Loading...
CC - 05-08-90APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY OF ROSEMEAD ROSEMA CITY COUNCIL BXTE MAY Y 8, 1990 The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor McDonald at 8:03 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 City Treasurer Hugh Foutz. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmen Bruesch, Imperial, Taylor, and Mayor McDonald Absent: Mayor Pro Tem DeCocker - Excused APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MARCH 13, 1990 - REGULAR MEETING MARCH 27, 1990 - REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 1990 - ADJOURNED MEETING APRIL 24, 1990 - REGULAR MEETING Councilman Taylor requested clarification to the Minutes of March 13, 1990. Mr. Taylor asked that the second paragraph from the bottom on Page #4 be amended to read "....the Council voted four to one against me..." and that the seventh paragraph on Page #5 be amended to read "....with the subterranean metrorail system when I opposed .......why I wetsld-nat was opposed to it....." Councilman Imperial requested that the memo from the City Attorney regarding the Contract Cities Association Youth Program be added to the Minutes of March 27, 1990. There being no objection, these amendments were so ordered. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of March 13, March 27, April 24, and the Adjourned Meeting of April 17, 1990, be approved as amended. 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 was presented to Mr. A.A. Kruger, representing the California-American Water Company, naming the month of May, 1990, as "Water Awareness Month." A second proclamation was presented to Registered Nurse Rosalie Mitchell, representing the Del Mar Convalescent Hospital, naming the week of May 13-19, 1990 as "Nursing Home Week." I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE A. Martha Miranda, 3318 Stallo Street, asked the Council's assistance in developing a program to aid the youth of Rosemead who are being unjustly categorized as gang members. Ms. Miranda cited an incident involving a Rosemead student, attending San Gabriel High School, who had been killed on Friday in what was being termed a gang-related incident. Councilman Imperial requested that the Sheriff's Gang Activities Unit meet with the concerned parents and students and prepare a report for presentation to the council. CC 5-8-90 Page #1 0 • Councilman Bruesch noted that the Garvey School District is developing a gang-intervention program that should be effective in educating parents on methods to discourage children from becoming involved with the gangs. Ms. Miranda stated that a meeting is being scheduled for Tuesday at San Gabriel High School and the Council requested that a Rosemead Deputy attend this meeting. B. Leroy Young, 7533 E. Garvey Avenue, presented a copy of the ABC liquor CUP permits in Rosemead. C. Cleo Young, 7533 E. Garvey Avenue, requested that all interested persons should attend a meeting being held in Los Angeles to protest the issuance of additional CUPs for alcohol. D. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, again requested block numbers to be added to the overhead street signs at intersections in the City. This request was referred to the Traffic Commission for consideration. 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 BEARING TO CONSIDER A REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE/DESIGN OVERLAY (POD) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) AND IS GENERALLY BOUNDED BY MARSHALL STREET ON THE NORTH, HART STREET ON THE WEST, LINDA LEE STREET ON THE EAST AND THE REAR OF THE PROPERTIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GLENDON WAY AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO_ 662 At the Regular Meeting of May 22, 1990, addition of the following verbatim dialogue was requested by Councilman Taylor. VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: II. PUBLIC HEARING A. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE/DESIGN OVERLAY (POD) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) AND IS GENERALLY BOUNDED BY MARSHALL STREET ON THE NORTH, HART STREET ON THE WEST, LINDA LEE STREET ON THE EAST AND THE REAR OF THE PROPERTIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GLENDON WAY AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 662 McDONALD: The public hearing is now open and the first people who would like to speak are those that are in favor of the Ordinance 662. We have Mr. Robert Breen. ROBERT BREEN, 9255 Marshall Street: It is quite close to the proposed change to R-1. I am in favor of it. One of the reasons for being in favor of it we found that the vacancy factor for offices in Rosemead is high. As apartments, the Planning Commission determined last night that the entire area is over developed and they turned down a mini-mall just adjacent to that as part of the Montgomery Ward shopping center. If we restrict this to R-1 zoning which it should be and for single family dwellings, then it would help alleviate any major traffic problems that apartments would develop. They have recently as of last night approved a new cul-de-sac of sixteen single family dwellings consisting of five bedrooms which would be an additional 80 bedrooms that will be travelling along Marshall and crossing the corridor of Marshall and Hart. This will make our speedway along Marshall hazardous to children, to occupants of any CC 5-8-90 Page #2 BREEN CONTINUES: proposed apartments if this were allowed to develop into apartment buildings rather than single family dwellings. A separate issue, I don't know how to present it to the Council, if they could in the future, any development of three or more structures, be limited to three bedrooms and a den so as not to have as we do now, this 80-bedroom units along that cul-de-sac which is going right into that proposed area which we hope will be zoned R-1. But that would be a separate issue. We are definitely in favor of the recommendation made by the Planning Commission to rezone this area R-1. McDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Breen. Iris Breen, did you want to speak? IRIS BREEN, 9255 