Loading...
CC - 12-12-89APPROVED CITY OF ROSEMEAD MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING DAT ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 12, 1989 BY The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead city council was called to order by Mayor McDonald at 8:06 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 Pastor Wilfred Su of the First Evangelical San Gabriel Valley Church. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmen Bruesch, DeCocker, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Imperial, and Mayor McDonald Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 28, 1989- REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 28, 1989, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, Bruesch No: None Absent: None Abstain: McDonald, Imperial The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. PRESENTATIONS: A Proclamation honoring the Southern California Rapid Transit District was accepted by Pomona Councilwoman Nell Soto on behalf of Director Storing. Councilwoman Soto thanked the Council for its support. The Council also presented a City Plaque to Lt. Volker Niewisch of the Temple Sheriff's Station on the occasion of his promotion to Chief of Detectives. Lt. Niewisch thanked the Council and introduced his replacement, Lt. Jack Miller. I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Dan Bender, representing a group called Safe Alternatives to Fruitfly Eradication (SAFE), asked the Council's support of efforts to use methods other than spraying to control the infestation. Mayor McDonald directed staff to investigate such alternatives and requested a copy of the information from Mr. Bender. B. Margaret Simmons, a resident of Monrovia, stated that she was a victim of malathion poisoning. C. Margaret Clark, 3109 N. Prospect Avenue, was concerned with the malathion residue left on lawns and the effects it might have on children and presented copies of an article on the subject. D. Mary Redd, representing the senior citizens from the Zapopan lunch program, asked when the program would return to Zapopan Center. Ms. Redd reported that since being transferred to the Community Center lunch program, there is a problem with the catering firm consistently having insufficient amounts of food and many seniors cannot travel to the Center. CC 12-12-89 Page #1 f 0 Mayor McDonald requested that staff gather the numbers of persons who are currently using the lunch program, determine alternative methods of catering including in-house or City subsidizing if necessary, and present this information on the next Agenda. Mayor McDonald recognized the students from Rosemead and Mark Keppel High Schools who were in attendance. 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 TONY CHUNG FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OFF-SITE SALE OF BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MINI-MARKET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3365 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, ROSEMEAD (CUP 89-475) The Mayor opened the public hearing. Tony Chung, representing Tony's Mini-Market, asked the Council to grant this request. Mr. Chung noted that over 300 people had signed petitions in favor of this request, that the church was not opposed to this CUP, and that traffic would not be impacted. Speaking in opposition was Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, noted the proximity of the school and the church. Mary Redd was opposed because of the number of senior citizens living in the area. In rebuttal, Mr. Chung reiterated that there had been no opposition from the church and that there are schools everywhere.' Mr. Chung asked the Council to consider the letters and petitions in favor of his market. There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Councilman Bruesch noted an excessive amount of Alcoholic Beverage Commission (ABC) licenses in that census block, already, adding that it's a sad situation when a market has to sell alcohol in order to make a profit. Mayor McDonald stated the city's position on the prolific sale of alcoholic beverages in the City and that there are too many, now. Councilman DeCocker noted that this location was too close to a residential area, across from a church, and would add to the traffic congestion. Mayor Pro Tem Imperial stated that too many stores selling alcohol is bad for the City. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. Mayor McDonald noted that a "YES" vote would be to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so noted. 12-12-89 Page #2 B. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE WHICH AMENDS THE OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHURCHES, SCHOOLS AND CHILDCARE CENTERS The Mayor opened the public hearing and there being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Councilman Bruesch was concerned with existing facilities that might remodel. Gary Chicots, Planning Director, responded that only the addition would be covered under the new regulations; not the existing facilities. Mayor Pro Tem Imperial stated that this ordinance did not solve the existing problems, citing a problem with parking near his home which is adjacent to a church. Mayor McDonald noted that this ordinance would prevent problems in the future. Councilman Taylor asked that staff be directed to contact all the churches in the City regarding alternating their services and requesting that the parishoners use the on-site parking that is provided rather than parking on the streets. Councilman DeCocker stated the need for this ordinance and that it could have been more restrictive, stating a preference for one parking space for every three people instead of the one space for every four people that was being recommended. The following ordinance was presented to the Council for introduction: ORDINANCE NO. 654 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AMENDING THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHURCHES, TRADE AND PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS, AND CHILD-CARE CENTERS MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that Ordinance No. 654 be introduced on its first reading and that reading in full be waived. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, No: None Absent: None Abstain: None McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER that ordinance No. 654 be introduced and amended to provide one parking space for every three persons. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch No: Imperial Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Imperial stated that this ordinance did not go far enough and should apply to existing facilities. Staff was directed to contact all the churches in the City as previously discussed. CC 12-12-89 Page #3 III.LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 89-69 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89-69 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $235,610.22 NUMBERED 28642-28662 AND 26759 THROUGH 26843 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that Resolution No. 89-69 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, No: None Absent: None Abstain: None McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor requested a memo explaining Check No. 28644, amount of $1,472.60, regarding the differences in the amounts of the premiums. B. RESOLUTION NO. 89-68 - PROHIBITING HARASSMENT IN THE WORK PLACE The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION 89-68 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ADOPTING A POLICY PROHIBITING HARASSMENT IN THE WORK PLACE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that Resolution No. 89-68 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. C. RESOLUTION NO. 89-70 - REQUESTING SERVICES FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1990 The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89-70 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL, 10, 1990 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the Council adopt Resolution No. 89-70. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None CC 12-12-89 Page #4 The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. D. RESOLUTION NO. 89-71 - CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1990 The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89-71 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1990, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that Resolution No. 89-71 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. E. RESOLUTION NO. 89-72 - URGING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT OF 1988 The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89-72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD URGING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ANTI-DRUG ABUSE ACT OF 1988 TARGETING THE RESOURCES MADE AVAILABLE UNDER THE ACT TO THOSE AREAS WHICH HAVE INDICATED THE GREATEST NEED INCLUDING LOS ANGELES COUNTY Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, was opposed to this resolution, stating that it was a waste of money and that the chemicals used to make cocaine should not be allowed to be shipped out of the Country. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the Council adopt Resolution No. 89-72 and send copies to the United States Attorney General, the Director of the National Office of Drug Control Policy, and to Congressman Matthew Martinez. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, No: None Absent: None Abstain: None McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. F. ORDINANCE NO. 655 - ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY BUILDING CODE - ADOPT VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: McDONALD: III. F. - Ordinance No. 655, adopting by reference the Los Angeles County Building Code. DeCOCKER: Move the approval. IMPERIAL: Second. CC 12-12-89 Page #5 BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. McDONALD: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Bruesch, did you have a question? BRUESCH: Yes, I have a couple of questions. On Page 3, and I direct this to staff, on Page 3, excuse me, on Page 2(s), Neglect or maintenance of property in condition, it's added to Title 26, Section 9905 of the LA Code. What is that section referred to? Is that the penalty section? Because we were just discussing this very.... JIM GUERRA, DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL: It's a change in the substandard conditions. We have now added graffiti as a substandard condition. This gives the City the opportunity on those owners that do not wish to participate in our graffiti removal that would allow us to go on the property, cite them for graffiti, and ultimately have it removed at their expense if they choose not to participate in our program. BRUESCH: I'd like to have a copy of this because I want to see what the way of going about abating this. Again, we have this problem of unsightliness and what is a graffitied wall and so forth and so on. I'd like to see what they're working under under this. So, if I could get a copy of that. On Page 3..... FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: Unintelligible BRUESCH: ....I realize that, all I want is just a copy of the Section 9905, Title 26, okay? ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: Chapter 99 is what the Rehabilitation Appeals Board works with. That's your basic authorization chapter is within the Building Code and this is just adding another criteria for substandard properties. BRUESCH: Again, for my own information I'd like to have a copy of that. On Page 3, twice, we refer to Rosemead and once we refer to Agoura Hills. I think that's a typo. TRIPEPI: What we have ...you were handed this evening a corrected copy (unintelligible). GUERRA: On Page 3 and Page 9 our word processing machine..... BRUESCH: On Page 5, Number 8, amended deleting references to the following standards. Are these being deleted because they're now considered toxics or are they deleted because they're replaced by other..... GUERRA: The current Building Code does not allow the use of PVC within the dwelling. The County basically cleaned up its Ordinance by eliminating the standard references that were in the Code. They found that it was misleading on one section to prohibit PVC within the house and yet have the standard Code refer to the standards for PVC. BRUESCH: The question that I have is because I see this being sold all the time to homemakers that are doing their own home repairs. Is that being sold illegally, now? GUERRA: No. Uniform Plumbing Code does not prohibit the use of PVC. It prohibits the use of PVC within a dwelling. So, it is still permitted under the Code in certain instances not within the dwelling for potable water. So, it's being sold but it has to be used outside the dwelling. BRUESCH: I would think a lot of people would be using it inside. GUERRA: Yes, sir. But not under permit. If they do it under permit, at inspection we do turn it down. CC 12-12-89 Page #6 i • TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Another question in regards to the cover letter on this particular item. Second paragraph, it states "Formal adoption of the Building Code will take place in the first part of next year. By that time the County will have adopted the Code with all of the subsequent amendments and it will be available in its final edition." What are they making reference to there? What we're acting on here, tonight? GUERRA: Mr. Taylor, in response to that, we usually adopt the County Code by reference. At the point that we adopt it the County has assigned it its Ordinance Number, it has been codified and we simply pick it up by reference. Before you tonight, are the sections that are proposed for adoption by the County. It was our understanding from the State that if we didn't adopt these now under urgency, we wouldn't be able to adopt them at a later date. So, we've given them to you in this format. We would, per recommendation of the City Attorney, like to come back with a formal first and second hearing to replace this urgency adoption. At that time, we should be able to present to you a codified, County Code for adoption instead of the various amendments and papers that we have now. TAYLOR: I don't understand in the sense that we can't go back and adopt it. I.believe that any time we have, as a body, can adopt any existing ordinance or in this case here, the Code, the Building Code. KRESS: The problem is that the State Legislature shortened the window for the municipalities' adoption of the Uniform Building Code. The County wasn't able to complete the process after the Legislature shortened the time from one year to six months. The problem is that if you don't adopt this Ordinance and get it in effect by the end of the year, then the State law says that you can't make amendments to the Uniform Building Code. It is just deemed adopted and Rosemead does have a certain number of local amendments to the Code that we have made over the years and some that are made this evening, in this ordinance. That's the purpose; to preserve, as Mr. Guerra explained, to preserve that option by adopting an urgency ordinance to get it into effect by the end of the year per the State law requirements. Then we'll come back, hopefully in January, have first reading on a regular adoption process, public hearing for adoption by reference, and then formal second reading and adoption. This is the only way to do it. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'd like a memo from the City Attorney explaining it just the way that he did, in the sense I didn't realize that, it doesn't day anything in here unless I missed it, that we have to adopt this in order to be able to amend it, we're adopting it the way it's presented tonight. But I can go along with what he just said. That gives us the option of amending it at a later date? KRESS: No. Well.... TAYLOR: I'd like a memo on that. McDONALD: That's what you said, though. That we could amend it after.... KRESS: ....adopted formally. To get it into effect by the end of the year is preservation of your adoption.... TRIPEPI: Mr. Taylor. If I might because I had a difficult time understanding this when I.spoke with Mr. Guerra just a couple of days ago, if we don't adopt these amendments tonight, we cannot adopt any of these amendments to the Code after January 1st. Therefore, we are going to be precluded from customizing the Building Code to fit some of our independent and individual standards. That's in layman's terms, what we're doing. TAYLOR: Are we going to be able to amend any of these that are here tonight, that we're adopting? when it comes out in the final edition, after L.A. County adopts it? CC 12-12-89 Page 47 TRIPEPI: What we have put before you are..... I don't know why you'd want to delete or amend these because these are the things that we basically hold near and dear to us to make the Building Code fit in this community. If we don't adopt these by the end of the year we cannot later implement them into the uniform Building Code that's been adopted by the State and given to the County to adopt. TAYLOR: The State law preempts the local as far as they've made that very clear. McDONALD: No. I changed the Uniform Fire Code and we change the Uniform Building Code anytime we see fit, once we have already adopted it. We have to adopt within a year or now they changed it down to six months. In the City that I work, I change the Uniform Fire Code when I see that I've run into a problem with interpretation I pass an ordinance to.... have an ordinance passed to amend that section. That's what we're asking here, in this case, so that down the road we can amend it. That's what you kind of said but what you meant was actually we couldn't get these on board if we didn't pass it right now. KRESS: If you adopt this by the end of the year, then you still will have the opportunity to make amendments to the Building Code. As you may recall I sent you a memo, maybe two months ago, transmitting to you an Attorney General's opinion that very closely scrutinized the amendments to Uniform Codes..... McDONALD: And if you saw in that same article or a subsequent article, that the majority of cities in California have stricter requirements that the UBC and UFC and looking at the Attorney General's opinion, that's exactly what it is and they are working now on legislation to allow the local entity to change that. But that's where we are right now, between the opinion and the actual being able to do that. If we're looking for interpretation in some area and we want to specify that and say that the City may do this or may do that and we want to say that the City shall do this or the individual shall do that, we can change that down through the, in the interpretation, that's what he's asking ...can we amend it? KRESS: You can amend the Uniform Codes if you make the findings and the findings require that you address each particular amendment with a finding that says the amendment is necessary due to local climatic conditions. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. What we have presented to us tonight, in the packet, I have a question for Mr. Guerra. What you put up here, Mr. Guerra, is an ordinance amending Title 26 of the Los Angeles County. Is this the actual ordinance that they're going to adopt? GUERRA: Yes, it is. TAYLOR: It's sixty-four pages long and I noticed things in here that I didn't find reference to clarity, in what was given to us in our packet. That's one reason that I hate to.... the Building Code is fine, I'll go along with ninety-five percent of it. I have reservations about some of the smaller things. That's why I'm hesitant to just go ahead and adopt it on an emergency basis and then yet it says very clearly, that formal adoption of the Building Code will take place the first part of next year. By that time the County will have adopted the Code. Well, they haven't even adopted it yet, and we're adopting it under an emergency code, or ordinance. GUERRA: It's our best intention to adopt the latest draft copy that we had of the County proposals. The Exhibit A that was handed to you was the last thing that came down from County Counsel which will be going to the Board of Supervisors. It was scheduled for today, the 12th, it did not make agenda. The County has not scheduled it. The only assurances we have from the County is that they will adopt it by urgency sometime before the end of the year. I would believe Mr. Kress said if we adopt these changes to the County ordinance, have them in place, they could be modified at the public hearing once we CC 12-12-89 Page #8 GUERRA CONTINUES: have them under the Urgency ordinance, if there's anything in these changes that the County's adopting that we would want to modify and once we get them into the ordinance, under urgency, I believe we could. BRUESCH: Point of information. Why is it that we have to have it before December 31st? McDONALD: Because it's the State law. It's not really our responsibility to go through the Uniform Building Code and see that we scrutinize every little thing. We're just setting a policy for the adoption, here. What happens to be in this packet is something that our representative from our contract building folks say that ought to be in there and these are things that we've had in there for a number of years and some things that are changed because the 1988 Code, they change the Code every three years, so there's always something that's being changed. I don't think that we have any question in the packet and I think it's appropriate because of State law that we adopt it and they saw that this was the way because Los Angeles County is behind time so I think, as they say when it goes to a public hearing, we can change this if we find some major problems that don't sit right. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'd like to make a little comment in rebuttal to what you said. I work for the private sector and public agencies adopt we have over a million laws regulating the people of this Country. When you break it down into Federal, State, County, Cities, it's unbelievable but my point is that the public sector always foots the bill and we had a little discussion just on everyday activities.... McDONALD: Just one second, there. I'm in the public sector and I'm protecting the quality of life in a community. You're in the private sector looking for a profit. TAYLOR: No, sir. That's not the case. There's an interesting feature. I've had a good change to talk with a couple of public officials in other cities. I was amazed at some of the disclosures that came out. Take Proposition 13 for example. The first thing they said they're going to cut fire and police service. In other words, we'll teach the people to vote for something like this. Well, that didn't happen. I see it coming out again, now and when the fire and police, and I'm not saying this against you, Mr. McDonald in no way, I'm just trying to make a point, the fact was they go to the Councilmembers and they say "Okay, which one of wants to cut protection of your home or your neighbor's home?" It's like the insurance salesman that says "Well, your family's going to burn to death in their home. If you don't buy insurance you're not a good family member." There's a lot of things, and I said I agree with ninety-five percent of the Code, it is good, but that doesn't mean that it's a hundred percent perfect tool. There's a lot of excessive, tremendous cost that is imposed on people and I'm not even referring to the specific items in here. I just can't say that I will arbitrarily adopt a hundred percent of any code put forth. So, I have my reservations about this. The Council, it's certainly their prerogative, you have a motion and a second, to vote on this item but I'm not comfortable with it when I'm given a 64-four page follow-up document and it's under an emergency-type situation. I don't like to be railroaded into it, that's the only point I'm trying to make. McDONALD: I think what the City Attorney has already explained, though, his view is if we don't adopt it and we don't have another meeting before the end of the year, you're not going to have any amendments to the Code. TAYLOR: Okay, then I have no problem with that. I would just to put it in the minutes, verbatim, we're going to come back Mr. Guerra, can I keep this document you gave me? Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Mayor. You can call for the question. BRUESCH: Call for the question. CC 12-12-89 Page #9 McDONALD: Please vote, gentlemen. Yes: DeCocker, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. END VERBATIM DIALOGUE A five-minute recess was called and the meeting was reconvened accordingly. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC-C, CC-E, AND CC-K REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION) CC-A ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR THE ROSEMEAD HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - 35th BID PACKAGE CC-B AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK BIDS FOR DEFERRED LOAN AT 3340 N. EVELYN AVENUE CC-D ENGINEERING PROPOSAL FOR 1989-90 RESURFACING PROJECT ON VARIOUS STREETS CC-F ACCEPTANCE OF STREET EASEMENTS FOR FERN AVENUE (FALLING LEAF/SAN GABRIEL), NEWMARK AVENUE (FALLING LEAF/PINE) AND CHARLOTTE AVENUE (GARVEY/SOUTH END) CC-G ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR GRAFFITI REMOVAL SERVICES TO GRAFFITI REMOVAL, INC. CC-H ACCEPT BIDS AND AWARD CONTRACT FOR STREET SWEEPING SERVICES TO CALIFORNIA STREET MAINTENANCE CO. BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1990 CC-I SUPPORT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY'S POSITION ON THE MISSION RUSTIC SULLIVAN LANDFILL CC-J AGREEMENT WITH McGLADREY & PULLEN - SUPPLEMENTAL AUDITING SERVICES - MODERN SERVICE - DEFERRED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, DeCocker No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-C CONTRIBUTION TO AMERICAN RED CROSS RELIEF FUND - SAN GABRIEL VALLEY CHAPTER Mayor Pro Tem Imperial requested the amount of the $.25 increase in State sales tax that would be given to the Red Cross. Mayor McDonald explained that the local chapters are self-supporting and will not get any of that increase. Mr. McDonald added that because the normal contributors are designating their donations to the victims of the Hurricane Hugo and the San Francisco earthquake the monies for the local chapter are less than they would be otherwise. Councilman Taylor was concerned with government agencies financing community supported and sponsored organizations, fearing that individuals would no longer feel compelled to donate. CC 12-12-89 Page #10 Councilman Bruesch was in favor of supporting the Red Cross, stating that it is beneficial to everyone. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER that the Council appropriate $4,800 from the unappropriated reserves and sent to the West San Gabriel Valley Chapter of the American Red Cross. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Imperial requested that staff be directed to obtain a breakdown of the usage for the $.25 increase in the State sales tax and the breakdown-usage of this donation. CC-E COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE 1989-90 RESURFACING PROJECT ON VARIOUS STREETS Councilman Taylor stated that he would vote "NO" on this item. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER that the Council approve the agreement. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: Taylor Absent: None 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 many of the streets should have been done with City funding. CC-K HELLMAN AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY Councilman Taylor verified which of the streets would have restrictions added because of accidents in the area. Councilman Bruesch was concerned with visibility problems in certain locations where vans are parking close to the corners. Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that area could be customized, if necessary. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the City Council approve the Traffic Commission's recommendation to implement Alternative #1 of the Hellman Avenue Traffic Study. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION A. LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LOS ANGELES CELLULAR COMPANY AND THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD CC 12-12-89 Page #11 VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS McDONALD: Gentlemen, you have the packet of information before you. Mr. Taylor, you left before the gentleman had an opportunity to ask for that last time. I think we sent you a note that he had requested to come to reconsider and resubmit a contract that would, hopefully, alleviate any question that anybody had. Is there any question that somebody would like to direct to cellular, here? TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I don't really have any questions. The long-term intent is still going to the be the same result. I still intend to vote no on it. McDONALD: We went from a twenty-year to a five-year. Did you see that? TAYLOR: I know. But do you know the cost of that equipment? Once it's in it's the conditions are still there. So, I still have my reservations. McDONALD: Would anybody like to make a motion? BRUESCH: I make the motion that we approve the amended agreement. DeCOCKER: Second. McDONALD: We have a motion and a second to approve the amended agreement. Any further discussion? V-A, Juan, come on up. JUAN NUNEZ, 2702 DEL MAR AVENUE: I would like to ask a question. Five hundred feet. The interference. What kind of building would interfere with that antenna? ...None? Because you're talking about the park but at the same time you're involving the Rosemead School District and also the E1 Monte School District because that's almost at the end of the park coming west from Encinita and I measured that, not completely, but I believe it's about 460 feet up to that building if you come straight from the parking lot on Encinita, coming straight in, west, 460 feet probably to that building there. Probably another 50 feet up to the edge of the park where it boundaries with the school property. What if the school wanted to add to their property? Would that interfere with some of this? McDONALD: We don't have much to say about what a school wants to do on their property. NUNEZ: I know. But you're putting the school in a position that if . they want to add, you will have to pay these people to relocate someplace else. KRESS: That's not correct. TAYLOR: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Point of clarification. Does it not state in there that the City shall protect the interests within that 500-foot radius of whatever has to be done to protect that cellular system? And we shall participate in granting those approvals. NUNEZ: I believe it does. McDONALD: Los Angeles County has all the control over the school sites. TAYLOR: No, no, no. Within that 500-foot radius. If someone wants a permit within that area and is required to get a permit, I interpret this as saying that we will protect their interests. McDONALD: There's nobody within 500 feet that needs a permit. The school doesn't pull permits from us. MR. VRANEK, L.A. CELLULAR TELEPHONE: Excuse me. Mr. Taylor, we'd be willing to strike that. CC 12-12-89 Page #12 McDONALD: He's willing to strike that, also. NUNEZ: He's going to strike that? As I mentioned we had the problem over here in the Alhambra School District where now..... McDONALD: He's taken care of that. We appreciate it. NUNEZ: Another thing. Should you agree to go with the 20-year that on the..... TRIPEPI: Five years, Juan. McDONALD: They changed that, too. NUNEZ: Five years but it'll be in five years increments to the twenty? TAYLOR: It has three more options. NUNEZ: Three more options that you have..... KRESS: No, no. That's incorrect. TAYLOR: What does it say? KRESS: There aren't any more options. TAYLOR: What does it say after the first five years? KRESS: It says the landlord and tenant may but are not required to agree to extend this lease after the five-year term upon such terms and conditions as may be mutually agreeable. There is no reference to.... TAYLOR: That's correct. This is the foot-in-the-door tactic. When they put in that kind of expense. In the first proposal they were forthright with it and said "Due to the expense of this tower this is what we need." So, however you cut it, it's in there. NUNEZ: This is what I.... TAYLOR: It's that simple. KRESS: For clarification I would also point out that the 500-foot discussion was already withdrawn before this evening. That was paragraph 9 which was deleted and replaced by the paragraph 9 that's stated in my memo. Thank you. McDONALD: I was just letting him clarify that. NUNEZ: Should the Council decide to vote for it, the majority, what are the limits, 360 square feet, of the building that they will be making or has that already been deleted, too, or what? To house their equipment? KRESS: The building's the same. NUNEZ: And then on this new agreement are they still going to expand? KRESS: No. They took that away the last meeting. NUNEZ: If you decide to go with it, will that building be left there, intact, for the City to use if the City finds that it's available to them to be usable, or have them tear it out and haul it away, themselves. McDONALD: The building goes. NUNEZ: It'll go. But if the City finds that it's advantageous to them to keep it will they be able to keep it if they wanted to? CC 12-12-89 Page #13 • VRANEK: I don't think the City would this specialized building, specially built for cellular equipment. TAYLOR: I'd like a clarification here. The comment was made that the 500-foot radius was dropped or the 500-foot..... McDONALD: You're looking at the old one. TAYLOR: Sure, I'm looking at the old one. But let's go back. Is this correct? The new December the 7th letter, here? KRESS: Yes. TAYLOR: All right. I want to read what it says now, "Number 9 - quiet enjoyment and landlord's non-intereference. Landlord and tenant agree that the present use of the property, present use of the property, surrounding the site, does not constitute an interference with tenant's proposed use," present use, not 20 years down the road, "So long as landlord utilizes the surrounding property for public park and recreation facilities tenant shall make no claim that such uses interfere with tenant's use as a communications facility." They took out the 500-foot requirement. That's inconsequential. They still have the present use for as long as they're there, has no conflict. Again, it's basically the same agreement. If we leave it as is, they're happy. NUNEZ: I thought that when I read it at the library, it was basically the same agreement and that's why I asking those questions that the Council is putting the school, is anything going to interfere with any of their equipment, there? I believe the school has a television station, or things like that? TAYLOR: Whatever they do, Mr. Nunez, it may or may not happen. The votes are here and we'll just have to express an opinion. NUNEZ: Will it interfere with any of the neighbors television signals or anything like that? VRANEK: Absolutely not. McDONALD: Gentlemen, we have a call for the question. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Yes: DeCocker, McDonald, Bruesch No: Taylor, Imperial Absent: None Abstain: None IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor. Let the record show the reasons for my "NO" vote is because I feel that after a five-year period if we tried to say that "No, we don't want this thing" we would have a hell of a time trying to prove our rights, in court, because of the amount of money that was invested. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. It was a short item. I'd like it in the minutes, verbatim, to correspond to the other verbatims that we had on it. McDONALD: Staff is directed to do so. END VERBATIM DIALOGUE VI. STATUS REPORTS - None VII.MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL 1. Asked the Planning Department to draft an ordinance restricting the use of compressed fiber woods used in two-story homes, requiring instead regular, strong flooring. CC 12-12-89 Page #14 Staff was directed to study the feasibility of such a change and if the building code could be legally amended. B. COUNCILMAN BRUESCH 1. Cited a continuing problem with westbound traffic on Marshall Street at Walnut Grove Avenue. Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that the Traffic Commission and Engineer will be asked to look at a three-phase signal at that location. 2. Requested a written policy regarding the purchase of recycled paper goods to be presented at the next meeting, stating that the City will purchase a certain percentage of recycled paper stock. Staff was directed to seek such a proposal. C. FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER 1. Announced that Rosemead's share of a recent drug seizure should total $67,000 that will be used for the law enforcement program. 2. Apologized for Exhibit A not having been included in ordinance No. 655. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, asked about the proposed law that would require mandatory earthquake insurance. Councilman. Taylor asked staff to research and report back at the next meeting. IX. CLOSED SESSION A. RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - 2563 KELBURN AVENUE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the Closed Session be waived and the Council approve the recommendation. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor asked clarification that the settlement would be the cash award plus the work on the property. Robert Kress, City Attorney, stated that was correct. There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. The next regular meeting scheduled for December 26, 1989, will not be held. Respectfully submitted: City Clerk cc 12-12-89 Page #15