CC - 06-12-90APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY OF ROSIiPIEAD
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL DAT V
JUNE 12, 1990 BY rn P
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 Bruesch.
The Invocation was delivered by Chaplain Marge Lester of the
California Christian Home.
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS:
Present: Councilmen Bruesch, Imperial, Taylor, and Mayor McDonald
Absent: Mayor Pro Tem DeCocker - Excused
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MAY 22, 1990 - REGULAR MEETING
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 22, 1990, be approved as
submitted. Vote resulted:
Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial
No: None
Absent: DeCocker
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
PRESENTATIONS:
A proclamation and check for $500 was presented to Marisol Rios,
recipient of the 1990 Jeanette Larson Scholarship-.
I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE
A. Kurt Latipow, 8339 Park Street, reported a problem with
drinking, gangs, fights, and noise at Zapopan Park. Mr. Latipow
requested that the Council close the park at 10:00 p.m. and install a
locked gate at its back entrance.
Staff was directed to investigate for proper control, install the
gate and adjust the closing time.
Councilman Imperial requested that the park be closed at 10:00
p.m. and a memo be returned to the Council before the next meeting
indicating what actions have been taken.
Councilman Bruesch requested that this memo include the cost for
gating at the northern access.
B. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, discussed a traffic signal
synchronization project proposed for the E1 Monte area and questioned
its exemption from preparation of an environmental impact review.
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.
A. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION REGARDING A REQUEST FROM T.W. LAYMAN &
ASSOCIATES TO CONSTRUCT A NULTI-TENANT COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN A DESIGN OVERLAY ZONE AT 3606 ROSEMEAD
BOULEVARD (CUP 90-490 AND DR 90-47)
VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS:
McDONALD: The public hearing is now open to consider the appeal and
we would like to hear from the applicant first. CC 6-12-90
Page #1
TOM LAYMAN: My office is at 6515 Van Nuys Blvd., Van Nuys, CA 91401.
This project I think is one which is really boiling down to two
primary issues that I'd like to address: traffic and utilization of
the property. I think that in meeting with members of the staff that
the zoning and general plan does encourage commercial development of
this property and the application that we have made and the direction
that the owners would like to see it go is for retail development.
But in order to really try and synthesize some of the concerns of the
community has felt and some of the concerns that have been expressed
to me and other members of my staff from your community, I'd like to
go through what some of the tradeoffs might be between the various
types of commercial development of this property and see where we
might be able to blend and then come around to address the letter that
I sent mitigating some of the uses. When we take a look at commercial
development of the property we really only have two major uses. One
is service oriented and one is retail oriented. In retail oriented I
put in banks, savings and loans, retail stores, restaurants and
service oriented would be offices: architects, engineers, other people
that could perhaps use the site. The existing use that's there was of
course a gas station site. From a traffic analysis of those various
elements, and the principal of the traffic consultant/engineer is here
tonight as well to address that, probably the highest intensity of
traffic volume has been the existing use which is a gasoline station
and to continue its use as a gasoline station while that use probably
captures most of its vehicular movements from those vehicles that are
passing by it's still going to have the greatest number of movements
into and out of the property over almost any other use. I think
second to that would be banks, savings and loans and restaurants which
have a very high volume of visitation during the day coming into the
premises and next on the list would probably be retail stores and
depending on the types of use of retail stores their volume could
range from a low of maybe one or two trips per hour to a high of 10 or
12 trips per hour. And office use would probably be the least intense
where you would have the people arriving in the morning, their
customers and clients come in during the day and then a general exodus
at night. Of all the uses that are there I think that there's
probably going to be some minor flow from people that are attracted to
the use from the northbound traffic that's going to be filtering
through the shopping center behind us and that was pointed out by your
Traffic Engineer in his report but I think that there was probably an
oversight or at least a little bit of a misunderstanding as to what
some of those uses might be or where those people might be coming
from. The retail uses I think have been shown traditionally to
attract about 30%-60% of their customers from the traffic volume
that's already on the streets, especially convenience oriented retail
stores which small stores of this size, even if they were 2,000 or
3,000 square feet, we'd still be in that category being convenience
oriented but the people who are going to be frequenting the stores are
those that are passing by the site from a destination from one point
to another point in their itinerary for the day and happen to stop
here because it's convenient on their trip and not necessarily because
they've gotten into their automobile, left their home and arrived at
this.as a destination. The staff report that was presented to the