Marshall: I'm also in favor of this R-1 zoning because the original intent of the R-1 zoning is to keep the whole street R-1. The rest of the street is R-1 except for this section and as I understand it it was because Montgomery Ward had designs to build offices there. But this is no longer the case, this was a long time ago. I believe the residents of Marshall deserve an R-1 zone for that area because of the high density of traffic and so with that I urge you to vote for the R-1 zoning. McDONALD: Anybody else in the audience at this time like to speak in favor of the ordinance No. 662, approving the zone change? ANGIE BARBA, 3531 Rio Hondo: I'm in favor of it, too because of the traffic and the overcrowds in the school which were talked about a few months ago and it was mentioned that we don't want to make the same mistakes that were made in Monterey Park overcrowding of the apartments so I'm in favor of it. ANTONIO ALVAREZ, 3541 Temple City Boulevard: I am in favor of the R-1 zoning because I would like not to see any more traffic congestion in the proposed area. Also, I don't want to see any more apartments. I think we have too many apartments already. GLORIA SERRA, 9349 Ralph Street: I am in favor of the R-1 zoning. YOLANDO MUNOZ, 9221 Ramona Boulevard: No apartments. McDONALD: Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of it? Okay, people who oppose the change of the POD. We have six people that are signed up here. Is there any spokesman for the group? We'll just call them as they, if I can make it out, Michael Sturtevant. MICHAEL STURTEVANT, 8464 E. Garvey Avenue: I'm opposed to what I consider the downzoning and I'm also in partnership with one of the properties involved. One thing as far as the traffic I don't if any monitors have been put on to find out what the traffic flow is. I do know there's a lot of diverted traffic off of Rosemead Boulevard. Whether that traffic going up Rio Hondo is from that neighborhood or not, I don't know. I do know that in the apartment zone which is right next to the shopping center, right next to the freeway on- and off-ramps is a very good location for those people. They use those facilities. Those facilities are right next door to them and their access to and from the freeway is right next door. I'm opposed to the general zone. IMPERIAL: I'd like a map of the area that we're talking about put on the board for everyone to see. McDONALD: We'll continue on with the testimony, here. Next on the list I have Harold Konop. HAROLD KONOP, 8464 Garvey Avenue: Part of a group, Mission Company, purchased this land in the affected area a couple of years ago for development which at that time we had a right to build. Now, you want to downzone it at a considerable cost to us. Naturally, we oppose it. ROSIE LING, 628 E. Dewey Avenue, San Gabriel: I have obtained a copy of the environmental checklist form from the City. In here it says the determination, I find the proposed project would not have a CC 5-8-90 Page #3 r i MS. LING CONTINUES: significant effect on the environment and a negative declaration will be prepared. But as you can see here there's no signature of the person completing this form which means that this form is considered incomplete, unreliable and unofficial. I have four points to make. That was my first point. My second point is the City should hire at least two independent consulting engineering companies to do evaluation of the proposed survey and the reports of these proposals should be for both situations. One is to keep the area to be POD or to change it to R-1 and I believe that in both cases the negative declaration will be for both results. Also, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency has planned to build 100 low/moderate income housing units in two locations. I'd like the City Councilmen to announce to us where are these two locations. I'd like to know the specific addresses because I believe the area around the Marshall area where there is Montgomery Ward shopping center, the POD zoning property around there is a good neighborhood, a good area to develop. May I suggest the City buy out the POD and to develop it. My third point is I'd like to know whether there is any councilman or relative who owns property in this POD. I believe there is no councilmen or his relative who owns the property of the POD but is there any City personnel or relative who owns property at those two locations that they're going to build the income property over there. I'm opposing the zone change. McDONALD: Ms. Dewey. Who do you represent if you don't live in the City or own a piece of property there? LING: Yeah, we own a piece of property at 9236 and 9238 Marshall. McDONALD: Thank you, very much. Next we have Michael Davis. MICHAEL DAVIS: I'm here representing the Rosemead Moose Lodge which is located at 9304 Mission Drive in the City of Rosemead. I'm speaking on behalf of the Lodge to oppose the zoning change as it is now outlined before the Council. I'd like to make it clear, well first of all let me state that the Moose Lodge owns the property, a corner lot, which is located on the southeast corner of Hart and Glendon Way. Before I proceed to state our reasons in opposition I'd just to say a couple of things about our organization. First of all, I believe we have about 51 of our members present tonight in the Council Chambers. We are a California corporation, chartered as the Rosemead Lodge, No. 632, Loyal Order of Moose. We've been a member of this community since 1954, some 36 years we've been in this City at three different locations. We have in excess of 700 men and women who are members of our organization, most of whom are residents of the City of rosemead. we're a fraternal and charitable organization. Principally of concern to the City we have engaged for many years in activities such as supporting the Rosemead Youth Association, fund raising benefits for the Rosemead High School graduating class, we've supported scouting and Indian Guides within the City, the American Youth Soccer organization, little league teams, all within the City. Also, we engage in a number of fund raising activities, principally