Loading...
CC - 01-10-89MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY Or i_i; iials;AD ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL DATE JANUARY 10, 1989 13Y~fL( lii l Cif _ The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem 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 Kenneth Hong of the Foursquare Church. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmen DeCocker, Taylor, and Mayor Pro Tem McDonald Absent: Mayor Bruesch - Excused (Vacation) and Councilman Imperial - Excused (Still recovering from the effects of a recent automobile accident) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 22, 1988 - REGULAR MEETING These Minutes were deferred to the meeting of January 24, 1989. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DECEMBER 13, 1988 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 13, 1989, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, No: None Absent: Bruesch, Abstain: None Taylor, McDonald Imperial The mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE A. None 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 IN REGARD TO A REQUEST FROM SAMUEL MORALES FOR A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING PARCEL AND A ZONE VARIANCE FOR THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3723 MUSCATEL AVENUE, ROSEMEAD The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing. Samuel Morales, 3723 N. Muscatel Avenue, is the applicant and asked the Council to overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and allow this project. Mr. Morales stated that if he is not allowed to subdivide, the zoning allows him to build a second unit. Mr. Morales would prefer to subdivide rather than have a rental unit. Edward Olivares, 3708 N. Dubonnet Avenue, is the neighbor to the rear of Mr. Morales. Mr. Olivares is opposed to this project because of the privacy infringement that would be created by a two-story addition. There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. CC 1-10-89 Page #1 • • Councilman DeCocker stated the opinion that the subdivision would allow for two individual owners of property at this location. A rental unit is usually not as desirable because of the problem of proper maintenance. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM McDONALD that the Council reverse the Planning commission decision and approve Parcel Map 19869 and Zone Variance 88-184 subject to the conditions outlined in the attachments accompanying the staff report for this item. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, McDonald No: Taylor Absent: Bruesch, Imperial Abstain: None The Mayor Pro Tem declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION IN REGARD TO A REQUEST FROM JOSE CABRALES AND LUIS FEMATT FOR A ZONE VARIANCE TO MAINTAIN A TWO-FOOT SIDEYARD IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 5 FEET IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION AT 3341 STEVENS AVENUE, ROSEMEAD The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing. Jose Cabrales, 11815 Pocasset, Whittier, one of the applicants, explained his project, agreed to the relocation of the garage and asked the Council to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Councilman DeCocker noted that this property is substandard and would tend to encroach on the privacy of the neighbors. Councilman Taylor verified that the total space between buildings would be seven feet. Mr. Taylor noted that since the lot is only 48 feet wide, asking for the entire five feet would substantially affect the size of the addition being discussed and that this case presented a special circumstance. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM MCDONALD that, because of circumstances outlined during the public hearing, the Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and approve Zone Variance 88-183 subject to the-conditions outlined in the attachments accompanying the staff report for this item. Vote resulted: Yes: Taylor, McDonald No: DeCocker Absent: Bruesch, Imperial Abstain: None The Mayor Pro Tem declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. C. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM JANSTAR DEVELOPMENT, INC. TO CONSTRUCT 18 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8849, 8859 THROUGH 8869 1/2 MISSION DRIVE The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing. CC 1-10-89 Page #2 • Mike Pearson, 9312 E. Valley Blvd., representing Janstar Development, referred to the previously concluded development plan at 8846 Mission Drive, across from the project under consideration. Mr. Pearson named the many improvements and features that this project would encompass, including increased lot sizes, improved rear yard setbacks, longer driveways, larger front yard areas, and gravity flow drainage. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, spoke in opposition to this project because of the potential for increased strain on the City sewage system and because of a concern for the loss of commercial property to residential use. There being no one else wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Councilman DeCocker commended this project as desirable for the City. Councilman Taylor asked for verification that the proposed lot sizes would be a minimum of 4,500 square feet and was so assured. The following ordinance was presented to the Council for introduction: ORDINANCE N0. 