Planning Commission raised a significant concern that any project that
would rely on pass-by traffic was a real negative influence and I
think that the connotation was that people would be passing the
center, not realize it was there and then have to turn around and come
back and that is not the intent and I think if you take a look at the
traffic report which, on page 5, I think it's marked #13 in your
packet, the first paragraph if I can quote from it: "Therefore a
significant portion of the shopping trips associated with the project
are not new trips but represent vehicles already on the street that
will merely stop off at the project as they pass by." And that
phraseology repeats itself at several other locations throughout the
report. And so what we're looking at is not generating traffic that
is starting at a residence or another location, coming to this
destination, turning around and going back. But rather 30%-60% of the
customers stopping by as they on the southbound traffic or on the
northbound traffic to make a purchase and then continue on in the same
direction that they are going and because it's proposed to be
convenience oriented it is not going to be convenient to stop by this
location when you are southbound on Rosemead. It is only convenient
CC 6-12-90
Page #2
LAYMAN CONTINUES: to stop by when you are northbound on Rosemead or
when you might possibly be exiting the shopping center to avail
yourself of a service that would not be otherwise offered in the
shopping center. The other element that has a lot to do with traffic
volumes is the use of the specific retail activities and in meeting
with the staff we've tried to identify those uses that the staff felt
would be objectionable from a traffic standpoint and have articulated
that by crossing off those uses identified and you should have in your
package both I believe the C-3 and the C-1 use categories where we've
agreed to eliminate quite a few of retail uses that would otherwise be
available in these two zones and would entertain signing a covenant
that would run with the land so that not only this property owner and
the first tenants who sign up would be restricted to these uses but
that any other prospective owner or prospective tenant four years,
five years, ten years, if they were to have a use that was denied
tonight would have to come back and revisit this issue with you and
they are the higher turnover types of retail activities that are
within your codes and I'd be happy to entertain any concerns that we
may not have addressed with the staff in articulating this. When you
take these into consideration I think that the retail activity that we
are proposing can be managed, that the traffic flow into and out of
the premises is not going to be a serious encumbrance on the flow of
vehicular movements through that area and the traffic movements
through the contiguous shopping center are probably not going to be
significant to their traffic flow that they have in there. The way
that the bank building is located right now immediately east of our
property really creates a backdrop that precludes that parcel ever
really focusing as a pad for the shopping center. It really is always
going to stand as an independent parcel on its own. And the uses that
it has for its availability I think are really quite limited in
commercial activity and I don't think it would even be considered
logical to propose residential development of the property. And if we
are in the commercial then it really would be the retail or the
office. It's not a significant enough site to really warrant the type
of office that would have the few trips that you would want to expect
out of a major office facility but would rather be a type of office
that would have a fairly high volume of trips by travel agents, real
estate brokers, those types of office tenants that would benefit from
the vehicular movements on Rosemead Boulevard much the same as the
retail uses that we are proposing. And this is maybe something that
the Traffic Engineer can address but is not going to be a significant
difference. The other element that was pointed out was the size or
the designation of the intersection as being a .83 and a .86. As an
architect I think I understand the philosophy and the logic of where
these numbers are coming from and what is a "D" and an "E" and an "F"
intersection but I also want to point out that what we are doing as
far as our increase in the density of traffic at that intersection is
only one-one hundredth of a point and we're right at the intersection
and I think there's been some recent approvals of some other retail
activity taking place in the neighborhood which have had a much more
significant increase in the traffic at that intersection and while we
are coming after they did and while we are moving closer to that ever
frightening .9 or 1.00 number that the influence we are having is only
one-one hundredth on that scale. Thank you.
McDONALD: Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of the project?
CHU HOM: I live at 17540 Bethany Avenue, in Torrance, 90504. That's
California. I'm a third owner of the property and this is my in-laws
and my wife. We bought the property about 12 years ago. I believe at
that time or up until two years ago it was operated as a gas station
with three access to the station itself. As soon as the tenant moved
out and we had trouble getting the place going to get some income
coming. In the last 2 1/2 years since the Texaco people move out we
have numerous people want to go into the property. For example, E1
Pollo Loco was the first one. They also a good rental, a good
company. But they cannot get any access to the property or City
Planning would not allow but one access or it would not consider a
fast-food item. There's Carl's, Jr. and one of the other tenant's or
people who were interested was the Rallye Drive-thru or drive-in.