benefitting City of Hope and March of Dimes. The property that I've referred to that the Moose Lodge owns was acquired approximately in 1977. Back at that time we felt the need to expand. Our present quarters on mission Drive were becoming inadequate for the size of our membership. We engaged in a property search, located that property, felt it would be a good location for a new moose lodge. We had a lot of support from our membership. We had a great deal of momentum going. We were able to pay off the encumbrance within a year after acquiring the property. We retained an architect, had a design completed for a moose lodge at that location. Most of you will probably recall that during that period of time, that year and a half or so after our purchase of that property, interest rates literally skyrocketed. At the time we were looking for a long term loan, the prime rate was 16% and the only lenders that were willing to talk to us seriously, were private lenders asking 5 points over prime. That fact pretty much put an end to our hopes of building at that time. We simply weren't able to pay 21% interest for the amount that we felt we would have to finance to build there. That also resulted in a loss of momentum with our membership to move ahead with this program and we CC 5-8-90 Page #4 • • DAVIS CONTINUES: simply were unable to even think about it for quite a while until interest rates came back into the realm of reason. I'd like to be able to tell you tonight that we intend to build a Moose Lodge there soon. I can't tell you that. I can tell you that it is something under consideration. The money market is at a point now where we think we may be able to do it. We're seriously considering that possibility. It was after our acquisition of the property that the City rezoned and I don't the history of the entire area but I know the particular piece we own was rezoned to the POD zone which included lodge hall uses so that we would be able to do that. We are specifically opposing the inclusion of the parcel of property we own in this zoning change. WE think its inclusion is poorly thought out. Some of the reasons for that is we are surrounded on all four sides. First of all, on the north, across the street on Glendon Way, there are apartment buildings. Next door to us on the south there are, behind our lot on the south facing on Ramona an apartment building was constructed I believe just last year. On our east side is a multiple dwelling use, condominiums. And of course on the west of us is the large commercial development and Montgomery Ward shopping center which I believe even now is being expanded and added to. We're surrounded on all four sides by multiple dwelling and commercial uses. We feel to include our property in this zoning change is literally trying to shut the bard door after all the horses have gotten out. We're also concerned that the zoning change, as it affects us, would result in a substantial loss of the present day value of our property. One of our options that we're considering is we're not sure that a lodge hall use would fit in with the current City plans at that location. If not, we would be considering selling that property for its current market value and finding a location more suitable within the City to relocate to. In either event the zoning change would either prohibit us from building a lodge there in the future or substantially impair our property value were we to attempt to relocate somewhere else in the City. One other item. I was approached by two other citizens who are residents on Glendon Way. I hope they will come up and speak for themselves. A Mrs. Vicki Joseph at 9232 and 9240 and a Mrs. Kay Goodwin at 9227 asked me to inform the Council that they are present and also oppose the zoning change. I also believe that a number of the people who have expressed concerns are residents on Marshall Street: I haven't heard,a great deal of opposition and I did review the minutes of the City Council meeting of January 20th I believe it was when the matter concerning Mission Builders' development on Marshall Street came before the Council. We're not expressing an opinion, I want to make that clear, on whether or not that particular portion should be rezoned. I mention that only because I think the genesis of this whole issue came from a great deal of concern expressed by residents on Marshall Street as to what was happening on their street and in their neighborhood. Yet the final plan that's been presented to the Council now seems to include a great deal more than that. Our property has ingress and egress available to Hart Street. Any development that would be placed on that property would have its ingress and egress go onto Hart Street. At least two of the approved uses for the property in its present form, lodge halls and professional offices, are uses that would not add to the problems that have been expressed by persons who are opposing this measure. In other words, if a lodge hall were built there, its principal hours of use would be off peak times. It would not conflict with commuter rush traffic. During business hours the use would be very slight. The principal use when numbers of people might be coming in there would be weekends and evening hours. With all of those things in mind we're urging the Council to either disapprove this or at least refer this back to the Planning Commission for further consideration in the boundaries that have been proposed to you and specifically to eliminate our property from this proposed change if not other properties along Glendon Way. BRUESCH: May I ask a question, Mr. Davis. You own the one lot, 9206, is that it? CC 5-8-90 Page 5 0 • DAVIS: We purchase two lots. Initially, the 30-foot strip that bounds Hart Street was owned by the city. We purchased the remaining portion of that lot from a private owner. After acquiring that the City agreed to put that 30 feet up for sale and at a public sale we successfully bid on and acquired that. It is actually, I believe on your map it's designated as two separate parcels. It is under our single ownership. IMPERIAL: Mrs. Ling got up and requested of the