300 No. Stevens Avenue. There's a request presented this evening for the Council's consideration by Mr. Hamner who represents the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Jung, appealing the Planning Commission's decision regarding the property at 3300 Stevens Avenue. On November 15, 1990, the Commission heard the Zone Variance Case No. 90-210 regarding the abovementioned project. After hearing all pertinent testimony regarding this request, the Commission voted to deny the case. The Commission denied the case based on the following findings; first that the applicant has not sustained his burden of proof that the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties that are in the R-1 zone in which the property is situated; that such variance would be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity in which the property is located; third that the applicant failed to show any special circumstances applicable to the subject property including the size, the shape, topograhpy, location, or surroundings that would justify a variance from strict application of the zoning ordinance; and fourth that the subject property is not deprived of privileges enjoyed by other properties in that particular or immediate area and under the identical the zone classification; and five that the proposed project is not consistent with the goals and objectives and policies as contained in the Rosemead General Plan. The applicant has appealed that decision and is before you this evening. Attached for your review this evening is the appeal letter; excerpts of the Planning Commission Minutes dated 10-15-90; site plan stamped Exhibit "B;" the planning Staff Report and backup information; and the Planning Commission Resolution denying the variance 90-58. The homes were constructed prior to the adoption of the new R-2 density standards. These new standards restrict the construction of new homes not to exceed 4500 square feet of land per dwelling unit. Currently, Mr. and Mrs. Jung have two detached dwellings and a duplex totalling four units on a 17,679 square-foot lot. If the property were vacant, the maximum number of dwelling units which would be allowed would be three, based upon a density of one unit for every 4500 square feet. Since they now have four units, the property is classified as a non-conforming use based on the existing density. The applicant states that since their request is short 321 square feet the variance would have no substantial effect on the neighborhood. However, it should be noted that this discussion raises several key issues, namely the General Plan conformity and the cumulative effects of individual projects. The General Plan Land Use policy states maintenance of existing neighborhoods and conformity between the land use element and the zoning. Also, the addition tends to achieve short-term individual goals at the expense of long-term planning goals and the applicant has not submitted any additional information which would substantiate approval of the project. The request would not conform with current General Plan policy again or the zoning regulations. The recommendation this evening, Mr. Mayor, is that you open the public hearing, receive input and after closing the public hearing staff recommends that the Council concur with the findings that were identified by the Planning Commission in Resolution 90-58 and that you deny the appeal of Zone Variance Case No. 90-210. (However, if the cc 1-8-91 Page #2 TRIPEPI CONTINUES: Council should approve the request, staff recommends the project be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the Planning Commission staff report.) McDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Tripepi. Is there anybody in the audience that doesn't understand that? What it is is a public hearing that these folks want to add on a second bedroom on a house which is a little over 300 square feet. The zone has changed since those houses were originally built and because of that zoning requirement they're no longer able to add to those houses they have on this lot and they're short a certain number of feet to make it fall into the new zoning. So, what they're doing tonight is appealing that. All right. The public hearing is open and we'll have the applicant come forward, please. Or Mike Hamner? You're representing the owner, right? MIKE HAMNER: My name is Mike Hamner. I'm an architect. I'm representing the applicant. I reside at 208 W. Floral Drive in Monterey Park. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, City Council and staff. I thank you for your explanation. After hearing a report like that you get a little uneasy feeling because it is very straight forward and this project as it stands now is basically true we're asking for a variance. I understand that. The way you presented it does kind of shed a little light on the importance of this project to this family who has lived here for over fourteen years. They have purchased the property under a pre-existing zoning condition for the purpose and they have there are four units on this property, two of them are now taken by brother and sister. The unit in question is occupied by the sister who has a fourteen year old son: It is a one bedroom unit and they wish to add a second bedroom which comes out to a little over 321 square feet, including a closet and a slight addition to the existing living room area to simply make this a little more of a habitable situation for a mother and her son. I met this family some months back. They own a business nearby. They run a family business together. They've lived on this property together. And I think that's what makes this sort of a unique situation for me to help them present this project tonight. I understand very much the requirements and criteria for a variance. There are five very specific issues involved. I deal with this on a daily basis in many cases and in trying to put together this presentation for this evening it was very difficult because I'm trying to justify to you•the need of this family and also to justify for not setting a precedent later on. I have read the report a number of times and having presented this to the Planning Commission there are a couple of items I'd like to quickly go over and that has to do with the density on this. We are considered an R-2 and in calculating the density on this project we're about what works out to 8/100 of a percent off of what is actually legal under today's code. If you take the one per 4500 square feet we have about 17,000 square feet plus of site area. It works out to 3.92. Now, if this were the case where we were allowed to have four or if the back units say for example we did have three units the additional square footage would not be a serious problem here and in reading the report I know there is a lot regarding the General Plan and our affects on it and to the infrastructure and so forth. Where I'd like to present to you as a possible way to look at this if we can is I don't the addition of this 300 square feet having a negative effect on the project or on the General Plan. Even with this additional 300 square feet our project as it stands would only be at about 34% density on this project. A number of communities in the San Gabriel valley as you know are revamping a number of their ordinances so that 35% is sort of a norm now that we want to go for density problems. In this particular area if you've been to the site you can see that it's a very open scenario. All the existing structures are within the setbacks, the heights are not any concern. The addition as proposed still sits well within the setbacks. Parking requirements are all their. There are four two-car garages for all four units so the density as far as parking and circulation is not going to be a problem. We're not adding any plumbing. There are no other additional fixtures being placed in this house. We're simply adding a room and a closet. In looking at the criteria for a variance I'll quickly look at number one which is a special privilege and I hope that on item three I'd like to maybe perhaps show that it won't be a special privilege. As far as being cc 1-8-91 Page #3 • 0 HAMNER CONTINUES: detrimental I think we'll all agree I don't know if the project's going to be detrimental to the neighborhood or the community which I understand this is the importance of why we're all here reviewing this. But under a special circumstance we have two potential situations we may want to look at. One would be the zone has changed since the property was purchased. They purchased it under the condition that it was designated as income property and they were going to live on it and they've done that for fourteen years. The second thing is that over the period of time I believe I may be incorrect on this since they've owned the property there has been a right-of-way dedication of five feet frontage. If you take that five feet of frontage that they had to give to the City and a lot of projects do this we understand that I'm sure when they purchased it they probably knew that it was going to happen we have reduced the amount of square-footage on the site. If we had that five feet back we wouldn't have this problem this evening. But I'm looking at any possibility to try to work with the City here and to work with this family to get this project through for them so they can continue to live here. I don't know if we have any deprival of any privileges of other properties. We're not a speculator, we're not a developer. We're not looking at this for any other means monetary and so I don't us trying to develop this and leaving town. We're staying here. As far as the General Plan, I think we are working with it and I think the existing setup works with it better than some of the newer developments that we're seeing nowadays. If there is anything that I've missed or if these problems discussed here are something that we can discuss we'd like to do that. I'd like to leave here knowing that I've given the best that I can for both the applicant and myself. Make sure I've hit all the bases. McDONALD: I think you've covered it pretty well. HAMNER: I thank you for that. One last thing I'd like to say is that one of the comments from one of the Commissioners was that the size of the bedroom was large enough for three. We don't plan that. If you look at the plan, if you don't have a plan I have one here, a copy that I'd be glad to present to you. That 300 