638 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM C-1 AND R-1 TO P.D. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8849 THROUGH 8869 1/2 MISSION DRIVE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER that Ordinance No. 638 be introduced on its first reading and that reading in full be waived. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, No: None Absent: Bruesch, Abstain: None Taylor, McDonald Imperial The Mayor Pro Tem declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. The following item was taken out of order. VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION A. REQUEST FOR RATE INCREASE BY CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY McDONALD: We have a request at this time to move Item V, if it's all right with the rest of the Council here, Item V - MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION REQUEST FOR RATE INCREASE BY CAL-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY - move it and take it right now, before the Legislative, Section III. Any comment on that? Is that fine? TAYLOR: That's fine. McDONALD: We have Mr. Krueger and Helen Shaw. FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: No, just Mr. Krueger. He doesn't have an associate. KRUEGER: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and honorable Council for inviting me to your meeting here tonight. I've had some correspondence with Frank Tripepi regarding the rate request. As a little background, we filed for a rate relief with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in September of 1988. We had our public hearing in November of 1988, and we're having formal hearings, taking CC 1-10-89 Page #3 • testimony, on January 23rd at 2 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Marino. The purpose for the rates are to offset increasing operation costs as well as to cover the investment in new facilities to accommodate the needs of our system; our customers. The O and M costs include, of course, the effects of the safe drinking water act and the work that's required to monitor the quality of our system, as well as everyone has had increasing liability insurance. Those are the major elements that affect the O and M costs; the increases that we experience. Our major expenses, that make up the majority of the cost of this rate case, are the proposed capital investments that we're making. I believe everybody in the City that is a customer of ours had received a copy of the initial notice of the public hearing. At the bottom of this notice, it was a new process that we've used, we've shown the individual capital items and the effect over the three year life of this upcoming rate case and the effect of the capital investment on the average monthly bill. One of the things that I would suggest and urge your support on, is the item shown on this as the new reservoir, our Longden reservoir. We're proposing to install this Longden reservoir to replace the elevated tank on Grand Avenue that was damaged in the 1987 earthquake. With that, I would like to show you some slides that briefly show some of the damage on this. (Mr. Krueger then showed slides and pointed out the damage that had been done by the aforementioned earthquake.) KRUEGER CONTINUES: The elevated tank is the 600,000 gallon storage facility that provide the storage and the hydraulic gradient for all our customers in the City of Rosemead. It is my understanding that roughly 34% of our lower system is within the City limits of the City of Rosemead. I just plotted it roughly on our system map that is included in the refiling. (Mr. Krueger continues with his slide presentation and commentary.) This map shows the location of our Rosemead tank on Grand Avenue. Here again, you can't see it very well, but it's the large grey tank right adjacent to the railroad track, roughly a half mile west of Rosemead Boulevard. This is the structure, it's roughly 45 feet from the floor to the bottom of the tank and 30 feet from the bottom of the tank to the top. As you can see, damage was sustained by the cross members supporting the tank. They should be tight, flush and in a position to take any kind of horizontal or tortional stresses that might be put on it. DeCOCKER: Is that steel or wood? KRUEGER: That's steel. Each one of those bars, if you can picture this, is an inch thick by six inches wide. Of all those that were damaged, the equivalent of having a six-inch steel plate, three feet wide, that was stressed and probably stretched a .minimum of...three inches during the 30 seconds of the shock. McDONALD: Is there water in the tank at this time? KRUEGER: There is water in the tank. We're operating currently at 50% capacity. We hired a consulting engineer whose sole specialty is to examine elevated tanks. He's from Spedeway, Indiana. He examines all the horizontal members, the welding, the initial design, all of the structure. He spent about 3-4 days on this and suggested that we take the tank down to half full. We've been operating ever since at half full. While we're in the process of developing the necessary design criteria to bring this up to the current zone 4 earthquake requirements. In examining the zone 4 earthquake requirements, and the repairs required, we've come to the conclusion and the engineers have recommended