Loading...
CC - 10-27-87APPROVED • CIT'E' OF ROS PJ EAR MTV MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING SY / n~ ~a r C~ ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 27, 1987 The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Cleveland at 8:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch. The Invocation was delivered by City Treasurer Foutz. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmen Imperial, McDonald, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and Mayor Cleveland Absent: None (Councilman McDonald left the Council Chambers at 8:45 p.m. The absence was excused.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 13, 1987 - REGULAR MEETING Councilman Taylor requested that his statement on Page #6, the third paragraph, be changed to read "...and the Mayor will pull..." Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch requested that his statement on Page #1, second paragraph from the bottom, be changed to read "....an exclusive franchise would be granted by the County (delete City) to ambulance services..." MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD to approve the Minutes for October 13, 1987, as corrected. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL VOTE ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 17, 1987 - ADJOURNED MEETING MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD to approve the Minutes of October 17, 1987. Vote resulted: YES: Councilmen Imperial, McDonald, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and Mayor Cleveland NO: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Councilman Taylor The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Mayor Cleveland introduced the new City Clerk, Janice Warner, and welcomed her to the position. I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE A. Louise Edens, 8533 E. Village Lane, presented a petition in favor of retaining Modern Service. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS III. LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 87-46 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 87-46 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $360,403.48 NUMBERED 00481-00510/20585 THROUGH 20715 INCLUSIVELY CM 10-27-87 Page #1 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN McDONALD to adopt Resolution No. 87-46. Vote Resulted: UPON ROLL CALL VOTE ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. RESOLUTION NO. 87-41 - A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3152 N. EVELYN AVENUE The following resolution was presented to the City Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 87-41 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN 3152 N. EVELYN AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: WAGNER: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This agenda item was continued from the Council Meeting of October 13, 1987. It's a resolution regarding the acquisition of a corner cut-off located at 3152 N. Evelyn Avenue. Mr. Burrell, the owner of the property, has filled out a Request to Speak form on this item. Staff is recommending adoption of the resolution which would authorize the City Attorney to take the necessary steps to acquire this corner cut-off. CLEVELAND: Mr. Burrell, would you care to come up? BURRELL: I'm Roy Burrell. I live at 3152 N. Evelyn in Rosemead. Regarding this resolution to acquire my property, the right-of-way, under eminent domain, I asked the last time that I was here... as I had received a letter dated April 1st from Mr. Wagner. Then, I understand that Mr. Bruesch, I asked him when that policy changed, you said that the City Council had changed their policy and what I'd be interested in - before we go through all this what could be an expense to the City and also to me - when that change was made and I understood it was made in March at your meeting that you changed your policy. Now, as I said, I received a letter in April and then the project did not start until July and then it wasn't until October 9th that I received a letter requesting the right-of-way and with that request I received, also, an appraisal from someone that the City had hired stating that the value of my property and how it had been enhanced by some $3,500.00 by what they had done. What I would like to know is when this plan was drawn up by one of these gentlemen here. I understand they drew the plans to widen the street and as you explained to me they are only concerned with straight lines and not with aesthetic ?lue which I complained about ruining my home. I want tc, know when they decided or he drew these plans knowing tnat they would need ti.c two feet off k.