square feet does include a closet and does include a little bit of an addition to the living area. And I just want to make sure that we're clear on that and I don't think there's anything more that•I can present as was stated in the Staff Report as far as giving any more information. The project is very simple and straightforward. If there's anything more that I can present or Mr. Jung who is the owner and lives in the front unit is here. He'd like to help to answer any questions you may have. If not I leave it in your hands and I thank you. McDONALD: Thank you, very much. Stay up here just one second. Is there anybody that wishes to speak in opposition against this? I didn't think so. Okay, the public hearing is closed and I'll open it up for our Council discussion. I just want to explain a couple of things, Mr. Hamner. We expect our staff to scrutinize everything that comes the desk here and make absolutely no waivers on anything that we don't think is right and fair. And then when it goes before the Planning Commission we want them to be as tough as they possibly can because we have a lot of things that go on in the City that are ,a little more flagrant that we certainly want to take care of before that happens. But in your case we're the ones that have the heart. We'll listen to the story. We're the ones that can make the waiver. And as far as I'm concerned I think the 8/100 is within the boundaries that I would go with your appeal. But we'll see what everyone else says here. Mr. Imperial. IMPERIAL: I knew you were going to start with me, Mr. Mayor: TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. He can start with me, Jay. IMPERIAL: Go ahead Gary if you want. TAYLOR: No, go ahead. CC 1-8-91 Page #4 IMPERIAL: The problem that we here is the result of.a change of the R-2 ordinance. I can speak first hand of this because I bought a piece of property that just might be well it's less than this it's an R-2 lot. I had every reason to want to build an addition on the back. My intention was to build a two-car garage, a three-car garage and put a structure above it so that I rent this out and supplement my income when I retired from the army which I did January of 190. I seen a problem in the City and the problem was overbuilding on our present R-2 conditions so I was one of the people who pushed for an extension of more open space on this thing and it was agreed to. As a result I myself lost the use of that R-2 lot for the purposes I wanted it for. Because I'm no better than anybody else in the City. When you start making exceptions then you should put yourself in the frame of mind where you're going to make exceptions for everybody 'cause everybody's got a problem and everybody's got a need. I didn't realize my need because I realized the need of the City was greater than mine and so I really have a problem with making exceptions 'cause that's the first way that you get into trouble. Thank you. McDONALD: Mr. Taylor. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. This particular problem as far as I tend to agree with what your opinion is on it in the sense that in comparison to one of the other items that's on the agenda where the backyard setback what is it, 20 feet, Gary? Is that what a residential backyard from the back of the house to the property line is normally 20 feet. This property has a 1918" on the main section of the two units and six-foot side setbacks which I believe it normally is a five-foot requirement so it falls within the general criteria of our zoning ordinances and the fact that the four lots if it was an R-2 it would take 4500 square feet times four would be the 18,000 that we're making reference to and the gentleman was correct when he stated that the five feet donated for the road right-of-way took away the same amount that they're short basically within just a few feet they actually had more but it gets down to the fact that it's only the 320 square feet that they're short if you divided that by the four units it's only 80 square feet out of each parcel you might say. So, we're talking about an area that's no bigger than half of that desk right in front of us as far a family having a second bedroom. There is a big difference on this project compared to the other public hearings we have which have four, five and six bedrooms. And then we have a request there to have a ten or twelve foot backyard with that number of bedrooms in it which I totally disagree with but this still has the proper setbacks for the backyard and the side yard and I don't have a problem with this particular one as far as allowing it to be built. McDONALD: Thank you, Gary. Mr. Bruesch. BRUESCH: I hate to deal with chain of events but I looked at the size of the addition and knowing the property like I do I've been by there hundreds of times and noting the fact that it's well kept. I'm not saying that these people have any ulterior motive for building a large bedroom but if this is allowed the next person down the street who wants to do it will come in and say we want a 300 square-foot bedroom or 340 square-foot bedroom and that may be divided into two bedrooms. And a third person comes in using this as precedent says well we want 340 square-foot addition and that will become a illegal second unit. And on and on it goes and I know it's hard to comprehend what a General Plan is supposed to do and zoning ordinance is supposed to do but basically when you're asking for a variance you're asking for a precedent. And if this sets a precedent then the next units and the units after that have to follow that precedent because we can't go back once we've set that precedent. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with this particular plan if the bedroom were somewhat smaller. HAMNER: I could address that to the owner, if that would be helpful. McDONALD: How much smaller are talking about, Mr. Bruesch? CC 1-8-91 Page #5 BRUESCH: Something that could not be.viewed as a bedroom that was• going to be able to be divided into two rooms or even into an apartment unit. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. If I may state here the size of this addition is roughly 19 feet wide by 15 feet. When you put it into perspective it's no larger than from here to the flag. Those light wells up there are approximately six-foot, the square lights are 12". If you put three of those together, you've got 6, 12, 18. So, you've got three light wells times two of them across, roughly. And that's the size of a decent bedroom as far as I'm concerned. I've got 14 by 14 bedrooms and believe that's only four foot wider and a foot it's interesting. I want to make a comment. Maybe some of you heard it on the news that that little actor in Home Alone, it was on the news that he has either six or seven children in their family and they have an apartment in New York and it was just the way they stated it last night on the news and correct me if I'm wrong if some of you heard it, that that family has those seven children in one bedroom. And you talk about a struggle probably but this bedroom as far as if it was for one, two or three people I'm not going to say how many people should go in the bedroom what their needs are but I think it's a reasonable request. McDONALD: I'd like to address the point of saying that we're setting a precedent here. We take each case as it comes before us and we bounce back what the parameters are of a piece of property and what are the settings and so forth so I don't think we set precedents. I think we ought to set a precedent where we use the zoning and the General Plan as the guide to move this community in the future the best we possible can. But it is a guide. We have the authority to say if it comes within say an eyeball's eyelash of a certain point, we can pass that. That's our flexibility. That's the authority that the community has given to us and I don't think this is in any way of any major significance that this gentleman is asking for. So, I would like to make the recommendation„that we accept the appeal. TAYLOR: I'll second the motion. McDONALD: We have a motion and a second. discussion? Mr. Bruesch? BRUESCH: No. McDONALD: Mr. Imperial? IMPERIAL: None. McDONALD: Please vote, gentlemen. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, McDonald No: Bruesch, Imperial Absent: None Abstain: None Do we have any further TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I would ask that this discussion be in the minutes, verbatim. And I'll tell you right up front as far as here's a family that's lived here for fourteen years with a mother and son in a one bedroom house and if there's a time to show compassion on a family and a need that is not really out of line the variance process and the appeal process is designed for similar items. This is perfect for what it.is. That's why we do have it, for a unique situation. And when we talk about relocating and taking City funds for mobile home tenants to build senior citizen housing for compassion, whatever reason it may be, and subsidizing those units and a resident comes and asks for special property for no money assistance whatsoever, I will bring this up when the senior citizen housing project comes up and try to make a relationship what you call compassion. So, I'd like it in the minutes verbatim so when it hits we're going to be able to go back and find out what's happening. CC 1-8-91 Page #6 r-1 L_J • McDONALD: Mr. Hamner, why don't you get a hold of Mr. Chicots and. maybe you can get a hold of Mr.'Bruesch here on the side and if he comes up with a square-footage for that bedroom that's smaller and he's acceptable to it. BRUESCH: That's exactly my comment I was going to make. McDONALD: Mr. Jung, come forward. Would you like to reduce the square-footage of your bedroom? MR. JUNG: I'd like to maybe make an explanation. The whole thing is not for the bedroom. There's going to be a closet and there's going to be a change to the living room because of the entry way is set back in. We want to just pull it out. So, the whole thing is not for the bedroom. McDONALD: Okay. For expediency sake why don't you bring that blueprint up here and show it to Mr. Bruesch. BRUESCH: I've got one. IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor. I've heard what Mr. Taylor says and I too have compassion not. only for the Jungs but for everyone in this City and if we are going to make exceptions then I think we ought to be perfectly fair