that we take the tank down and build a new tank. Along with that, we would be able to build a tank at a higher elevation to take care of some low pressure problems, we'd add some additional storage because we'd go for a million gallons of storage instead of 600,000 gallons. If you have any questions, I really do solicit your support in this, it's one of the items that the staff of the PUC is opposed to us doing. I really do need your support in going to the staff for this. TAYLOR: How do you mean that they're opposed to you doing? CC 1-10-89 Page #4 0 KRUEGER: They feel that we should go with a straight repair on it. If we go with a straight repair, we're spending roughly a million dollars total in repairs, to paint it and repair it; as opposed to about a $1,700,000 to get a million gallons of storage versus the 600,000 that we have. We're also getting rid of the elevated tank. TAYLOR: Excuse me. How are you going to solve the elevation problem, when you say you're getting rid of the tank, and you're going to make it hold a million gallons. KRUEGER: We have a 20-inch pipeline running from this location up to Longden Avenue; up Del Mar to Longden. The ground level elevation at that is 50 feet higher than the overflow elevation here. That gives us an additional, roughly, 23 pounds of pressure and we have a site of land that we already own. We can buy that, connect to the 20-inch pipeline, and bring the water down here. McDONALD: You going to create a ground tank or an elevated tank? KRUEGER: It's a ground-level tank with six feet of freeboard on it, so it would not be subject to any earthquake damage that would interrupt service. McDONALD: So, for $700,000 more we can get approximately 400,000 more gallons and a safer tank because it's a better tank? KRUEGER: That's correct. It's a better tank. We're looking at reinforced concrete construction as opposed to the steel which requires, of course, maintenance, corrosion control and that type of McDONALD: That would be built for earthquake...? KRUEGER: Definitely. TAYLOR: This tank, excuse me, I'm sorry Mr. McDonald, this tank primarily serves the residents of Rosemead? KRUEGER: That's right. This is the hydraulic gradient for Rosemead. TAYLOR: The new tank would be located in San Gabriel? KRUEGER: In San Marino. TAYLOR: In San Marino, so it, in turn, would service everything south of it? KRUEGER: No, no. It's actually serving the same service area as this one. We just have that property, we own that property, and it's at the correct elevation. TAYLOR: And what happens with this property (referring to the property where the elevated'tank sits on Grand Avenue)? KRUEGER: We have an operations center currently there. We have wells on the property. We have boosters which we expect to keep in service. TAYLOR: What's going to happen to these wells that you have? KRUEGER: We pump up to the new tank. We refit the pumps with more boles and pump the water up to this new elevation. TAYLOR: The biggest objection I have as far as the trade off and the dollars, that always just gets down to which pay you want to spend it, what's the projected income over the three-year period on your increase that you have right there for the 14,000 residents? KRUEGER: I guess I don't understand your question. CC 1-10-89 Page #5 0 • TAYLOR: At the end of three years, when you figure the actual increase, the water bills are going to be up from today's rate, approximately 52%. KRUEGER: That's right. TAYLOR: What is the projected revenues, summary sheet, your annual revenues that it's going to be at the 52% increase. KRUEGER: The detail of that information you that off the top of my head, I don't TAYLOR: Does that summary sheet have th on it? I'm not sure if it's on that come in right now and what is in this and I can't give have that number. average monthly water bill KRUEGER: Well, they don't show the actual bill. They show the average consumption of 2575 cubic feet and they relate the increases to the dollars added on and refer to the percentage of increase to the existing rates. TAYLOR: Without having all the breakdown in front of me, as far as, you have about 14,000 residents on that system? KRUEGER: Total - San Marino, San Gabriel, Rosemead, Temple City, E1 Monte - roughly 14,000 customers. TAYLOR: NOW, the increase is going to be for all of those, is it not? KRUEGER: Every one of them, yes. TAYLOR: Again, I wish I had all the figures in front of me but again, at the end of three years, as an example, I can only go on my own water bill as such, because I know what it is, and the rest of the residents they can figure their own bill, it's going to be approximately 52% the way it's compounded, and the increase is on a yearly basis not today's rate. KRUEGER: The 52% applies over the three years. It goes 18% in 1989; if we get the proposed rates; 14 1/2% in 1990; and 1991 it's 5.4%. That's what we're suggesting to the PUC. McDONALD: Mr. Krueger. I think the point that he's trying to get at is are we amortizing the expenditure of the $1,700,000 over that three-year period plus a minor increase in reasonable profit for the company or what are we doing? KRUEGER: No, we're not amortizing the cost of that tank within that period of time. What is being done, is that we're looking to get the opportunity on that investment. That's what we're looking for. The rate that