~f my property oecause the- couldn't pc,__-i.bly do what they wanted to do, in good faith, with the property they had. So, that's what I would like to know - when that was decided. So, if it was decided in due time that you could have given me the notice or if it was done after. So, if you could give me that information we might be able to resolve this matter. WAGNER: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As I understand it, the plans and specs for this street improvement project, were developed prior to the Agency and the City adopting that policy. Is that correct, Norm? RUBEL: When it started, I can't say for sure if they were finished. WAGNER: As Mr. Tripepi indicated at the last City Council Meeting, we made a mistake on this; we sent the letter out and after we sent the letter out to you we discovered that yes, we did need the corner cut-off from your property. CM 10-27-87 Page #2 0 0 BURRELL: Well, weren't those plans drawn up - they had to be some time prior to the starting of the job. WAGNER: Yes. BURRELL: I was never ...that was started in July... and I had never been notified of anything until October the 9th, and neither was the man across the street. So, I'm kind of a little bit dubious of your answer. BRUESCH: Mr. Burrell. As I said to you before, to be honest with you, I can't remember the date of the meeting. But we'll go back in history one more time. The reason for the change in policy, the original plans that were made up, did not have corner cut-offs because of the fact that we were not acquiring property for the street. Evelyn has a huge right-of-way on either side; you could put a...basically you could put a six-lane highway down there if you wanted to because of the big right-of-way. But because of the fact that not only Evelyn was going through but also the ideas were germinating at that time for the improvement of Emerson because of the bottleneck going down that hill, as you well know. BURRELL: I'm aware of that. BRUESCH: Yes. What brought this to a head was the fact that... I'll admit I was the one who brought it up because I went around that corner of Isabel and Hellman and saw the blacktop because we didn't acquire the corner cut-offs there because we didn't have to acquire any property and as the pictures of that were passed around to the various council people, they agreed with me that was a bad policy because it made those corners not only look bad but dangerous. That is when the policy was changed. BURRELL: I have no argument with that. That is what I want to know, when that was changed. That's all I ask you. McDONALD: Mr. Burrell, what difference does that make? They said they made a mistake on sending out the letters. The policy was changed during the time that the information was given to the draftsmen and was put into the operation. They didn't actually figure out that they were going to need the cut-offs, or it wasn't in the plans until they started working on the project. Didn't they start talking to you in June, July, or August? BURRELL: They did not. McDONALD: When were you first contacted? BURRELL: A guy come up to me just a little bit before I got that letter dated October 9th, some man came up and said he wanted to talk to me about my corner, and I said who are you; he said, well we're - I forget the company, that is hired by the City - and he said we'd like to talk about your corner, here; and I said well, you don't need my corner. I got a letter here saying you don't need my corner. McDONALD: Okay. But the point is, is that they didn't know they needed that corner until they actually got into... the operation... after the prints were there; they started to get into the project and found they couldn't do this without the corner. We neglected to get the letter out to you. We neglected to contact you. What more do you want, that we can tell you to help us to work it out? BURRELL: All I want to know is when that was done. Because ...when that meeting took place because you think it doesn't have any bearing on it or makes it's very important to me. McDONALD: John, when were the prints first okayed for the improvement of that property and when were they started to be drawn up? CM 10-27-87 Page #3 MAULDING: I believe what happened here... There were a number of projects under design. When the policy changed, we asked for a listing of those corners that would have to be acquired. It is possible that these two corners were not included .in that list. That could account for the delay. I'm inclined to think that is exactly what happened. McDONALD: In what time frame can you recall that the policy was changed on those corners? Do you remember that? When we asked for those addresses? MAULDING: I don't know. Maybe Norm can remember dates. RUBEL: March 12th. McDONALD: So that was done on March 12th. When did we ask for the...when did we ask for the listing on those? MAULDING: After that policy was changed, then we asked the designers to go through the projects and give us the corner cut-offs, and I think these two were missed. That's what I think happened. Because you know the design is different on these two corners than it is on the others. BURRELL: That's all I wanted to know, gentlemen. Thank you very- much. Because I just wanted to be sure it was prior to I got the notification from you that there wouldn't be any requirements for it. Thank you. McDONALD: Is there something we can work out, Mr. Burrell? You said now that you've got an understanding we could work something out. BURRELL: No. I'll see you in court. McDONALD: Thank you for your cooperation, Mr. Burrell. BURRELL: Any time. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. If we do need this, in fact, I would like to stop all proceedings on this particular item and renotice Mr. Burrell, next week. He mentioned that he would see us in court. Rather than go through wasting his time and his money and the City's, I would like to reinstitute these items, next week, with all proper legal notice. Mr. Kress, is there a problem with that? KRESS: I don't think there are any problems with the way these proceedings, that you're now considering, have been noticed. Again, there was an omission to realize that this piece of property was necessary. An offer based on just compensation and an appraisal was made. It was made late in the ballgame, and we acknowledge that but it was made to Mr. Burrell and the other property owner - the next resolution on your agenda. Mr. Burrell has now appeared at three meetings. It's obvious in the record of the City Council and in the Minutes that he has notice of these proceedings and has participated in these proceedings. He has been asked this evening if there is some way to reach an accommodation. At the last meeting, I believe he said that money wasn't the problem. Well, by proposing to continue it, you've got an ongoing project out there and you'll have to ask someone else what a two-week delay means in completing that project. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. My question still stands. If it needs to be in form of a motion, I would like to put in there because Mr. Burrell, in my opinion, is correct. That's just my opinion, and the fact ...he did not get the proper legal notification. I'm not saying that as an attorney, I'm just saying that as we've done in the past, when we had the hearings...I just like to get it done according to the record. I think there is a procedure; he was not notified. Mr. Kress is shaking his head, so go ahead, Bob. CM 10-27-87 Page $4 KRESS: Well, he was notified. Mr. Burrell is talking about a mix-up in the April 1st letter. That has no relevance, whatsoever to these proceedings. The notice of these proceedings is the long sheet of paper, and that was sent Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested and I rather imagine that we have that return receipt. TAYLOR: All right, now that's a valid point. Do we have that letter, in fact? Certified mail that he was aware of it for the public hearing, two weeks ago? BURRELL: October the 9th is when I received the letter requesting that they would need two feet off my property. That's already after they had built the curb right up to the...and stopped right at my corner. The street was in, the sidewalk was moved, everything. And then they come in, say hey, we need your property. I think you're a little bit late, and I think...I wouldn't say it was inadvertence. I think it's a little devious, the way you went at it, because when you go out and you build a thing right down to my corner, and then say, wait a minute, we'll take it now on eminent domain because we need it. If I'd had proper notice on this in the beginning, when you made the changes, prior to sending me a letter, I'd have come down and talked to you about it and maybe you wouldn't have taken out all the sidewalks, and everything else because I think you ruined the street to begin with. But that's neither here nor there. But we're talking about the way you went at it to get my property. I just think it's all together wrong, and you know it's wrong. BRUESCH: Mr. Burrell. I said right along with you, that I agree that there was a mistake made. And I also agree that you have a right to be upset with it. BURRELL: I am very upset with it. BRUESCH: Okay, but the point is, you're saying on the part of this Council that we were devious about notifying you. I, on my part, was under the assumption that everybody was notified. We were told two weeks ago that everybody wasn't notified. That you and another property owner were not notified. It was one of those things that slip through the cracks. I don't like the idea that you are saying that we are trying to beat around the bush with you. That is not the case. If you have a legitimate complaint, and you do, we are listening to it and we are trying to rectify the situation as much as we can with you. But to say that we are purposely trying to do, or put something over on you, is a misstatement. KRESS: I request this item be passed. Mr. Wagner is going to get a copy of the return receipt. CLEVELAND: We will pass it and bring it back later. BURRELL: It's dated October the 9th. I read it to you the other day. KRESS: I believe it will show another date. The next item is essentially the same thing. TAYLOR: Yes, the same thing. Hold them both. KRESS: Resolution No. 87-43, it concerns the same project. I would suggest, if it please the Council, that you go to the Consent Calendar, Item IV. CLEVELAND: Thank you, Mr. Kress. KRESS: September the 29th. TAYLOR: Before we go on to that, if