Council if any member of this Council had any ownership or involvement with the parcels of land. I'd like to say at this point that I have been very proudly a member of the Moose Lodge of Rosemead for the last 15 years. I would like to know if this would constitute a conflict of interest for me to vote on this item. ROBERT KRESS, City Attorney: The real question here is twofold. One, as a member do you feel that you can hear this matter and make a fair and impartial decision and that's something that only you know. That KRESS CONTINUES: would depend of course on whether you participated in meetings of the Lodge leading up to this turnout and things like that. The other legal question is whether or not this particular decision you would be affected in a way other than as a member of the general public. My initial reaction is yes, you would be. As a member of this lodge and you said it was a corporation? DAVIS: Maybe I could clarify something. We are a corporation. We are governed by a set of bylaws by our national parent organization, the Supreme Lodge of the World Loyal Order of Moose. No member of any Moose Lodge has a personal financial interest in property owned by the Moose Lodge. That is for any reason should the Lodge, should the corporation fall apart, should the assets have to disposed of, under no circumstance do individual members have any assertable, personal interest. In the event of the dissolution of the Lodge any property or assets owned by the Lodge then become the property of the Supreme Lodge, the parent organization. So individual members have no personal financial interest in any property that is owned by the Lodge, if that helps. KRESS: Thank you for that clarification. Councilman Imperial, my understanding is that you're a member of the Lodge but you're not on the Board, you're not a member of the governing body. Is that correct? IMPERIAL: Yes and I would not have considered that position because I sit on this City Council and I knew that some day or another that I might have to come to a point where I'm at right now. And that's why I wanted to clarify it. I wanted to make sure that everything was above board and legal and I could vote in what I think is the best interest of the City. Now, I can look at this from the point of an outsider considering that I'm not even a member of this Lodge for the last 15 years and know that this Lodge has done a hell of a lot of good for this community. Therefore, I want to make this clear because I intend to speak my piece on this. KRESS: with all of that I think the decision on whether or not to participate is your decision. I'm convinced that you do not have a conflict of interest in a financial way as explained by Mr. Davis and I concur in that. I think the decision as to whether or not you've prejudged this matter you've indicated that you can vote on this matter in an impartial way and hear both sides and vote in the best interests of the City. If you feel to avoid any appearance of impropriety that you want to step down, that's your decision but I don't believe you're required to do so. IMPERIAL: I don't believe so and I wouldn't do that because I don't feel like I'm in any different position than, for instance Councilman Bruesch would be with the Boys Club. Therefore, I just want to clarify the issue and we can get on with the business. McDONALD: Are there any other folks that would speak in opposition? Come forward. CC 5-8-90 Page #6 • • VICKI JOSEPH, 9232 Glendon Way: We also own the property at 9240 and we've it for many, many years, since 1949. We are on the same side of the street as the Moose Lodge, the south side of Glendon. Way. I feel that I would like to have it stay the zoning it is, the PD zoning. We are surrounded by apartment buildings and I think it's an injustice to us to make us change into R-1 when we have all these buildings around us, deep lots. Next door to us, next to the cul-de-sac, they have houses on postage stamp lots. They allowed them to build them, less than 5,000 square feet per house. On the left is the condominiums. Across the street is the apartment house. So, I'm speaking of Glendon Way. We'd like to have it remain PD zoning. I think we've suffered a lot and I know Jay Imperial for one and this man, Mr. Taylor knows that if it weren't for us you wouldn't have that Montgomery Ward shopping center because I could have tied it up with the biggest lot that we owned in that center, we released it so the City of Rosemead could have a shopping center. I feel we're getting dealt a low blow by doing this. KATHY GOODWIN, 9227 Glendon Way: I also have a house at 9229. I live next door to the apartments and they've been there almost ten years, now. I've had to put up with all their garbage, throwing it over the fence and everything and the pipes breaking and flooding and I think that I would like to keep it the same as it is because if they change it my property is going to go down in value and I would like to have it when I sell my house I would like to get enough out of it to live the rest of my life. Thank you. EDWARD LING: I'm the owner of 9236 and 9238 Marshall Street. We were provided only with the initial study for environmental impact. This is not a professional report. Based on this checklist I don't think anybody can make a decision to change or not. Second point is, the Planning commission tried to get rid of the traffic problem. If there is a problem I think City personnel should solve the problem. I'm a County engineer. I am hired to solve the problem for the public and it's a shame to get rid of the problem or make people happy. If there is really a problem I think the Commission should know how to solve it instead of changing the zoning. McDONALD: Mr. Ling. You say you work for the County? You're a County Engineer. The County's got a lot of problems also. Anybody wish to speak in opposition? Nobody else wishing to speak, the public hearing is closed and opened to the Council for discussion. I would like to open it up and make a little statement here. Day after day, week after week, Council meeting after Council meeting, we have people come to us and say we don't