would support a rate of return on that investment. The actual dollars or revenues that come in do not amortize the tank, at all. That's taken care of essentially through the depreciation schedule as set out by the PUC. TAYLOR: That sounds even worse to me, then. You're looking at a 52% increase to justify a return and a profit on it, rather than amortizing the actual cost. KRUEGER: The amortization of the actual cost is over a 40 or 50 year period. TAYLOR: Forty or fifty years? And what's the t talking about? KRUEGER: Total cost - we're looking at roughly, TAYLOR: I don't understand that. I'm just at a sense that we sell bonds here in the City, also; going to take place :)tal cost you're $1,700,000. total loss in the redevelopment bonds cc 1-10-89 Page #6 • • and what have you and we have, again depending on the return that you have and your source of tax, but you're talking about a base of 14,000 residents and businesses and whatever is involved. We had an issue that we just sold for about $8,000,000; $14,000,000 on a short term, eight year note, as far as paying it off and when you get into public utilities like this, you're talking about 40 years for a million and a half and we're paying back 14 million in eight years. So, a profit and return on investment, I think that's highly exorbitant to raise everyone's water rates 52% and then amortize the loan over another 40 year period. MCDONALD: The impression is that providing this improvement in your service is the reason for the rate increase. But this is not totally the case. KRUEGER: Right, this is not totally the case. McDONALD: You're amortizing the cost of this over a 40 or 50 year period. Are you sure you've got those facts right? KRUEGER: That's right. McDONALD: $1,700,000 over that many years so the 52% increase over the next three years is something that is justified for, you haven't had a rate increase for some time and the service that is going to be provided for the next couple of years and a little bit towards the amortization of the costs for the investment that you put into the tank, of course. Your total income right now from these 14,000 folks, do you have any idea what that is? KRUEGER: No, I'm afraid I don't. McDONALD: Can you give me a wild figure? KRUEGER: Our gross income, I think in our San Marino District, approaches about ten million dollars. MCDONALD: Ten million dollars. So, we can consider if it's ten million dollars at this point, if we're going to raise the rates for those 14,000 people 52% over the next three years, we're talking about an increase of about half that amount of money, again at the end of that period of time. We're talking about fifteen million dollars income over the next three years. KRUEGER: Gross revenues. McDONALD: Gross revenues, I realize that. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Your point is well taken but now take it one step further. At the end of three years if it's ten million dollars now, at the end of three years their revenue will be, as you stated correctly I believe, it will be fifteen million dollars in a single current year. What we're talking about now is a one-time expense of $1,700,000 for a new reservoir. Keep in mind that the rates do not go back down at the end of three years, they will be 50% higher for the next forty years. McDONALD: That's true, Gary. What I was trying to point here was we need to support your premise, to give you support going before the commission, we need a little bit more facts and figures because we see a $1,700,000 outlay in investment and we see on your gross income, and I don't how much percent you actually get from the gross once you get down to the brass tacks, I don't know what a utility is allowed for a profit, but we see over your 40 or 50 year projected period seems a little much from our viewpoint. What we need is justification not just for the tank itself, but your M and o, operating and Maintenance budget and so forth and what's projected for a period of time. We don't know your percent of growth increase and costs on a yearly basis and we want to feel comfortable with that. CC 1-10-89 Page #7 • 0 KRUEGER: Let me...do you all have a copy of this? TAYLOR: Yes, that really doesn't give it all to us, tonight because now that I have a little more information on what we're talking about, I'm going to ask our staff to put it all together and project it over those next 30 to 40 years. Something seems way out of proportion. McDONALD: Or we're not understanding something, that's all. Your justification for the cost increase has got to more than just the tank. KRUEGER: The last rate case had a total that went into effect in March of 1986 had a total rate increase over a three-year period of about 8% or 9%, an average of about 3% or 4% a year. That was to meet and to have a rate of return for our stockholders and to meet the growing expenses that we were having. This last year we've fallen below that last one, that's why they have the three-year lag plan. McDONALD: Okay, but three times... that's a 17% increase average over the three years, right? If we're going 52% in three years, that's an average of 17% a year. KRUEGER: That's right. That's going with this capital improvement program that we're looking at over the next three years. It not only includes this elevated tank but it includes a lot of pipeline, additional storage, and some well work that needs to be done. Of this cost, this $5.52, that you see over the three year period, of the total rate we're asking for for, represents 67% of this 52% rate increase. That's the majority of the rates we're looking at. We're asking the PUC for the opportunity to earn on that investment. McDONALD: That gives that justification for it. When do you need ...when are you going before the commission? KRUEGER: The formal hearings begin Monday, January in the Council Chambers of the city of San Marino. public input. The evidentiary hearings begin Tuesd the Inglewood library and then adjourn to the State S. Broadway on Wednesday and Thursday of that week. of the 23rd of January. 