Mr. Kress has the information he was looking for, do you want to hear these items Bob, or try to clarify anything else? CM 10-27-87 Page #5 KRESS: Again, I think that the staff has taken a beating on this and some of it's deserved and it's been acknowledged. We've got a project in progress and we need to resolve that. I think it's a rather small matter and one that I hope lawyers and courts won't be necessary for but perhaps they will. It was represented that this was a last minute thing, and we were devious with you. I take offense to that. We were misrepresented that Mr. Burrell was not notified until October 9th - I have one signature from Mrs. Burrell, one signature from Mr. Burrell, indicating delivery of the notice of the hearing for October 13th was signed for on September 29, 1987. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Those notices, Mr. Kress, meet the legal requirements for public hearing to condemn this property? KRESS: Yes, they do. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. To put it into perspective, and Mr. Burrell, there is not one person up here, one councilmember that has not said they did not make a mistake or staff did not make one. BURRELL: That doesn't help me any. TAYLOR: I agree, and you stated several times that you really don't have a problem with the corner cut-off, and we're talking 48 square feet, and that's on a pie-shape, a triangle shape. So, to put it into perspective, they're not taking your front yard or your side yard, they're taking a small, seven feet, approximately, by seven feet, triangle right on the corner. That's all it is. Now, you've said that that's not really a problem, it's the way that we as the City went about it. BURRELL: Well, it is a little problem, but I mean, it's moved the sidewalk 13 feet from my bedroom. TAYLOR: The sidewalk or the corner? BURRELL: The sidewalk. TAYLOR: Which is part of the street. That's a different issue than the corner, is it not? BURRELL: No, I'm talking about the corner. My house sets right here, and from the corner ...a gentleman was out and measured it... to where the ramp will start, I think what you have is 13 feet? TAYLOR: Another question. How far is it from,the side of your property, from your bedroom, to the sidewalk? BURRELL: About 15 feet. He's got the measurements. RUBEL: Mr. Mayor. It's 20 feet from the Emerson property line and 18 feet from the Evelyn Street property line. CLEVELAND: Eighteen feet, now. RUBEL: Yes. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Burrell, as he said, will probably see us in court, but I'd like to put it in perspective. We have, and we've had several of them, what are known as nuisance lawsuits, where the residents will come in and file a lawsuit for $1,500.00 or $1,000.00, or whatever, and many times, as everyone knows, to take it into court with an attorney and such, it costs a couple of thousand dollars. Many times the City says it's not worth going to court; so we pay the nuisance value of that suit. I'm not hesitant of going to court, maybe, with Mr. Burrell, but let's put it into perspective; if he's going to take us into court I don't know what his charges would be but I think from what Mr. Kress has said, the intent, or the actual requirement of the law has been met. CM 10-27-87 Page #6 KRESS: Mr. Mayor, if I could just add, so that there is no misunderstanding. This resolution authorizes me to file a lawsuit against Mr. Burrell to acquire the property. The resolution merely determines that the property is necessary for this right-of-way. In the absence of an agreement, which I would certainly hope is forthcoming, that resolution authorizes me to file the lawsuit in eminent domain and seek an order for immediate possession. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. What is the time frame for that, Mr. Kress? KRESS: I have been told that it is immediately necessary and am prepared to gear up and file the lawsuit within a few days. The project is ongoing and that is what I am told. WAGNER: We are ready to pave the street. BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. Mt. Burrell, in any movement on this item, we are not offering that as a challenge to you. All we are doing, is you are saying that you, upon the three times that you have appeared before us, you want your day in court. Basically, that is what it's going to boil down to; you are going to have your say that you felt that you were not notified properly and that may well be the judge's decision. It may not be the judge's decision, I don't know how a judge will go on that. BURRELL: Not prejudging anything, because the project started long before, and was in progress all the way down the street before I ever received this on the 29th. Now, as far as nuisance value is concerned, you can forget that; you can save that because that's not the problem. The problem was that I said that they didn't need it if it had been designed on that corner properly; you can do it within exactly the area you already have. So, as far as trying to appease me as a nuisance value, forget that. And