They wanted access from Rosemead and they would like to have an access
from the shopping center. We went to the shopping center and they
CC 6-12-90
Page #3
• •
HOM CONTINUES: want $10,000 a year for that little driveway or
drive-thru or whatever you call. So, in that sense, for the last 2
1/2 years there's no income for us and we're paying our taxes just
like any other property owner. I don't know what your decision will
be but as of right now I have no income from the property itself. So,
I don't know what you like us to do with the property or these
gentlemen over here who has a great interest in the property, who are
willing to develop and without them, myself or my in-laws would not be
here to present you this case, because they are the ones who are
really interested.
McDONALD: Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of the property?
ROBERT O'ZELL: My address is 11440 San Vicente, Los Angeles. I'm the
Chief Executive Officer of MS Partnership, the prospective developer
of the property. You've heard this evening from the project
architect. You've heard from one of the owners of the property. The
traffic consultant on the project is also present in the audience and
I also offer to answer any inquiries which the Council may have
regarding the project.
McDONALD: Okay. We're asking for input at this time. When we open
it for discussion we'll ask questions. Is there anything further
you'd like to add to the...?
O'ZELL: We have met with the planning staff. I believe that we have
endeavored to the full extent possible to try to address the concerns
of the planning staff. We are willing to restrict very severely the
uses which the property might be put to; those retail uses that is.
It has been our impression that that is one of the major concerns that
the staff has had with regard to development of the property. We had
discussed with the staff the possibility of reorienting the building
into the existing shopping center but we feel that that is wholly
impractical due to the existing improvements and in particular the
location of the Security Pacific Bank building. When I went back this
afternoon and I reviewed the staff's original report dealing with this
project I couldn't help but note that the City's own Traffic Engineer
indicated that he felt that the proposed project would have no
significant impact on traffic at the intersection. Our traffic
consultant reached the same conclusion and we respectfully ask that
the Council reconsider the staff's recommendation and we feel that a
denial of this project would be an unreasonable exercise in the
discretion of the Council.
McDONALD: Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of the project?
Anybody wishing to speak against the project? No further words from
the applicant, then, the public hearing is closed and let's open it up
to discussion by the Council.
BRUESCH: Point of information, Mr. Mayor. On Item B in our packet.
The used that are crossed out are the ones that are not to be used in
the C-3 zone. Is that correct?
GARY CHICOTS, PLANNING DIRECTOR: That is correct. Those are the ones
that will not be used if you approve this.
BRUESCH: So, all that are not crossed out can be used in that zone.
CHICOTS: That's what they're proposing this evening.
McDONALD: Let me get across to the developers and the owners of the
property here that this City Council has always been in favor of
quality businesses coming into the community. But we weigh that very
heavily because we have a major residential part of our community that
doesn't like little malls put here, here and there. And so, in the
last five or ten years the residents have voiced their opinions very
strongly on small, what we would call a mini-mall concept, even though
we've tried in our efforts to pass ordinances to require a little bit
more quality requirement when these are put in here. At this
particular corner, traffic flow at certain times of the year isn't so
bad but at the holiday season, we have a Toys R Us that's on the other
side; we just put in a Holiday Spa that's going behind Montgomery
CC 6-12-90
Page #4
McDONALD CONTINUES: Ward's. Besides Montgomery Ward's that's going
to be one heck of an intersection with a lot of traffic going through
there. I don't see anything wrong with a project going in that area
but the way I was looking at was to make it an integral part of the
existing layout that we have there by pushing the building up closer
to Valley Boulevard and have the parking around that but you say
that's a problem because the bank sits on the east side, there. I
would be in favor of the project if it was presented in a manner where
the traffic is in the same flow that it is except that the building is
pushed to the west and the parking is like the rest of the shopping
center. They go into the shopping center and then they find their
parking in there. The Montgomery Ward shopping center has been sold
recently to Mr. Chin and I'm sure that we could sit.... if you came up
with a proposal and needed some of that property there or access
through that property, I'm sure he could work with the bank and work
with an area that you could have access to the parking coming from
that side of the building. The rest of the shopping center as they
added on on the north side of the shopping center where they added
that strip in there with the attractive landscaping there has made a
real nice addition, I think. It's also added to the sales tax
revenues that we get. So, anything that can at the same time give us
a little aesthetic value, something that won't create a traffic
problem of cars turning off Valley Boulevard other than what they
are doing already and the parking on that side, I myself would be in
favor of it.
BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. A couple of questions. Southbound Rosemead
Boulevard at Glendon Way. Is there a left turn, U-turn available or
is that disallowed there?
CHICOTS: Currently, I don't believe there's a U-turn going southbound
on Rosemead.
BRUESCH: And there's only one driveway accessing this particular...?
CHICOTS: Yes, there's a driveway going northbound on Rosemead.
BRUESCH: Essentially, what you're looking at is access to northbound
traffic, only. Second question to staff. The comment was made that
the City wouldn't allow a fast-food outlet there because of access
problems. Exactly what is the problem that staff has with fast-food
outlet and access in that area?
CHICOTS: Let me correct the gentleman who came up previously. We did
not have a problem with E1 Pollo Loco. They had brought a site plan
in that we looked at that had a one approach similar to this proposal
this evening on northbound Rosemead and then they had another scenario
where they had a driveway approach on the private driveway on Rosemead
shopping center and they also incorporated into their design, a
drive-thru. The with E1 Pollo Loco was rather small, around 1800
or 1900 square feet. They, essentially, met parking requirements for
the proposal. We didn't have a problem E1 Pollo Loco. There may have
been a problem as far as the corporation or the franchise with the
size of the building but from a plot plan and a preliminary review, we
had no problem with E1 Pollo Loco. Rallye Burger came in after that.
Rally Burger is a relatively new operation. They're similar to
In-n-Out Burger. They have two drive-thru lanes through and they were
not able to meet parking requirements, Rallye Burger. Staff had no
problem with the.....
BRUESCH: In other words, what you're saying is, that the Pollo Loco
was approved.
CHICOTS: They had a preliminary approval on the plot plan.
BRUESCH: What made that particular type of usage fall through, then?
Was it the....
CHICOTS: We have not heard since then so I don't know what the
problem was.
IMPERIAL: Ingress and egress. That's what we're talking about.
CC 6-12-90
Page 5
BRUESCH: But we approved it.
IMPERIAL: We did away with a left-turn pocket to stop some of the
problems we've had on the very same boulevard in the close proximity.
We've still got a problem and I don't care what our Traffic Inspector
says. I think he's wrong. We still have a problem coming off that
freeway onto Valley Boulevard and what we're going to do is
enhance that problem and we've already got a problem across the street
with Toys R Us. They should never have been built there to begin
with. And you can go look at a problem on Mission and Valley at
an In-n-Out Burger that should have never been built there without a
lot more setback than it is right now. So, let's learn from our
problems is what we're saying.
BRUESCH: I'm agreeing with that. I'm
the comment was made that the City was
to be put there and that wasn't the ca,
There seems to be a continuing problem
center, with the old owners. I have a
property. Have they contacted the new
changed and what response have you had
just establishing the fact that
not going to allow certain uses
se. That was not disallowed.
of cooperation with the Ward's
question for the owners of this
owners since the ownership has
from the new owners?
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: No, sir. We haven't contacted them because we
don't know what the Council and Planning Department are going to do
with us.
IMPERIAL: Will you swear the gentleman in? I don't believe you're
sworn in, are you?
BRUESCH: Yes, he was. So, you haven'.t contacted the new owners.
UIV: No, we're trying to find out what we can put in there before we
contact the new owners.
BRUESCH: Have the developers contacted the new owners, yet?
O'ZELL): Yes, we certainly have contacted the new owners, at length.
And we've received a completely negative response to any of our
proposals for cooperation from them. In fact, the fact that the
ownership of that property has changed hands has not alleviated the
problem of dealing with the adjacent owners. If anything, it's
exacerbated the problem.
TAYLOR: Mr. O'Zell. The comment was made by Mr. Hom about the...what
was the $10,000 fee? Was that per year?
O'ZELL: That was prior to our involvement with the property so I
really cannot specifically address that.
UIV: That was the old owner. When we asked him about that, he wanted
$10,000 a year.
TAYLOR: Right now, you're getting no response from the new owner of
the shopping center?