want to look like other cities that have overbuilt where the population is too dense and it's even worse than Rosemead. We know in Los Angeles County the traffic problem is unbelievable and it's not a solution that any single City can take care of by itself but because of the scream and the cry of the community, 50,000 people, we have cut back on the density criteria and made it so they had to at least give us single family dwellings. They have to have a little bit more green area. They have to have to more open area on the apartments and we're trying to restrict that. And now here this evening we have just the opposite. Every other meeting we have some opposition to any type of development that goes on in this City. And I for one am frustrated in the respect that I like to see single family dwellings go into this community more so than anything else even if we have to put them on postage stamp pieces of property because the value is becoming so horrendous that your kids can't even buy here in your own community. It's just a sad state of affairs and it's just that way all through southern California. I'm just expressing a frustration that I have that you people came out here tonight and said leave it the way it is and conceivably they could have apartments on there. I would like'to see it R-1 and keep the density down as low as we can get and I understand where each and everyone of you is coming from. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. We'll go down the line here. Mr. Taylor? CC 5-8-90 Page #7 • • TAYLOR: I feel the same way. There's been a lot of change in the San Gabriel Valley. A little small two bedroom homes right in this area, within a couple of blocks of that particular area, the houses are selling my neighbor across the street sold a three bedroom for $194,000; my uncle sold his on Olney down there, it was a small two bedroom, he sold that for $176,000. They're small houses but they're in great demand. I feel that the way things are changing there is more traffic. Montgomery Ward is expanding quite a bit on all sides, the southeast area they're building a health club; over on the west side they're expanding again; on the northwest corner they put in the addition to the shopping center. There's going to be more traffic. It's not disrespectful to the Lodge itself but there was a comment made by Mr. Davis, most of the time it would be after hours or weekend evenings. Stop and think for a minute. I'm not objecting to the entertainment or the social gatherings of the Lodge club or any other one for that matter but I don't believe it belongs right there in a solid residential community even if there are apartments or condominiums or homes. The comment was made by Mr. Davis, they're not sure yet. They may sell it and I don't doubt that you'll get good money if you were to sell it. The land around this whole area I don't believe any of it is selling for a loss. I'm in favor of keeping it low density, R-1. BRUESCH: I too am in favor of lower densities. I heard a couple of people saying that it would thwart their ability to develop their lots and get value out it that they were hoping for but if you noticed in most of the areas when you have these long lots or two of these long lots together and develope four or five homes on those lots those homes are going for $200,000-$250,000 now, in my own neighborhood down south. You look at the value of apartments or condos it, well first of all condos aren't moving very well right now but apartments don't outstrip that value that much. I have one reservation on this whole issue and that's the 22-unit apartment that would be nonconforming. My worry is that it has been stated at this Council many times that it becomes a difficulty to obtain a loan on a piece of property that is legal nonconforming. What I'm worried about on that apartment is that should it deteriorate over the years will they be able to get financing to upgrade that apartment to the standards of the neighborhood and I kind of ask this of the Planning Department or the City Attorney, one of the two. GARY CHICOTS, Director of Planning: Many times banks and savings and loans call the City inquiring about whether or not property is conforming or nonconforming. Typically, nonconforming property they just don't get as much of a loan as a conforming piece of property. Typical single family house in appropriate zone they can get 80% or 90% loan; on a nonconforming piece it would be 500 or 60%. BRUESCH: In your experience seeing apartments, R-3 apartments in R-1 zones, what is the upkeep on those? Do you generally see them maintain the standards of the neighborhood or do they deteriorate? CHICOTS: It's really a function of the property owner and the neighborhood. Some of the apartment buildings in well established neighborhoods are maintained well and those in areas of transition are not. There's no real clear evidence because they're nonconforming that they don't maintain them. BRUESCH: I'd feel a lot stronger about this whole issue if that one piece of property were included in the POD so it would not be nonconforming for two reasons. Were it to be destroyed by any earthquake or fire the dollar loss to that piece of property would be tremendous. I know the question about spot zoning. There is not a contiguous line on that piece of property. What about that spot zoning, Mr. Kress? It would be considered? KRESS: I think you've spotted the issue. It certainly is problematic. It is with any area if you're trying to change from X to Y or from Y to X. Not uncommon. CC 5-8-90 Page #8 • • TAYLOR: I'd like to take a little more optimistic attitude. If that one property is in a decent area which I believe it is and I know it is it shouldn't deteriorate. We have a code enforcement policy, a rehab board, specially where landlords if they're abusing the tenants and not keeping the property up we already have that board operating now. If the earthquake did come it wouldn't make a difference what type of building was there they would all be affected by the earthquake but then all of a sudden the residents on each side are going to be faced possibly with an