I think your only alternative, as you say, you have to file your eminent domain to get it. BRUESCH: Mr. Burrell. Maybe you misunderstood what I said. I'm not saying nuisance value, I'm not saying anything. All I am saying, Mr. Burrell, is that you have a point, we have a point. And it's going to probably have to be settled in a court of law. BURRELL: I agree with you. BRUESCH: And I agree with your idea that you were not notified properly by way of mistake of the City, but then I tend not to agree with the idea that the design, we've gone over the designs and you were here when we did, of those ramps, those handicapped ramps. I disagree with you that they could be designed without taking that corner cut-off, with the idea that Emerson is going to be widened down the street from you. So, these things are going to have to be set out in court. To me it isn't a nuisance, what it is going to be, is a nuisance to you because you're going to have to go through the legal-schmegal of BURRELL: Well, I'm aware of that. I'm familiar with that. BRUESCH: But I want you to understand that you have your point, we have our point. We're not trying to pull the wool over your eyes, or be devious, or anything. All we are saying is that we have gone as far as we can and it's obvious that you do not want to go any further, so let's have an arbitrator decide whose position is going to win the day. BURRELL: I won't go to arbitration. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Point of clarification. When I said that the Council is in agreement that an error was made, I don't mean that... the error that I'm trying to explain is you were not notified, nine months ago. In other words, the staff missed putting it on the.. CM 10-27-87 Page #7 9 0 BURRELL: I understand your position. TAYLOR: But I want it clear in the record, because ...I want this item verbatim in the Minutes, of what we have all said here so that it will be available for everybody to refresh their memory that there was...an error was made nine months ago, approximately, when it was designed and the letter was sent out stating there would be no property acquisition or eminent domain because the right-of-way was already owned by the City. But when they got to the corner, I can see with the design that is required for the handicapped ramps, where they said, yes, we need an additional 48 square feet. (At this point in the proceedings, Councilman McDonald was excused to attend a Council Meeting being held by his employer, in order to testify. He had previously notified the Council of this conflict.) BURRELL: What I was concerned with because that ...if you're talking about when the City Council changed its position that you should now have this, that was done before the project started, and I was never notified of it until the project had started and got all the way down to my house. Then they come in and say, hey Burrell, we need this off the corners. Now, I'm saying that if you'd changed your position on it, before they started the project, that's when I should have had notification of it. KRESS: Mr. Burrell. Do you really think that if we go court, the judge is going to tell the City that because some staff person made a mistake that now everyone who uses that street from here on after is going to have to suffer, because of that mistake? BURRELL: I didn't say that. KRESS: That seems to be your only... BURRELL: No, no, no, no, no. KRESS: So, we are talking about money. BURRELL: No, no, we're not. KRESS: What are we talking about? BURRELL: We're talking about design. That's what I'm talking about. That's what I talked about before. IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor. Now, I've sat here and listened to this and the gentleman certainly has a right to his opinion, and he's expressed that over, and over, and over again. I certainly know, it's been said time and time again, that the staff made a mistake. So, I don't want to have to eat it at every meeting. Okay? Now, what I'm trying to say in reality, is this - the gentleman has made his point clear; there is nothing we can do about this. He's already told us he's going to see us in court. By all means, that's his prerogative to exercise it. Let's get on with business, please. CLEVELAND: Any other discussion? END VERBATIM DIALOGUE. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH to adopt Resolution No. 87-41. Vote resulted: YES: Councilmen Imperial, Mayor Cleveland NO: None ABSENT: Councilman McDonald ABSTAIN: None Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and - Excused The mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. C. RESOLUTION NO. 87-43 - A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7747 EMERSON PLACE CM 10-27-87 Page #8 • The following resolution was presented to the-Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 87-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 7747 EMERSON PLACE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES There being no discussion, it was MOVED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR to adopt Resolution