Loading...
CC - 11-14-89• 0 APPROVED CITY OF ROSE EAD MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING DATE 9'2 - ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL BI NOVEMBER 14, 1989 The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor McDonald at 8:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman DeCocker. The Invocation was delivered by Pastor deJesus of the Love Gospel Fellowship. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmen Bruesch, DeCocker, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Imperial, and Mayor McDonald Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 10, 1989 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 10, 1989, be approved as submitted. 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 McDonald introduced Rosemead's new area representative from Southern California Gas Company, Maggie Zelada. I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, asked why the storm drain in Jackson Avenue had not been installed at the time Jackson Avenue was resurfaced, six years ago. 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 CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 10, 1989, TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM GENE-JAC, INC. FOR ZONE CHANGE CASE NO. 89-168 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-2 IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A MINI-MALL ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7411 HELLMAN AVENUE The Mayor declared the public hearing open. 1. Chuck Lockman, the Civil Engineer for Gene-Jac, Inc., presented an alternative building site but stated the applicant's preference for the original location that had been presented. 2. Kevin Smith, representing Gene-Jac, Inc., stated that if the mini-mall was not approved, an 11-unit apartment complex would be proposed for this site. Mr. Smith stated that apartments would be a more economical project for the applicant but that it was felt that this location was better suited to a commercial endeavor. Mr. Smith added that the original building location was preferred because building location affects the VACANCY rate of this type of center and relocating it toward the street would tend to increase the vacancy rate by decreasing the tenants' exposure from the street. Mayor Pro Tem Imperial ascertained that the types of tenants for the stores would be related to the Ingleside Hospital. CC 11-14-89 Page #1 • Councilman Taylor requested that a condition be added stating that no business would be open after 9:00 p.m. 3. Bernadine Andrews, 1425 Riviera Dr., Pasadena, stated that her mother-in-law lives adjacent to this project, is in favor of it and would prefer the building in its original location. 4. Arthur Andrews, 1425 Riviera Dr., Pasadena, concurred with Mrs. Andrews. 5. Leroy Young, 7533 E. Garvey Avenue, was opposed to this project and would prefer it be used as a parking lot. 6. Cleo Young, 7533 E. Garvey Avenue, was opposed to this project, stating that the City has too many mini-malls and another one would only compound the traffic situation. There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Councilman Taylor preferred the original location of the building. Councilman Bruesch preferred the alternate location of the building which would place the parking lot between the building and the neighbors. Councilman DeCocker, preferred the alternate location of the building. Mayor Pro Tem Imperial was opposed to any more mini-malls being allowed in the City but requested that if this project is approved that a condition would be added that no mini-markets would be allowed at this site. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR McDONALD that the Council approve the original location for the building. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, McDonald No: DeCocker, Bruesch, Imperial This motion was declared defeated and ALTERNATE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that alternate "c" for the location of the building be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch No: Imperial Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. The following ordinance was presented to the council for introduction: ORDINANCE NO. 651 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-3 TO C-3 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7411 HELLMAN AVENUE (ZC 89-168) MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER that ordinance No. 651 be introduced on its first reading and that reading in full be waived. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch No: None Absent: None Abstain: Imperial The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 11-14-89 Page #2 III.LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 89-65 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 89-65 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $975,972.40 NUMBERED 25124-25200 AND 26405 THROUGH 26642 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that Resolution No. 89-65 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. Councilman Taylor requested an explanation for Check No. 26451 to Ingleside and for Check Nos. 25125 and 25180 relating to the replenishment of the revolving account. B. ORDINANCE NO. 653 - PROHIBITING THE SALE OF MERCHANDISE AND EDIBLES FROM VACANT LOTS - INTRODUCE The following ordinance was presented to the council for introduction: ORDINANCE NO. 653 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AMENDING THE BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIREMENTS TO PROHIBIT SALES OF MERCHANDISE, OTHER THAN EDIBLES, FROM VEHICLES AND TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF MERCHANDISE AND EDIBLES FROM VACANT LOTS MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that Ordinance No. 653 be introduced on its first reading and that reading in full be waived. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, was concerned with the enforcement of this ordinance. Councilman Bruesch assured Mr. Nunez that this ordinance would be enforced. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC-D, CC-G, CC-K, and CC-L REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION) CC-A AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE AN ADVERTISEMENT IN LINCOLN TRAINING CENTER'S "AFFAIR OF THE HEART" PROGRAM CC-B CITY PARTICIPATION IN "SAY NO TO DRUGS" RUN CC-C AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY BY MONA MCKIERNAN CC-E REQUEST FOR SOLICITATION OF BIDS FOR ROSEMEAD HANDYMAN PROGRAM 35th BID PACKAGE CC 11-14-89 Page #3 CC-F AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY BY SIU AMY LEE CC-H AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE CASSETTE RECORDING SYSTEM FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS CC-I PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON OLNEY STREET CC-J PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON ROSE GLEN AVENUE CC-M SALARY ADJUSTMENT MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. 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 requested a copy of the police report in regard to cc-c, the claim filed by Mona McKiernan. CC-D CITY WIDE TRAFFIC STUDY Councilman Taylor stated his intention to vote "no" on this item, citing an objection to the use of curb lanes as driving lanes. Councilman Bruesch requested a study session to discuss the traffic study. Mayor McDonald noted that the study merely makes recommendations and that the council is not obligated to implement them. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the council accept and approve the Rosemead City-Wide Traffic Study and its Technical Appendix. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Bruesch requested that staff be directed to develop a three-year calendar of potential study sessions in order to implement some of the traffic mitigating measures. CC-G LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LOS ANGELES CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY AND THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, was concerned that the amount of monies that would be received would not offset the inconvenience that would be created by this installation. Councilman DeCocker was opposed to this lease because it appears to be of more benefit to L.A. Cellular instead of to the City of Rosemead and was concerned with a twenty-year duration. Mayor Pro Tem Imperial expressed the opinion that a twenty-year lease was too long. Councilman Taylor was concerned with the 500' radius requirement that would not allow the City to disturb the tower. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the City reject the request from L.A. Cellular Telephone and deny the installation of a tower. Vote resulted: CC 11-14-89 Page #4 0 Yes: DeCocker, No: Bruesch Absent: None Abstain: None • Taylor, McDonald, Imperial The mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Bruesch stated his "NO" vote reflects the opinion that towers such as this do not belong in the commercial or residential zones and that it would be least obtrusive in an open area. CC-K AWARD OF BID FOR STREET SWEEPING SERVICES VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: McDONALD: I wanted to make a comment on this. I think we may have a minor problem and I want Council to consider the situation here and I've talked to the City Attorney about. The bids went out with the stipulation that there was a five year experience and also a five city experience clause in it. What has happened is that when the bids came in, the number one bid is an individual company that only works for one City. There is a request to waive that condition of a five-city performance record so that we can allow the number one bidder to take the bid. Now, I think it seems a bit hinky if you set the conditions and then let everybody who meets those conditions apply and then somebody who doesn't meet those conditions applies and then we waive that condition and that one individual or two individuals or three individuals who don't meet those conditions, they have been waived and now they're a viable choice. I think, in talking to the City Attorney, that there is a possibility, maybe it's a remote possibility, that some company could come in here and say "Well, you precluded us from bidding on this because we thought you were going to hold to the conditions that you established and one of those conditions was a five-city thing." I'm throwing it out to the Council that I think it would be in our best interests that we go out to rebid again, so everybody has the same advantage except that those three that have bid knows what each other's bid is so they're going to be a little tighter than the rest of them but at least it will open it up to everybody with the same conditions. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. The second contractor is our current contractor, now? And he meets the criteria? FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: Yes, sir. He has more than five cities and he does meet the experience. IMPERIAL: But gives lousy service. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. That's something that I would like substantiated because I haven't seen the complaints. Now, if staff is not giving those to us then there's something wrong there. There have a couple of questions raised in the past. Mr. Nunez has brought up items and I have to say it's been four or five months since any information has come to my attention. Correct me if I'm wrong but where has this bad service record been given to the Council? TRIPEPI: Mr. Taylor. I think that what's being referred is not so much continuous bad service for the length of the contract. Staff is not playing hide a ball with any complaints. I think what we have, as the Council knows and we've advised the Council by memos up front, in the beginning we had major problems getting the contractor on-line, we had major problems getting a piece of equipment down here. I believe the day the piece of equipment arrived it broke down. We've had him behind schedule for some times a day at a time, actually off schedule. We've kept the Council informed of those. We didn't give stacks or lists of complaints by address because obviously when a PCO (Parking Control officer) calls in and says that the sweeper is down and not sweeping, they're letting us know that they're not writing parking cites and they can be reassigned to other areas. However, that is a major problem. That means on that particular day, however long it CC 11-14-89 Page 45 • 0 takes to get the sweeper back up, we're going to have people calling wanting to know where the street sweeper is. Also, once they fall out of that four-hour bracket that we have on the restriction of the parking signs, you can't cite for the cars that are back on the street and we shouldn't. The people have made an effort to move those cars and have been off for that four-hour block of time. Our major concerns about universal were in the beginning of the contract. I'd have to ask Mr. Stewart if the complaints have been excessive in the latter part of the contract. I don't believe they have because I'm sure he would have informed me of those problems and we would have, as in the past, advised the Council of those problems. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. And yet we're making almost the same recommendation to a new contractor, who is only doing one city, who has agreed to buy a new unit to supplement the City services if he gets the contract. This is the same situation that Universal did; they agreed to get a new sweeper if they got the contract. So, it's a repeat operation. I think we've got the bugs ironed out of it, so to speak, and I have to say that I belive the sweeping service has improved and is going at a good capacity. Correct me if I'm wrong. So, we now have a contractor on board who knows the City and we did have some problems with our two previous street sweepers before this. This isn't new, it's just the nature of the business. We've had problems with all of them. We have to monitor it. BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. The last meeting, when the specs went out, we had three comments about the needs, what we saw as needs of the changes in the request for proposals. One was the 5% cap and that was added in. There were two other ones, though. Comment somewhere about sweeping to the middle of the intersection and I did not see that. Is that in there? Is it included in language? But the other thing was the idea that when holidays, successive holidays, fall on the same day, particularly Christmas and New Year's, that it say they don't have to make up the sweeps on those which would mean that those streets would not be swept for three weeks, not two weeks. And that language wasn't put in the bid specs, either. DeCOCKER: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kress, what is our legal responsibility? To reject all bids at this time? ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: Well, that's an option. It's not the only option but it is an option. DeCOCKER: What's the other option? To accept the bids? KRESS: To accept one of the bids. TAYLOR: And not Community Disposal's because of the fact that they do not meet the requirements that we notified all the bidders. I agree we would be in serious conflict with the integrity of this Council if we put out specs and then arbitrarily say, "Well, we're going to give the new guy on the block a shot at it." And the very next item, that I also pulled, is calling for a five-year service of being in the industry. So, we can't arbitrarily just pick and choose. KRESS: The problem is not the five years and the track record, it's that it got doubled up. It's five years plus five cities. And when you add that five cities' restriction you're substantially reducing the number of companies that could respond and that's the issue. McDONALD: Mr. Kress, if we opened it up for rebid again, they know each other's bids. We might get a lower bid. DeCOCKER: I move that we reject all bids, waive the five-year and the five-city requirements. KRESS: Well, I think you want to keep something akin to five years so that you don't get someone who simply has the cash to go out and buy a street sweeper and declare themselves to be a street sweeper. CC 11-14-89 Page #6 0 • DeCOCKER: Well, he may be a good one. It's like going out and trying to find a job. You can't have a job in my company unless you have five years experience. Where do I get my five years experience? TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. He does have a motion. If he doesn't have a second, I'd like to make another motion. McDONALD: Okay. Mr. Imperial, you wanted to make a comment? IMPERIAL: Yeah. I went through this the last time and I heard a comment that the last two sweepers were a problem. I can remember a lot of problems. But the last two were not problems. As far as I'm concerned, R.F. Dickson did a good job. The reason they're not sweeping for us today is because we adhered to the policy of the lowest bidder and that has gotten us in trouble in this thing more than once. I think that we had something that worked and we decided to try something else and had a lot of problems. Maybe this individual that is doing our streets right now has gotten better but that doesn't mean that he is going to be able to handle the City and do what we want him to do. My suggestion is that we eliminate that five-city clause which will open it up for more bidders to come in that felt like they were eliminated because we had that clause and put it out to bid again. Then maybe, I myself, hope that R.F. Dickson can come in with a bid we can accept because as far as I'm concerned, and Frank, you can bear me out in this, yes or no, that they did an excellent job for us. We didn't have any problems, to speak of. Am I correct? TRIPEPI: They did provide a good service. IMPERIAL: That's all. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. BRUESCH: I'm a little bit worried about going out to bid. I'll express this as a question to our City Attorney. Are we jeopardizing our positions by cancelling all bids and going out; will somebody come back and say "Well, gee, they had unfair advantage. They know what we could do." KRESS: I suppose that can realistically stated. I don't think it's a basis for a lawsuit. If you determine that due to this ambiguity, the policy issue of whether the five and five is a reasonable restriction, if you decide on that basis to reject all bids and rebid it, it's a new ballgame. BRUESCH: What I'm saying is that the five and five only applies to one of these three bidders. The other two complied with that, if I'm not mistaken. What I'm worried about is the other two coming back and saying "Gee, you know, why go out to bid just for specific use of one particular company that happened to underbid us." I really, really feel fearful that we might be opening ourselves up a legal can of worms. IMPERIAL: That's what we're already doing, Mr. Bruesch. McDONALD: Let's go back to Bob DeCocker. Bob, you made a motion to begin with and that was what? DeCOCKER: That we reject all bids and eliminate the five-year, five-city requirements. You may find somebody out there that has three year's experience and they didn't submit a proposal because of the five-year, five-city. IMPERIAL: I'll second that motion, Mr. Mayor. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'd like to make a motion that we table that motion and make a substitution motion to accept Universal Sweeping Services and we can get our house in order for the next bid. McDONALD: I think we have a first and a second on the first motion. CC 11-14-89 Page #7 0 TAYLOR: Motion to table takes precedent over that motion. McDONALD: Do we have a second on the motion to table? BRUESCH: I'll second the motion to table. Yes: Taylor, Bruesch No: DeCocker, McDonald, Imperial McDONALD: Motion to table defeated. We still have a motion on the floor. TAYLOR: No, you need to go back to Mr. Decocker's. McDONALD: Mr. DeCocker made the motion that we throw out the bids, rebid and throw out the five-city, five-year. IMPERIAL: My second remains. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. What are the new bidding requirements going to be? You're throwing something out but what are you going to substitute it with? What is this City going to substitute it with? BRUESCH: Basically, we're saying that they need no prior experience, at all. It could be a brand new company. McDONALD: Mr. DeCocker, why don't we live reasonably with the five years experience? TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'm going to vote "NO" on that because what we have done we can require contractors to submit references to this City. The next item is along the same line; we're saying the graffiti contractor must have five years and this contract, they have to have municipal service. Let me ask you a question. How in the world could a new, qualified businessperson ever come to the City of Rosemead if he went out and bought ten sweepers, if he had the money to do that, he might be crazy to go into the sweeping business but if he bent over backwards, all we would have to do is cancel the contract for poor service, which we can do at any time. But I'm leaning towards eliminating these phrases as far as municipal services because that excludes all private business, so to speak until somewhere, and most cities are adopting these clauses, so it becomes a very select group that goes from city to city getting these contracts and they freeze out all the new people in the market. So, I think it's a reasonable suggestion that we do away with the restrictions and simply check their recommendations where they're in business and how they've been performing. McDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mr. DeCocker, why don't we just stick with the five years experience? I think we need something like that. We need something to rely on. DeCOCKER: Then you're down to two people. If you leave that requirement in there then it goes out to bid, again. McDONALD: Right. We're taking your suggestion, throwing the bids out, throwing out the five cities but leaving in the five years, so that at least they have some municipal service that we can live with. DeCOCKER: I'll buy that. IMPERIAL: I'll accept that. BRUESCH: You have to put that in the form of an amendment. McDONALD: In the form of an amendment, he made his motion to that effect, Mr. Imperial has accepted it as the second, the amendment. Any further discussion? Okay, what we're voting on is that we throw out the bids.... CC 11-14-89 Page #8 0 0 KRESS: Reject all bids, instruct staff to rebid this contract with the deletion of the five-cities clause on experience on Page #4 of the specs. McDONALD: If there's no further discussion, gentlemen, please vote. TAYLOR: You're deleting the five-cities experience. TRIPEPI: Correct. KRESS: Keeping the five years in place. TAYLOR: Experience in any capacity or in any service. Private business.... KRESS: Municipal street sweeping experience is what it reads. TAYLOR: Okay, then I'm voting "NO" on it. You exclude the free marketplace, is what you do. KRESS: Well, just to be devil's advocate, I'd have to say that sweeping parking lots with no cars is not really the same as handling a City with all the