office building in the middle of them. By making it all one zone the current owner is a legal nonconforming use entitled to all benefits to that property at the present time but it does eliminate making it a very specific spot zone if it's not included in it. I think it would be a mistake to leave one single property on the street a particular zone. IMPERIAL: In listening to this conversation it brought back memories of a few others we've had and one of them was the change of the R-2 zone where we required more footing for a second dwelling. I can appreciate the feelings of Mrs. Joseph, Mrs. Goodwin, on your anticipation for that property and not being able to reach that level of anticipation. I went through this when I had to search my soul seeing what was happening to Rosemead and the trend we had in the same direction as Monterey Park, overpopulation. I had to search my soul and say am I going to look out for my piece of property or am I going to do what is right for this City. I was one of the people who pushed the R-2 change and by doing this, this piece of R-2 property I had which I had anticipated putting a rental dwelling to supplement me in my retirement which I did in January was part of my main plan. But I had to realize what I had to do was right for the City so therefore I pushed for the R-2 zone and by doing that rendered my property useless for R-2 so I know the feeling. We have to get back to what is best for the City. In the last few years we watched the neighborhoods, we watched condos go in where there was one house maybe where there used to be 2 cars there's 14 now, the impact on the sewer system, the impact on the Sheriff's department, the Fire department, you name it, the schools. It impacts every phase of our life in this City of Rosemead. With that in mind, I can sincerely say that we don't need any more condos, we don't need any more apartments, we need single family dwellings to keep that density down. I also would like to say, and as I expressed I was a member of the Moose Lodge, the Moose Lodge was looking for a piece of land to build a new lodge. They want to build that lodge in the best possible place and stay within Rosemead and found that piece of land that was for sale by this City. They bought that land off of the City and anticipated putting a lodge there. I was part of the Lodge then as I am now and we all went out tried to make some money trying to get this thing built and ran into problems. I don't think it's right that this parcel should have been included in this move down to R-1 because I don't feel like a Moose Lodge would be any hindrance to that neighborhood down there based on it's surrounded by apartments and it's surrounded by the Montgomery Ward shopping center. If you'll take a look at the history of the Moose Lodge, they have created no problem in this City. If you look at that history further you'll find out they've done a lot of good and there's a lot of hardworking people in that Lodge. I would like to see thing given back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration on the Moose Lodge plot part of it but I do believe that we should stick to the R-1 zone in the rest of it. MCDONALD: Any further discussion? FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: Mr. Mayor. What we may suggest this evening is that...... McDONALD: Do I have a motion? IMPERIAL: The motion, Mr. Mayor, is to refer this back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration on the Moose Lodge portion of this. I'm in favor of the rest of it being done. McDONALD: Do we have a second on that? Motion fails for lack of second. Do I have a new recommendation or motion? CC 5-8-90 Page #9 • • TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'd make the motion that we approve the R-1 change. KRESS: Mr. Mayor. The motion would be to waive reading in full and introduce Ordinance No. 662, then there will be a companion action of a resolution. McDONALD: We have a motion to introduce. Do we have a second? I second it. IMPERIAL: Raise to a point of information. In the fraternity, what is that 1177 or 79 Gary of the Code, couldn't this Moose Lodge be designated in that area which would make it exempt from this? CHICOTS: Councilman Imperial. You're referring to a section in the Code that lists Moose Lodges as permitted in the POD zone provided that they get a conditional use permit. That's where it's currently listed. BRUESCH: Could they get a conditional use permit under that provision? CHICOTS: In the POD zone. TRIPEPI: Not in the R-1 zone. CHICOTS: If it gets changed to R-1 they would not be allowed to apply there. McDONALD: Any further discussion? We have a motion and a second to introduce the ordinance. Please vote. END VERBATIM DIALOGUE The following ordinance was presented to the Council for introduction: ORDINANCE NO. 662 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PO-D TO R-1 FOR PROPERTY BOUNDED BY MARSHALL STREET, HART AVENUE, GLENDON WAY, AND LINDA LEE STREET (ZC 90-171) MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR McDONALD that ordinance No. 662 be introduced on its first reading and that reading in full be waived. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch No: Imperial Absent: DeCocker Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Imperial stated that he was in favor of the R-1 zone but was not in favor of not sending this back to the Commission for reconsideration on that piece of property that the Moose Lodge owns and did not require the ordinance to be read in full. CC 5-8-90 Page #10 • CI III.LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 90-23 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 90-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $411,266.70 NUMBERED 29603-29713 AND 28966 THROUGH 29005 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR McDONALD that Resolution No. 90-23 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. B. RESOLUTION NO. 90-24 - SUPPORTING THE DESERT PROTECTION ACT VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: IMPERIAL: I intend to vote against this resolution because as far as I'm concerned this can have