O'ZELL: I believe the current owner of the shopping center has taken
the position that they want to freeze out any development or any use
of the site and then pickup the property at a bargain price to the
severe detriment of the property owners. I, of course, don't feel
that that's a fair approach and I don't think that's something that
the City Council would condone or would want to support either
expressly or impliedly.
TAYLOR: Well, you're in a position, or the owner is in a legal
position of he has to be granted access to that property.
O'ZELL: I'm not sure I understand you, sir.
TAYLOR: You can't be landlocked with no access.
O'ZELL: But the parcel is not landlocked.
CC 6-12-90
Page 46
s
TAYLOR: No. That's what I'm saying. The City cannot disallow you
access to that property or inverse condemnation comes into the picture
where you can't use the land.
O'ZELL: I agree, one hundred percent.
TAYLOR: So, you're going to have to have access off of the street,
somewhere. And if the shopping center owner's not going to give you
access then I think you know where your route lies.
O'ZELL: I believe I do.
TAYLOR: So, you have to have access off of some street to get into
there. The way the proposal is as far as the traffic, my opinion is
that it's going to be less traffic than was there before and what a
fast-food outlet would be.
O'ZELL: I don't think there's any question that the type of retail
development that we've proposed would generate significantly less
traffic than a fast-food use would and I'm a little bit at a loss to
understand why if, and perhaps I misunderstood you, if the City would
be more desirous of a Pollo Loco at this site rather than some good
solid retailers that can serve the needs of the community.
TAYLOR: I don't think they would in the sense that we have an
In-n-Out Burger up there on Mission and Rosemead and it's created
quite a bit of a problem with the City as far as traffic going in and
out, backing up onto the street. I could see the same thing happening
down there with an in-and-out chicken restaurant, the same thing.
Pull in and zip out onto the street. You just have the one driveway
proposed for your project, now.
O'ZELL: That is correct, on Rosemead.
TAYLOR: I mean it has to be a slow entry and a slow exit and you're
not going to have a lot of cross traffic. If it was turned around the
other way, Mr. McDonald was referring to that and I tended to think
about that, but the way that shopping center is being overdeveloped,
as far as I'm concerned. They're stacking buildings in on every
corner. They've remodeled all around that, the whole complex, in the
last two or three years. Now, they're putting double story parking on
the backside for 1700 cars and your area takes 30.
O'ZELL: Right. I think that our.... well, I realize the importance of
the site and the position of the site to the City. I'm certainly in
full agreement that Rosemead Square is becoming jampacked.
TAYLOR: Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of your project. The point
I'm trying to make is with 1700 cars parked around that area, you're
asking for 30 in your project which is extremely isolated for your
project. I would hate to have it turned around and have a
free-for-all for your parking places to be used by the very shopping
center that will not cooperate and allow you egress. So, you have
been isolated and need to make the best of your situation.
BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. I have a real concern in terms of traffic. Not
because of the LOS level but I'm just looking at the scenario of
people coming off that freeway going westbound and desiring to go
north making a right turn at the very same time that people are easing
over from the center,'middle lanes to make an exit into the traffic
center in that same parking lane. Caltrans has suggested that we open
up all those lanes, make it three lanes both ways during the rush
hour. There again we have another problem with having that as a open,
through lane for traffic movement and we're adding to the problem
there of a traffic situation that may become, in my opinion, a death
trap because people are trying to access in the same lane.
TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. To answer Mr. Bruesch's question. From my
standpoint is that you are protected by a full signal and anybody
leaving that parking lot from this project has the advantage of every
minute and a half or whatever to wait for a red light and then you may
have some traffic coming off of Glendon Way from the west side; you
CC 6-12-90
Page 47
0
TAYLOR CONTINUES: probably will have some right-hand turns coming
from the shopping center but you're not going to have the three lanes
of traffic coming right up Rosemead Boulevard. They're going to be
stopped at a signal every minute and a half or so. And keep in mind,
these gentlemen have to have an option. I know what I would with it
if it was turned down. You can't restrict the use of that property.
They've got to be given something.
BRUESCH: I'm in agreement with that and I think the City is in kind
of a bind, in the middle, because of the non-cooperation in terms of
access to the east, to the Ward's center. If what they're telling us
is true the only access they're going to be allowed is on Rosemead
Boulevard, period.
IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor. I've heard what I consider an accusation made
that the new owner is trying to freeze them out so he could buy the
property cheaper; that they've been asked by a previous owner for
$10,000 a year to utilize an access to that property. I don't have
anything in my packet that says Mr. Chin had disagreed with access or
ingress or you know to the property. So, I would like to see
something from Mr. Chin that states he's not going to do and I'd also
like to have staff talk to Mr. Chin and tell him this could be a
viable project if there was ingress and egress from the shopping
center without all this garbage and I think before we see that I'm not
prepared to vote on this one way or another.
BRUESCH: I would tend to agree. I would like to make the motion that
this be tabled until our next meeting and direct staff to open up
dialogue with the owners of the Montgomery Ward center, to see if a,
viable ingress/egress plan with those people could be delineated.
TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I would agree with that, keeping in mind that we
need a written agreement running with the use of the land and I don't
expect these people to have to pay $10,000 to be denied their right to
access to a public street. So, even if they do agree with it, I'm not
going to accept that they have to be intimidated or pay to give up
their right to access to the street.
IMPERIAL: I wouldn't agree with that, either. But we have to
determine that first.
TAYLOR: I would agree. Let's go ahead and see.
O'ZELL: Might I address that issue for a moment, gentlemen? When our
representatives met with Mr. Chin we did anticipate precisely the
issue that Councilman Imperial has raised. However, at that time Mr.
Chin flatly refused to put in writing any type of disapproval or to in
fact acknowledge in writing anything whatsoever with regard to.his
refusal to cooperate, if you will. So, I certainly would encourage
the City if they would like to confirm this by contacting him but I
can tell you as I stand here and that my integrity and my statements
are accurate. I would also like to point out in closing, if I might,
that as the Mayor indicated, the City of Rosemead is desirous of
quality commercial developments. I don't believe the staff had any
problem with the structure of the building; with they type of
construction; with the aesthetics of the building at all. In fact I
think really that the building we proposed is a fine building. I
think it's aesthetically pleasing. I didn't believe and I don't
believe that that's an issue where there's any disagreement at this
point. I'd also like to point out that we're certainly sensitive to
the fact that at Christmas time the traffic for the couple of weeks
before Christmas at Rosemead Square and from the Toys R Us across the
street can be very, very difficult. I also know that you want your
commercial developments to be successful and I also know that in our
society you have to expect that in the two weeks before Christmas time
you're going to have heavy traffic. I don't feel, however, that it's
fair to penalize these property owners of what is really a relatively
small parcel and once again, a building that we propose of less than
8,000 feet to compare that with a shopping center of hundreds of
thousands of feet, that's really generating the traffic and an
interstate highway that is adjacent to the site where thousands of
cars enter and exit the interstate highway every day, is a little bit
of misplaced focus in my opinion. CC 6-12-90
Page #8
McDONALD: You're correct. Sometimes Councils, City Councils, in
their desire to look at every little aspect make mountains out of
molehills. No doubt about it. We accept that responsibility and we
agree that we do that on occasion. Maybe too many occasions. But we
have recently been in contact with Mr. Chin about a couple of things
that they're doing on their property. We think we have a good rapport
with him. What we would like to do is we'll take the lead. We'll set
up the meeting between you and ourselves and Mr. Chin just to clear
the air here to see if there's any possibility that access can be made
and some agreement without an exorbitant cost involved; something that
we can kind of all agree to. If that doesn't come about then we know
that we have to bite the bullet and accept some things that maybe we
don't want to accept. Do we have a motion?
BRUESCH: Yes. I'll reenter my motion that we table it and direct
staff to open up discussions.
TAYLOR: We're just going to continue it to the next meeting.
McDONALD: Continue it to the next meeting.
TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'd like this in the minutes verbatim because I
think it's a critical issue and I agree with what Mr. O'Zell has said.
The only issue that so far it's zeroed down to is traffic ingress and
egress. It's not the building. It's not the property. It's not the
use. They've given quite a consideration as far as restricting the
uses that they are entitled to put in there so they're working with
us. But I think we've just got a hard spot on this one.
O'ZELL: I want to thank the City Council for your consideration. We
thank the staff for the efforts they put forth to work with us. And
once again, I can't underscore sufficiently that our desire is to
bring a quality development to the City of Rosemead. Our desire is to
improve the City for the people who live in the City and we're
desirous of seeking any type of reasonable compromise to achieve that
goal. Thank you.
IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor. There's a motion on the floor and I'll give it
a second to continue.
McDONALD: We're going to reopen the public hearing and continue it
until the next meeting.
ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: That'll be June 26, 1990 at 8:00 p.m. in
this room.
A short recess was called at 9:10 p.m. and the meeting was
reconvened accordingly.
B. A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING PROTESTS RELATING
TO THE IMPOSITION OF LIENS ON REAL PROPERTY IN CASES WHERE
THE RUBBISH COLLECTION CHARGES FOR SAID PROPERTY HAVE BECOME
DELINQUENT
The Mayor opened the public hearing and there being no one wishing
to speak, the public hearing was closed.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the
Council direct staff to take the necessary steps to place liens on
those properties that have not paid their delinquent accounts by 5:00
p.m. on June 26, 1990. Vote resulted:
Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial
No: None
Absent: DeCocker
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
Councilman Bruesch requested the backup information on all
delinquent accounts of more than $300.
CC 6-12-90
Page #9
• a
III.LEGISLATIVE
A. RESOLUTION NO. 90-29 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS
The following resolution was presented to the Council for
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-29
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $842,847.41
NUMBERED 29837-22981 AND 31728 THROUGH 31777
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH
that Resolution No. 90-29 be adopted. Vote resulted:
Yes: Taylor, McDonald,.Bruesch, Imperial
No: None
Absent: DeCocker
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
Councilman Taylor requested a breakdown on Warrant No. 31732 on
Page 21, the deferred compensation, from the beginning through the
entire life of it. Mr. Taylor also asked for a report on the yearly
amount, requested at a previous meeting.
B. RESOLUTION NO. 90-30 - MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND
DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAYMENT FOR
STREET REPAIRS
The following resolution was presented to the Council for
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 90-30
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE'CITY OF ROSEMEAD MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAYMENT FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN MELROSE
AVENUE (JACKSON/WEST END), MUSCATEL AVENUE (KLINGERMAN/GARVEY),
ARTSON STREET (CHARLOTTE/GAYDON) AND ECKHART ALLEY
(WHITMORE/NORTH END)
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that
the.Council adopt Resolution No. 90-30. Vote resulted:
Yes: McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial
No: Taylor
Absent: DeCocker
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
Councilman Taylor stated that he was in favor of the project but
that two of the streets were quite a way out of the project area and
that City, not Agency, funds should be used.
C. ORDINANCE NO. 663 - APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM P TO C-3
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7740 E. GARVEY AVENUE - ADOPT
The following ordinance was presented to the Council for adoption:
ORDINANCE NO. 663
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM P TO C-3 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 7740 E. GARVEY AVENUE (ZC 89-169)
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that
ordinance No. 663 be adopted. Vote resulted:
CC 6-12-90
Page #10
Yes:. Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial
No: None
Absent: DeCocker
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
D. ORDINANCE NO. 664 - REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 660 - INTRODUCE
The following ordinance was presented to the Council for
introduction:
ORDINANCE NO. 664
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 660 WHICH IMPOSED A MORATORIUM ON THE
ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS WITHIN SPECIFIED AREAS OF THE CITY
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR McDONALD that
Ordinance No. 664 be introduced on its first reading and that reading
in full be waived. Vote resulted:
Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial
No: None
Absent: DeCocker
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC-B, CC-E, CC-H and CC-L•REMOVED FOR
DISCUSSION)
CC-A AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND 76th ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL CITY
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE IN FORT WORTH, TEXAS,
SEPTEMBER 23-27, 1990
CC-C AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES MAYORS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS EXECUTIVE FORUM IN MONTEREY, JULY 18-20,
1990
CC-D APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL FIREWORKS STAND LOCATION
CC-F ACCEPTANCE OF STREET EASEMENTS FOR FERN AVENUE (FALLING
LEAF/SAN.GABRIEL)
CC-G ACCEPTANCE OF WORK FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS IN GARVEY
AVENUE AT DEL MAR AND WALNUT GROVE AVENUES AND VALLEY
BOULEVARD AT WALNUT GROVE AVENUE
CC-I APPROVAL OF REVISED JOINT POWER AGREEMENT WITH THE WEST SAN
GABRIEL VALLEY CONSORTIUM
CC-J AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CITY
MANAGER'S DEPARTMENT STATEWIDE SUMMER MEETING IN OAKLAND,
JUNE 28, 1990
CC-K REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR INTERIOR DESIGNER FOR CITY
HALL REMODELING
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that
the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote
resulted:
Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial
No: None
Absent: DeCocker
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
CC 6-12-90
Page #11
CC-B APPROVAL OF EXTENSION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
WITH MARIPOSA LANDSCAPE
Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, reported that there were no
plants in some of the planters on Garvey Avenue.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that the
Council approve the extension of agreement with Mariposa Landscape and
authorize its execution by the Mayor. Vote resulted:
Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial
No: None
Absent: DeCocker
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
CC-E COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - SAN GABRIEL BRIDGE AT POMONA FREEWAY
This item was deferred to the next regular meeting.