about this and go back to the time that this R-2 ordinance was enacted and deal with each project that was turned down to see if this Council should have not shown as much compassion for them as it is for Mr. and Mrs. Jung. I can certainly vote for it that way. McDONALD: But we're not changing the density, here. IMPERIAL: That doesn't make any difference. Everyone has a problem and I•had one, myself Mr. Mayor. McDONALD: That's what the R-2 regulation was for. We're not adding people. IMPERIAL: There's nothing that I would like better than to have built that unit on top of my property. I wasn't allowed to do that and I had to accept that and there's been a lot of other people in that same situation and what I'm saying in reality is if we're going to do it for one then I think it's only right to go back and look at everyone that has requested a variance and see if we should have shown compassion and didn't whether it be Planning Commission or this council. I'm asking for fairness in this City. That's what I'm asking for. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Question to Mr. Chicots. How many items of similar nature to this have you presented to this City Council? GARY CHICOTS, PLANNING DIRECTOR: You're talking about variances to the R-2 density? TAYLOR: The needs of the individual circumstance similar to this. CHICOTS: Presented to this body? I believe this is the first one. TAYLOR: How many years have you been in the Planning Commission? CHICOTS: Five years. TAYLOR: Five years and we've had one. So, if they are brought before this Council I do believe that we try to act in fairness and whenever it comes to a multi project in the planning stage, Mr. Imperial is correct. Whenever and there's one that we're not going to hear tonight. It's six residences up to six bedrooms. It's a totally different aspect and they're asking for an appeal. But I think that this Council, all of us, try to be fair but in this case I think it's a unique situation where this family is not asking for any handout. They're asking for a very small assistance. CC 1-8-91 Page #7 McDONALD: Mr. Bruesch? BRUESCH: Yes. I would like to move for reconsideration. After being explained that this section here which was what I saw in the blueprint as part of the bedroom is not part of the bedroom but is part of the entry way from the house which removes the livable habitable space in the bedroom to about 280 square feet. TAYLOR: Correct me if I'm wrong. He doesn't need to move for reconsideration. Just another motion? BRUESCH: Gary, I was looking at this entry way as being part of the bedroom. It's not. It's part of the..... TAYLOR: I think you just need to make another motion. BRUESCH: I will make a motion to reconsider. ROBERT L. KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: We don't need the motion.to reconsider because the two-two tie resulted in no action. BRUESCH: Okay. I will make a motion to accept, then. TAYLOR: I'll second the motion. McDONALD: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Please vote. VOTE RESULTED: Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch No: Imperial Absent: None Abstain: None McDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Hamner. END VERBATIM DIALOGUE B. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING A REQUEST FROM JANSTAR DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 49136 AND ZONE CHANGE CASE NO. 90-173 WHICH PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING LOT INTO SIX (6) PARCELS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOME DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES AND A CHANGE OF THE ZONE FROM C-1 (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) TO P-D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8835 MISSION DRIVE, ROSEMEAD The Mayor opened the public hearing and at the request of the applicant, Janstar Development, this public hearing was continued to February 12, 1991 at 8:00 p.m. C. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL FROM DANIEL AND BILLIE QUIJANO OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ACCEPTING' RELOCATION PROPOSAL FOR THE TENANTS OF THE COLONIAL TRAILER PARE LOCATED AT 8813 E. GARVEY AVENUE, ROSEMEAD The Mayor opened the public hearing. John Spiropoulos, nephew of the applicant, stated that the relocation report does not address relocation asked that the owner provide documentation that would guarantee relocation of the trailer and his aunt, noting that the age of the trailer in question could make relocation difficult. Mr. Spiropoulos added that his aunt is not interested in money rather in a new location for her mobile home. Dioni Revell, daughter of the owner, stated that the report is not specific and does not protect the owners. Ms. Revell added that her mother has been looking for a new park for almost a year and no park will accept her trailer because it is too old. CC 1-8-91 Page #8 Gary Werner, Community Development Consultant Service, author of the Relocation Impact Report, stated that the owner is working diligently to find suitable space in which to relocate the Quijanos. Mr. Werner added that the owner will pay the actual costs incurred in the relocating of these persons to a new park. Mayor Pro.Tem Imperial verified that the only issue to the Quijanos is relocation and that money is not the issue. Mr. Spiropoulos asked that the owner state in writing that his aunt's mobile home will be moved to a suitable location. There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Councilman Taylor noted that this process allows the owner four months to try and find suitable space for the relocation of the tenants of the park and did not think it appropriate for the City to intervene at this point. After some discussion it was MOVED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the Council uphold the decision of the Planning commission and deny the appeal. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Bruesch asked that trailer and mobilehome be clearly defined because of the problems involved when moving them. Staff was directed to investigate and develop guidelines. A five-minute recess was called at 9:28 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened accordingly. III.LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 91-1 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91-1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,094,385.43 NUMBERED 32127, 32131-32190 AND 32403 THROUGH 32571 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that Resolution No. 91-1 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor requested a report on Warrant No. 32145 on Page 9, the annual cost of the medical insurance. B. RESOLUTION NO. 91-2 - ESTABLISHING VOTING PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES AND FIXING COMPENSATION FOR THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1991, CALL BY RESOLUTION NO. 90-69 CC 1-8-91 Page #9 • • The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 91-2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING VOTING PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES, APPOINTING PRECINCT BOARDMEMBERS AND FIXING COMPENSATION FOR THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1991, CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 90-69 OF THE CITY COUNCIL MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that Resolution No. 91-2 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR - RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL CC-A RELEASE OF BONDS FOR PARCEL NAP NO. 19852, 9445 MARSHALL AND 9444 DeADALENA STREETS CC-B ACCEPTANCE OF STREET EASEMENT FOR GARVEY AVENUE AT SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD CC-C RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR ROSEMEAD HOME HANDYMAN PROGRAM 38th BID PACKAGE TO LPZ CONSTRUCTION $27,675.00 CC-D APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP NO. 19807, 8632 VALLEY BOULEVARD CC-E ADDITIONAL RED CURBING ON THE 8100-BLOCK OF WHITMORE STREET CC-F INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT MARKINGS AT INTERSECTION OF VALLEY BOULEVARD AND MISSION DRIVE CC-G ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR INSTALLATION OF CARPETING IN CITY HALL TO VIERS' CUSTOM CRAFT $22,216.16 CC-H APPROVAL OF OPERATING INDUSTRIES LEGISLATIVE STRATEGY BY ATTENDING THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. WINTER MEETING, JANUARY 23-25, 1991, AND THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE, MARCH 9-12, 1991, WASHINGTON, D.C. CC-I REQUEST FROM ROSEMEAD HIGH SCHOOL TO CO-SPONSOR THE THIRD ANNUAL RUN/WALK AGAINST DRUGS/ALCOHOL/TOBACCO, JANUARY 19, 1991 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION A. TRASH COLLECTION AND RECYCLING PROGRAM REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Councilman Taylor requested that'the faithful performance bond amount be increased to reflect the actual amount of monies that would be collected by the contractor since the contract requires the cc 1-8-91 Page #10 0 residents to pay three months in advance. Mr. Taylor was uncomfortable with the fingerprinting requirement and there being no objection, this requirement was removed. Councilman Bruesch was concerned with the five-year length on the contract and preferred a five-year with an additional five-year option; questioned the method that would be used to monitor the lower prices being charged to senior citizens; discussed a per can pickup method; requested that the contract state that all bins receiving foodstuffs will be kept clean; discussed the subject of "white waste" recycling programs; and asked that the contractor be required to provide public information and educational program experience regarding recycling programs. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that the approve the request for proposals. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. VI. STATUS REPORTS - None VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. COUNCILMAN BRUESCH 1. Reported increased gang shootings in the area and requested better communications between the various branches of law enforcement to the keep the residents better informed. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, reported that the handrails at the library were broken. There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for January 22, 1991. Respectfully submitted: APPROVED: E--e dltln~ ej QQ~ ~ 6(.. C' y Clerk MAYOR CC 1-8-91 Page #11