far reaching implications. If there was a much needed project that had to be done in the desert and it would create no environmental impact I don't see a problem with it. Secondly, we're sitting here making decisions for desert communities and we don't know their problems. I know some people in desert communities and I've talked to them and they have a problem with this resolution. I just wanted to point that out that this could be another one like the lottery where we want to fix the school system and fix nothing. Thank you. BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. I, too, know people in the desert who are in favor of this due to the fact that one of the reasons why they moved to the desert was to enjoy the expanses of the great outdoors. Their opinion is that the expanse of the outdoors has been overtaken by motorized vehicles. Basically we're setting up three new National Parks in the desert area, the majority of which are already either State Parks or National Monuments. Somebody mentioned the fact that if this went through, half of California would be government owned. In the west, that's the norm; seven-eighths of Nevada is government owned, two-thirds of New Mexico and Arizona are government owned. I think in early years of the century Teddy Roosevelt said it best when he said we. have to preserve our great west for those generations which follow us. This is a step toward preserving a unique environment which has weak, regenerative powers so much so that some of the areas that are overrun right now will not regenerate, will never be what they used to be. So, I intend to vote in favor of this. TAYLOR: I was going to vote no on it but I'm going to definitely vote no from what Mr. Bruesch said. Did you say that in Nevada they own seven-eigths of it and how much in New Mexico? BRUESCH: Two-thirds. Now remember those figures refer to Bureau of Land Management lands which are publicly held but privately used; national forest lands which are publicly held but privately used; military bases; Indian reservations; and water rights owned by the government. This is what's all included in that. TAYLOR: It's a great country, I'll never deny that. But this booklet, and I didn't bring mine with me, but in the back of it is shown the three areas mapped out and there's a scale in there and it appears to be about 40 miles wide and a hundred something miles long. That's from Mt. Wilson to the Long Beach harbor which is maybe 35 miles and it's all the way to San Diego which is 116 miles and it doesn't show in relationship on the State map the other National CC 5-8-90 Page #11 TAYLOR CONTINUES: forests that we have and I'm not against the National forests in general it's all the bureaucracy and hassle that you have to go through to even use those rights that you referred to and if you don't know somebody or you can't buy your way through it or you're not a giant corporation you usually don't get anything back. But I was amazed when you said 7/8 of Nevada and 3/4 of New Mexico so I intend to vote no on it. IMPERIAL: Point of information. Mr. Bruesch, you said it was impacted by automobiles: If they build these three state parks how are you supposed to get in, by pack mule or bicycle? BRUESCH: No, 30,000 miles of roads remain within the area. Enough to go around the earth one a half times. IMPERIAL: It's still going to be impacted by automobiles, then is what you're saying. BRUESCH: Certain areas are going to be set aside as wilderness areas which will not be accessible by autos, by all terrain vehicles. Yes, there are areas that will be protected. There are certain areas where endangered species reside will be far removed from accessibility by paved roads. But otherwise 30,000 miles of usable roads, meaning vehicle routes, which means paved, unpaved, dirt, would be available for everybody's use. This is a reduction of about, I believe, 230 from the areas that are now accessible by vehicles. IMPERIAL: All right. Thank you. McDONALD: Do I hear a motion? JAMES CLARK, 3109 N. PROSPECT AVENUE: I was born and raised in the desert and I love it. We were just out last weekend and had a great time out there. My family's lived in the desert for 60 years and I know a lot of people out there and I've hearda lot of really good thinkers who respect the desert as much as I do and love it really in opposition to this bill, not in opposition to the principle of preserving the desert because people do go out in these off-road vehicles and do tremendous damage and there's no question that it's not a big toy to destroy. But it's my understanding of a good many of the residents do not want the government control and this particular act they feel does not respect the residents and the pioneers that have lived there and severely limits the legitimate use of the desert and they're not just crack pots. I feel that their wishes should be respected. There was no kind of vote of the residents of the area. It's an imposed, impacted program by the Federal government. It takes tremendous amounts of the desert and takes it away from private use altogether and I just felt that those people ought to be represented and I just have feeling for them, so that's my input. BRUESCH: I just want to say the reasoning behind my strong support of this is I too was a person who went out on the desert. I was a four-wheeler for a long time. I had a vehicle to go out along the river beds. But it became increasingly clear to me the numerous times that my campsite was ransacked and ran over by wheeled vehicles. I even had my water stolen out in the desert. After repeated requests of the Sheriff and the police out in that area I said to make an investigation I was told by one Sheriff out in Anza Borego that there's no way to control such a vast area, to protect someone who camps out in these desert areas, you're on your own out there. And therefore for the last six or seven years I haven't gone camping there because I don't want to subject the young people I take out there or myself to the marauding sense of devil may care that permeates the people that are out there. So, I really am strongly in favor of setting aside certain areas where we can go where we can at least have a modicum of protection, where we can take our walks or strolls and not worry about having our camps ransacked. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I think that Mr. Clark and we're expressing up here, the concept is great, the idea to preserve it and such. But also as Mr. Bruesch made the comment that there's no way that they can protect individuals in that type of an area where it is so big and I CC 5-8-90 Page 412 TAYLOR CONTINUES: made the illustration, 40 miles wide and a 100 miles long, when you stop and think for a minute, that's 4,000 square miles just for the one area that they have and we look at it as outsiders you might say and gee it's a nice area to go and a nice area to preserve it but Mr. Clark was right, again. It's the restriction of the land owners within the area that we really don't have the insight to. I was right up there in the National Forest at Mt. Pinos which has been the National Forest for I don't know how long and my brothers and I were hunting up there and you could hardly see the Jeep, you could make out somebody sitting on the hood of it, riding down the hillside but the nuts are all over and they fired the rifle and I was sitting on the boulder there and I know now what a bullet sounds like when it whizzes past you. And I haven't been back since just because those kinds of jerks are riding around up there just in the National Forest, they're still there. So, what we're thinking of is the pleasures of using it and we're in favor of that but the other side of the coin is just what kind of governmental restrictions goes on all that property. That's what I'm opposed to. That's why I intend to vote no on it. BRUESCH: My feeling is who do you restrict? Do you restrict those people who are the owners of it or do you restrict the people who wish to use it by actually having those crazies out there? TAYLOR: They're going to be there anyway, Bob. You'll never get rid of them. It's like the little boy who got shot down at McDonald's in a civilized area. MCDONALD: Okay, let's go on with this, gentlemen motion? BRUESCH: I'll so move. McDONALD: I'll second it. Please vote, gentlemen. Yes: McDonald, Bruesch No: Taylor, Imperial Absent: DeCocker Abstain: None This motion was not carried. Do we have a C. ORDINANCE NO. 661 - PROHIBITING ARCADE DEVICES IN LIQUOR STORES - ADOPT The following ordinance was presented to the Council for adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 661 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AMENDING THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING ARCADE DEVICES IN LIQUOR STORES MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that ordinance No. 661 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. D. RESOLUTION NO. 90-25 - IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 111, THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF AND SPENDING LIMITATION ACT OF 1990 AND PROPOSITION 108, THE PASSENGER RAIL AND CLEAN AIR BOND ACT OF 1990 Margaret Clark, 3109 N. Prospect Avenue, was opposed to increasing the tax on gasoline and to lifting the Gann spending limit. CC 5-8-90 Page 413 Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, concurred with Ms. Clark and the lifting of the spending limit. Mayor McDonald noted that twenty-two cities are exceeding or approaching their Gann limit. Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that Rosemead is far below its Gann limit. Councilman Taylor was opposed to raising the Gann spending limit. Councilman Bruesch preferred to consider this proposal as a user fee rather than a method of taxing. Mr. Bruesch noted that California pays the least tax on gasoline of any State but uses almost one-third of the gasoline in the Country. Councilman Imperial was opposed to any more taxes. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that the Council not support Resolution No. 90-25 because it would tend to undermine the Gann Initiative. It was noted that a "YES" vote would be to deny support. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Imperial No: None Absent: DeCocker Abstain: Bruesch The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Bruesch noted the reason for his abstention was his conviction that saying no implied a reluctance to address the traffic situation. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-A ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER EASEMENT AT 8056 EMERSON PLACE CC-B TEMPLE STATION REQUEST FOR CONTRIBUTION TO TEENAGE DRIVER SAFETY AWARENESS PROGRAM MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, 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. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION - None VI. STATUS REPORTS - None VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. REQUEST FROM COMMISSIONER MATTERN FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the Council reappoint Commissioner Mattern for a two-year period. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: DeCocker Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 5-8-90 Page #14 B. SHERIFF DEPARTMENT LOGS Councilman Taylor requested that the monitoring continue and asked for a detailed report regarding a shooting incident last weekend on Earle Avenue. C. COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL 1. Requested an update on the Valley Boulevard reconstruction project. 2. Asked for a status report on the proposed recreation center and low income housing. 3. Requested a position paper regarding giving citation authority to the Code Enforcement officers to free the Sheriff's deputies from that task. D. COUNCILMAN BRUESCH 1. Asked the status of the business inventory. 2. Asked for pending graffiti prevention legislation (SB 3580 (Katz), SB 1977 (Kopp), and SB 1109) to be on the next agenda. VIII.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, requested the status of low-cost, mandatory earthquake insurance. 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 May 22, 1990, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: APPROVED: 16-4 C y Clerk MAYOR CC 5-8-90 Page #15