23rd at 2:00 p.m. That's for the ay afternoon at building at 107 During the week TAYLOR: When does it actually go to the Public Utilities Commission? KRUEGER: That's it. That's when the input and the evidentiary input from the public is due. TAYLOR: January 23rd? KRUEGER: That's right, beginning that week. ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: An administrative law judge makes a determination and that goes to the.... KRUEGER: That's right,'the staff makes their as a matter of fact we're expecting to get the staff report this coming Friday from the PUC and that gives an opportunity to see what the staff has to say and what their objections are to what we're proposing. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Our next meeting is January 24th and my reaction is right now is, and I'm going to make the motion now, based on the information that we have, that at this time we oppose this general 52% increase unless we want to have a special meeting next week. I think it's exorbitant. We oppose telephone rate increases and such and none of them have been this high. We've never had one come before us with this type of an increase. I'm not opposed to building the tank, whether it be here in Rosemead or San Marino, but the dollars just don't calc out right. There's a tremendous amount of money involved. CC 1-10-89 Page #8 ® • KRUEGER: This is part of the process ...the financial analysis is what the PUC staff is looking at. They're looking at all of these dollars and trying to determine whether or not we're making a fair rate of return. That's what they're role has been and what they've been studying over the past two or three months. They're going to be submitting testimony to that. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Based on what we've heard tonight and what we've reviewed in the past, I'm going to make a motion that we oppose this 52% increase at the end of a three year period. Whenever the staff and whoever's going to investigate the economic analysis of it, that's the main objection that we have ...that I have to it. It's not the reconstruction, I believe that's probably worthwhile, but I'm opposed to the what I think is an excessive increase. McDONALD: Before we go any further, Mr. DeCocker, do you have any comments? DeCOCKER: No, I think it's been clarified for me, Mr. Mayor. MCDONALD: That's in the form of a motion then, Gary, right? TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Mayor. McDONALD: At this point to oppose it. Mr. DeCocker? DeCOCKER: Second. McDONALD: Okay, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Please vote. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, Taylor, McDonald No: None Absent: Bruesch, Imperial Abstain: None The Mayor Pro Tem declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. My intent is to the gentleman here, all this is going to give them is more incentive to look at this increase not what you're proposing to do. McDONALD: Mr. Krueger. Do you understand then that because of the information that we were given tonight, with our limited knowledge granted, on how the rates are...how you come with it and how the PUC justifies your right to have that, it seems to us that it's exorbitant. If you have the time and the effort to get us some further information as quickly as you can, maybe then our vote in favor or opposed that you could walk into the PUC and say we've got this support or we don't have this support, we would appreciate anything further that you could give us.... We appreciate your report and apologize if we didn't understand it as well as you'd have liked us to understand it. From our viewpoint and perspective we..... see that it's a complicated process. Thank you, very much for your input. END VERBATIM DIALOGUE A five-minute recess was called at this time and the meeting was reconvened accordingly. III.LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 89-1 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the council for adoption: CC 1-10-89 Page #9 ® • RESOLUTION NO. 89-1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $789,412.57 NUMBERED 1288-1300, 24501-24556 AND 23330 THROUGH 23487 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER that Resolution 89-1 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, No: None Absent: Bruesch, Abstain: None Taylor, McDonald Imperial The Mayor Pro Tem declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman DeCocker again asked for the list of curb addresses that were painted in the City by Hubbs Numbering Company. Councilman Taylor asked for a break down of the items for Warrant No. 01299 on Page 27 