CC-H APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO
SEER BIDS FOR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL
MODIFICATIONS IN ENCINITA AVENUE (MISSION/LOWER AZUSA)
Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, asked if the block number would
be put on these street signs when the project is constructed.
It was noted that this subject will be on the next Traffic
Commission agenda.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that the
Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize
advertisement for bids by the City Clerk. Vote resulted:
Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial
No: None
Absent: DeCocker
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
CC-L 4th OF JULY CELEBRATION - TEMPORARY FENCING OF ROSEMEAD PARR
It was the consensus of the Council that the Sheriff's Department
inspect individual containers instead of using Parks Department
personnel.
MOTION BY MAYOR McDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that the
Council approve the use of temporary fencing at Rosemead Park for the
4th of July Celebration and authorize the use of Sheriff's Deputies
for the inspection of individual containers for alcohol and fireworks
for the entire day. Vote resulted:
Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial
No: None
Absent: DeCocker
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION
A. LONG-TERM WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
Tom Harvey, Mayor Pro Tem for the City of La Verne, representing
the San Gabriel Valley Association of Cities presented a proposal for
the Council's consideration regarding the waste-by-rail project
currently being considered by several cities in the San Gabriel
Valley.
CC 6-12-90
Page #12
Mr. Harvey stated that the deadline to join the Joint Powers
Agency being formed would be the end of 1990 and that the project
would begin in 1994 or 1995. Mr. Harvey noted that the base rate
charged would be dependent on when a City joined the Joint Powers
Agreement, with those joining early establishing a lower base rate
than those who join later. Mr. Harvey concluded by asking the Council
to consider committing a portion of its trash to this JPA.
An alternate proposal was presented by Gregg Short, representing
Browning Ferris Industries (BFI), that would guarantee the City of
Rosemead landfill capacity for at least 17 years at the Azusa Western
Landfill. Mr. Short stated that proposals have been sent to six
cities and one has been signed with the City of Azusa, adding that
this proposal would aid the City in meeting compliance with the
requirements under AB939 and satisfy the waste board. Mr. Short added
that a decision regarding this proposal would need to be made within
the next few months.
Staff was directed to monitor the program being established in the
City of Azusa and obtain the specifics for the City of Rosemead.
No action was required on this item.
B. SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT FEES
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR McDONALD that the
Council allow the $5.24 assessment to go on the tax bill; authorize
staff to begin the proceedings necessary to withdraw from the
District; and authorize staff to seek a contract for mosquito
abatement services if and when needed. Vote resulted:
Yes: McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial
No: Taylor
Absent: DeCocker
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
VI. STATUS REPORTS - None
VII.MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS
A. AB3580 (Katz) and SB1977 (Kopp), ANTI-GRAFFITI LEGISLATION
Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, stated this legislation appears
to penalize those who use these items for legitimate purposes.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR McDONALD that the
Council support SB1977 and authorize the Mayor to forward the
appropriate correspondence. Vote resulted:
Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial
No: None
Absent: DeCocker
Abstain: None
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
B. COUNCILMAN BRUESCH
1. Asked for a memo listing the spending restrictions
regarding the passage of Proposition 108 and some of the allowable
uses for the monies.
VIII.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
There being no further action to be taken at this time, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. The next regular meeting is
scheduled for June 26, 1990.
Respectfully submitted: ROVED:
G( tZAir~~
C' y Clerk MAYOR CC 6-12-90
Page 413