routes and restrictions and meeting all the traffic problems that the City Manager was discussing. This City has, over the years that I've been here, taken street sweeping very seriously and if Juan or someone comes to the podium and complains, that's given the highest priority. I really question whether or not you want to take someone who has no municipal street sweeping experience and whose only qualification is the lowest bid. McDONALD: Gentlemen, we have a motion and a second on the floor. If there's no further discussion, please vote. Yes: DeCocker, McDonald, Imperial No: Taylor, Bruesch TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I would like you to direct staff to contact the cities in the San Gabriel valley here to make sure that those street sweeping businesses are notified and use our Yellow Pages and give me a list of the street sweepers that are in the Yellow Pages and when this goes out to bid, I think we're going to be surprised. McDONALD: Staff is directed to comply with Mr. Taylor's request. BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. I'd like to explain my "NO" as being, again to reiterate my fear that I feel that we've prejudiced ourselves by changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game for the benefit of one bidder. I really don't think that's fair to all bidders. McDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Bruesch. TAYLOR: The suggestion's been made and I'll go along with it that we have that conversation in the Minutes, verbatim. McDONALD: That'd be fine END VERBATIM DISCUSSION. Staff is so directed. CC-L AWARD OF BID FOR GRAFFITI REMOVAL SERVICES Councilman Taylor stated that this item was similar to the street sweeping bid but that only one bid was involved. Mr. Taylor was concerned that only one bid had been received. It was noted that there was no price increase in this bid and Mr. Taylor questioned why the contract was bid. Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that CDBG guidelines require that the City notify three responsible contractors for bidding on this program. CC 11-14-89 Page #9 • 0 Mr. Taylor was concerned that only one bid was received. Jeff Stewart, Executive Assistant, stated that graffiti removal is a highly specialized service and that there are not many companies who do this work. Other cities either remove graffiti using in-house staff or utilize the services of youth organizations. Mr. Taylor asked that this award be deferred to the next meeting for a report on who actually is available to bid this type of work. Councilman Bruesch asked that this report include a survey of what the other cities in the immediate area are doing for graffiti abatement. Mayor Pro Tem Imperial asked for updated figures on what it would cost the City to do graffiti removal in-house. There being no objection, this was so ordered. A five-minute recess was called at this time and the meeting was reconvened accordingly. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION A. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR VISITOR INFORMATION CENTER MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the Council advance the Rosemead Chamber of Commerce an amount not to exceed $350,000 to purchase through escrow as necessary the property located at 3953 Muscatel Avenue, approve the agreement rescinding the agreement with Rosemead Foundation, Inc., the new agreement between the Chamber and the city, and direct staff to start processing the application for a zone change and a general plan amendment for said location. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Betty Dondanville, Chamber of Commerce President, thanked the Council. Councilman Taylor commended the Chamber of Commerce for finding a property that was within the budget and spirit of the ballot measure passed by the voters for the acquisition of a Visitor's Information Center. B. LANDSCAPE CONCEPT FOR GARVEY AVENUE MEDIANS John Winnecki, Willdan Landscape Architect, gave a slide presentation of the various concepts for council's consideration. Leroy Young, 7533 E. Garvey Avenue, was opposed to the use of the Eucalyptus trees because of the potential danger and messiness. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, ascertained that the brick work in the intersections on Garvey Avenue would be removed. Cleo Young, 7533 E. Garvey Avenue, objected to the streets being torn up again. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER that the Council approve the raised landscaped median configuration Concept No. 2 with the stipulation that as many of the existing trees as possible should be saved. Vote resulted: CC 11-14-89 Page #10 0 Yes: DeCocker, McDonald, Bruesch, Imperial No: None Absent: Taylor Abstain: None The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. VI. STATUS REPORTS A. RESOLUTION NO. 89-64 - SUPPORTING A UNIVERSITY IN DIAMOND BAR There being no objection, this item was tabled. VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. COUNCILMAN BRUESCH 1. Asked staff to contact the Department of Agriculture to determine if methods other than spraying could be used for the control of the medfly infestation. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Charles Vranek, representing L.A. Cellular Telephone, asked that the council reconsider its position on the lease agreement and requested that an alternate agreement be allowed to be presented for consideration. Mayor McDonald directed that staff meet with Mr. Vranek to work out a new agreement for presentation to the Council. B. Harry Lim, 7771 Garvey Avenue, praised the graffiti removal program in the City of Rosemead. There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for November 28, 1989, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: APPROVED: 2.f f. ~GWJ2.e1%/ ty Clerk MAYOR CC 11-14-89 Page #11