relating to the time period covered and the percentage. B. ORDINANCE NO. 635 - CONCERNING REGULATIONS FOR MINI-MALLS The following ordinance was presented to the council for adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 635 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ADOPTING LAND USE REGULATIONS CONCERNING MINI-MALLS MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER that Ordinance No. 635 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, No: None Absent: Bruesch, Abstain: None Taylor, McDonald Imperial The Mayor Pro Tem declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. C. ORDINANCE NO. 636 - RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CURFEW FOR MINORS The following ordinance was presented to the council for introduction: ORDINANCE NO. 636 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RELATING TO CURFEW FOR MINORS MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER that ordinance No. 636 be introduced on its first reading, and that reading in full be waived. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, No: None Absent: Bruesch, Abstain: None Taylor, Bruesch Imperial The Mayor Pro Tem declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 1-10-89 Page #10 A • D. ORDINANCE NO. 637 - REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 627 RELATING TO A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF MINI-MALLS The following ordinance was presented to the council for introduction: ORDINANCE NO. 637 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 627 WHICH IMPOSED A MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MINI-MALLS IN THE CITY MOTION BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that Ordinance No. 637 be introduced on its first reading, and that reading in full be waived. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, No: None Absent: Bruesch, Abstain: None Taylor, Bruesch Imperial The Mayor Pro Tem declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. E. RESOLUTION NO. 89-2 - TO ALLOW REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAYMENT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION AND WIDENING OF PALJAY AVENUE (FERN/KLINGERMAN), DUBONNET AVENUE (FERN/MUSCATEL), AND DELTA AVENUE (FERN/KLINGERMAN) The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAYMENT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION AND WIDENING OF PALJAY AVENUE (FERN TO KLINGERMAN), DUBONNET AVENUE (FERN TO MUSCATEL), AND DELTA AVENUE (FERN TO KLINGERMAN) MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER that Resolution 89-2 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, No: None Absent: Bruesch, Abstain: None Taylor, McDonald Imperial The Mayor Pro Tem declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. F. RESOLUTION NO. 89-3 - TO ALLOW REDEVELOPMENT PAYMENT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BARTLETT AVENUE (KLINGERMAN/GARVEY) AND LA PRESA AVENUE (FERN/GARVEY) The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION 89-3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAYMENT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BARTLETT AVENUE (KLINGERMAN TO GARVEY) AND LA PRESA AVENUE (FERN TO GARVEY) MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER that Resolution 89-3 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, No: None Absent: Bruesch, Abstain: None Taylor, McDonald Imperial CC 1-10-89 Page #11 The Mayor Pro Tem declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-A AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY ATTORNEY TO ATTEND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES SPRING MEETING - MARCH 8-10, 1989, AT YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARR CC-B AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CITY MANAGERS DEPARTMENT ANNUAL MEETING - FEBRUARY 15-17, 1989, AT MONTEREY CC-C AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 1989 CONGRESSIONAL CITY CONFERENCE - MARCH 11-14, 1989, IN WASHINGTON, D.C. CC-D APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR GARVEY POOL REHABILITATION PROJECT CC-E APPROVAL OF BID SPECIFICATIONS - COPYING MACHINE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN DeCOCKER that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: DeCocker, No: None Absent Bruesch, Abstain: None Taylor, McDonald Imperial The Mayor Pro Tem declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. VI. STATUS REPORTS A. None VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. None VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Margaret Clark, 3109 Prospect Avenue, reported that the Alhambra School Board had agreed to expand existing sites rather than pursue the construction of a new high school. w Mrs. Clark also stated that some residents are concerned over pictures being taken of residences by realtors. It was noted that these incidents should be reported to staff for referral to the proper agency. B. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, asked for a copy of the curfew ordinance. C. Leroy Young, 7533 E. Garvey Avenue, reported a crack in the ornamental brick work in front of his residence. . Staff was directed to investigate and take pictures of the problem area. There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for January 24, 1989. Respectfully submitted: ty Clerk ruyc 7+.