No. 87-43. Vote resulted: YES: Councilmen Imperial, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and Mayor Cleveland NO: None ABSENT: Councilman McDonald - Excused ABSTAIN: None The mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC-E AND CC-G PULLED) CC-A APPROVAL OF TRACT MAP 45396 - 8417/8427 GRAND AVENUE CC-B APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP 18524 - 8926 CORTADA STREET CC-C 1988 CONTRACT CITIES LEGISLATIVE ORIENTATION TOUR - JANUARY 19-21, 1988 CC-D APPROVAL OF RECREATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AND THE EL MONTE.UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT CC-F ACCEPTANCE OF ROAD DEEDS AND PERMITS-TO-ENTER - COLUMBIA STREET PROJECT CC-H AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES FINANCIAL SEMINAR/MONTEREY/DECEMBER 2-4, 1987 CC-I CITY CLERKS ELECTION LAW AND ADMINISTRATION SEMINAR - DECEMBER 2-4, 1987 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: YES: Councilmen Imperial, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and Mayor Cleveland NO: None ABSENT: Councilman McDonald - excused ABSTAIN: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch requested a memo from staff regarding the City activities that take place at the Rosemead High School gym, and the Mayor so directed. CC-E ACCEPTANCE OF ROAD DEEDS AND PERMITS-TO-ENTER - BARTLETT AVENUE/ISABEL AVENUE PROJECT Councilman Taylor asked that this item be deferred. This project would come under the new policies that had been established at the Joint Meeting on October 20, 1987, regarding dedication/payment for right-of-way. The new policy states that property owners will be paid for their rights-of-way. CM 10-27-87 Page #9 After some discussion, it was agreed to defer the properties on Bartlett Avenue until November 10, 1987, and approve the property at Isabel/Hellman. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH to approve the Isabel/Hellman property and defer the properties on Bartlett. Vote resulted: YES: Councilmen Imperial, Mayor Cleveland NO: None ABSENT: Councilman McDonald ABSTAIN: None Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and - excused The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-G APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH ROSEMEAD BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB Councilman Taylor stated that he did not feel sufficient information had been received on this item. Mr. Bruesch had made comment at the last meeting, naming five cities that are funding youth groups or boys clubs in their cities. The report received lists only one city, as far as documentation that monies are being received. Two cities do not have an agreement; one city provided property, either Baldwin Park or South E1 Monte. Mr. Taylor requested that the information be obtained to determine just what other cities are contributing. Mr. Taylor stated that he had no problem with giving the money to the organization. Annual budget reports are required from the Chamber of Commerce and Wyckoff & Associates showing how City funds have been spent, and Mr. Taylor k d that the budgets for the Club from the past ten years be a the as e presented for perusal. Mr. Taylor stressed that his requests should be no reflection on the current Board. However, the City did have problems with this organization in the past, under different management, and any mistakes that had been made in the past, must be avoided in the future. Councilman Taylor asked that this item be deferred until the next meeting when the figures from the other cities and the Club's budgets have been received. There being no objection, this item was deferred to November 10, 1987, pending the receipt of the aforementioned items. The Mayor called a five-minute recess at 9:15 p.m., and the meeting was reconvened accordingly. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION A. CHOICE TELEVISION - SENIOR/HANDICAPPED RATES Robert Kress, City Attorney, expressed the opinion that further action on this item should wait until the consultant's analysis is received. Councilman Imperial stated that there should be no negotiation on this contract. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch cited a problem with completing the installation of the cable television system in certain portions of Rosemead. Installation in the southern part of town has been stopped pending the outcome of this re-negotiation process, including the return of deposit checks to various subscribers. Councilman Taylor requested written documentation be provided to the Council at the next meeting on November 10, 1987. CM 10-27-87 Page #10 B. PROSPECT AVENUE 1. Jim Smith, 3038 N. Prospect, spoke against the widening because of increased traffic and higher rates of speed. 2. Leroy Young, 7533 E. Garvey, questioned the long-term plans for this part of the City. Councilman Taylor suggested that Mr. Young come into City Hall and ask to see the General Plan, and this will have the long-term plans for his area. 3. Leona Pennington, 3030 N. Prospect, expressed the opinion that the streets are dangerous because of speeders and she is happy with the way the street is, now. Councilman Imperial asked that the Sheriff's Department be contacted to increase speed surveillance in this area, and the Mayor so directed. 4. Toni Fabela, 3055 N. Prospect, presented a petition from her neighbors expressing the feelings of her neighbors on this project. She indicated that a neighborhood meeting could be held in her home, if necessary. 5. Cleo Young, 7533 E. Garvey, feels that this petition should be taken into consideration. The majority of residents/owners do not want the street widened - new blacktop and sidewalks, only. 6. Maggie Clark, 3109 N. Prospect, is against the widening because of increased traffic and speeders. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, to leave Prospect Avenue as it is and set up a meeting with owners to direct staff as to where to place the sidewalks. Vote resulted: YES: Councilmen Imperial, Cleveland NO: Councilman Taylor ABSENT: Councilman McDonald ABSTAIN: None Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and Mayor - Excused The mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor requested that his no vote reflect that although he sympathizes with the residents on this particular street for what they feel their needs are at this time, he could not, in good conscience, vote for approval of this item. Mr. Taylor did not mean to imply that he might know better what their needs are, by any means and he might even feel the same way that they do at this time. Regardless, standards have been set up and governed by "professional engineers," the Sheriff's Department, the highway department, the street department, and the best interests of the future residents must be considered, also. Mr. Taylor did not mean to imply that the area should be opened up for Commercial development, but adequate standards must be set for traffic safety. Streets that are too narrow cause a hazardous situation, trucks are on the street now, and Mr. Taylor feels that this problem will not go away. Mr. Taylor stated that he must vote on what he feels is a good policy for the entire City, now and in the future. C. DIAL-A-RIDE - RIDERSHIP TO AND FROM POLLS ON ELECTION DAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1987 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH to approve the transportation of the elderly and handicapped on Election Day, using the Dial-a-Ride facilities. Vote resulted: CM 10-27-87 Page 11 0 YES: Councilmen Imperial, Mayor Cleveland NO: None ABSENT: Councilman McDonald ABSTAIN: None VII Cl Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and - Excused The mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch requested that the status of the Savannah Cemetery, as it relates to becoming a State Historical Landmark, be placed on a future Agenda item. Mr. Bruesch also stated that the Jaycees had volunteered to go into the cemetery and replace the fallen headstones but were having trouble reaching anyone to get permission to enter. Hugh Foutz, City Treasurer, and Secretary of the Savannah Memorial Park, stated that what was needed was an individual with a great deal of time and dedication to achieve the result of historical landmark. E1 Monte took over the care of the cemetery because Rosemead was not a City at the time. The records are not in Rosemead's hands. The E1 Monte Museum has the original records that are necessary to achieve the status of historical landmark and will not release them. As far as raising the headstones, this must be done carefully so as not to ruin some headstones in order to replace the ones that are fallen. Mr. Foutz suggested that the Jaycees contact him, and he will see what can be done to raise the headstones. Mr. Foutz stated that if enough strong, young men were available, that they and a block and tackle, should be able to lift the headstones without damaging any of the others. Mr. Foutz suggested that the cemetery needed a better sign and the entire site could use some upgrading, and that possibly a fund-raiser could be held to finance this project. Mr. Foutz stated that he would coordinate this effort. Mr. Foutz, on the subject of historical landmark status, stated that no one person, to this point, has had the time or the dedication that is needed to gather all the documents necessary. Councilman Imperial suggested that if manpower was not sufficient to raise the headstones, the City might consider contacting the Army or the Sheriff's Department to see if a helicopter could be made available to lift the fallen headstones and recommended that Dr. Maude, member of the Cemetery Board, be contacted for assistance. B. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch also requested that staff investigate the proposals that are coming from the new owners of the Auto Auction. This item also to be placed as a future Agenda item. There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to the next regular meeting on November 10, 1987, at 8:00 p.m. APPROVED: Respectfully submitted: MAYOR ty Clerk cm 10-27-87 Page #12