Loading...
CC - 09-08-87\1 0 APPROVED CITY O F%OS ::%!EAD MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING D tiTE 9.oU 47 ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL By SEPTEMBER 8, 1987 The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Cleveland at 8:05 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman Imperial. The Invocation was delivered by Pastor Art Freund, Rosemead Church of Christ. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers Imperial, McDonald, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch, and Mayor Cleveland Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 25, 1987 - REGULAR MEETING { Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch asked that his statement on page #4, second paragraph from the bottom, be corrected to read "R-2 zoning, south of the Freeway, came into effect before the time of annexation...". There being no objection, it was so ordered that this correction be made to.the minutes. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that the minutes of the Rosemead City Council Meeting of August 25, 1987, be approved as corrected. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL VOTE ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. A Resolution was presented by the Mayor and the City Council to the Temple station personnel honoring their efforts in decreasing crime in Rosemead. It was accepted by Captain Doug McClure and Lieutenant Volker Niewisch. A Proclamation naming September as PTA Enrollment month was presented by the Mayor and the City Council to the Rosemead School District PTA. It was accepted by representatives of the PTA. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch praised the relationship the City enjoys with the Sheriff's Department. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch commended the efforts of the local PTAs for all the hours they dedicate to the young people of our community. I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Edna Mondaca, 2321 N. Pine, Rosemead, stated that the people who were there were all from Pine Street and were concerned with the workmanship of the recent public works project. Ms. Mondaca was concerned with several issues including the fact that some homeowners dedicated land and others were paid; the owners were told this project was an easement, yet deeds were required to be signed; the construction lasted four years; no answers were received from staff when City Hall was contacted regarding these issues; the lowest bidder had to be used regardless of the poor workmanship; property was taken from owners without deeds being signed; what the City policy is on similar projects; assessments based on slipshod workmanship; and improvements that are not improvements. Ms. Mondaca requested that answers be given in regard to these problems. Councilman Imperial stated that he went to the site and took pictures of the conditions. Councilman Imperial felt that this was a deplorable situation, and sited the fact that wheelchair ramps at intersections are mandated by law; but the sidewalks are unusable by handicapped persons because of the placement of utility poles in the middle of the sidewalks. A wheelchair cannot pass between fences and utility poles. Councilman Imperial asked that staff be directed to provide an in-depth study as to how this problem can be prevented on current and future projects. CM 9-08-87 Page #1 Ms. Mondaca stated that efforts to meet with staff had failed. One meeting had been arranged with Mr. Wagner, Mr. Rubel, and owners from Pine Street and staff failed to appear. Owners waited for a period of time and they were not notified that staff was unable to be there. A meeting was eventually arranged with no satisfactory conclusion reached. 2. Maria Roman, 2350 Pine, Rosemead, stated that when she and her husband were approached on the dedication of their property, they were told that they would not be paid for their land. The approach to their driveway does not line up with the driveway itself. The block wall fence was replaced on the wrong site, giving the appearance of belonging to the neighbor. When Ms. Roman approached the workmen with these concerns, she was told she would have to enter her driveway at an angle. 3. Esperanza Aguilar, 2440 Pine Street, Rosemead, felt that the widening project had been for the convenience of the K-Mart and she had not approved of the project from the beginning. Ms. Aguilar was informed that if she did not dedicate her land, she would be taken to court. The work, when it was done, was done poorly. The gate no longer works correctly, and the sprinklers have not been installed. Numerous attempts to have the situation rectified were unsuccessful. Ms. Aguilar spoke to an unidentified member of staff and was given the run-around. Councilman Imperial stated that some very serious statements had been made by Ms. Aguilar and would she be willing to put these accusations in writing, regarding the court action. Councilman Imperial then asked Assistant City Manager, Donald J. Wagner, if the contractor for this project had received final payment and Mr. Wagner stated that he had not yet been paid. Councilman Imperial then requested that final payment be withheld pending an investigation, and that all similar projects be stopped while this investigation was being conducted. 4. Flora Alvarez, 2358 N. Pine, Rosemead, stated that she owns two adjacent properties and was told that she would be given two driveways. when the work was done, she was given only one driveway with a blacktop patch for the other side. The contractor tried to convince her that blacktop was more expensive than cement and she should be happy. Ms. Alvarez stated that she now has a parking logistics problem. 5. Gertrude VanDerEyken, 2535 N. Pine, Rosemead, was upset that some owners had been paid when she had not. Her gate and fence were replaced so that the clearance at the bottom is such that her animals cannot be confined in the yard. Ms. VanDerEyken also spoke for her neighbor (2527 Pine) who was unable to be there, stating that the tree in front of his house was left in the middle of the sidewalk so that eventually the roots will destroy the fence and the sidewalk. Councilman Imperial asked if this was the property where a curbing had been built around a tree and if Ms. VanDerEyken's neighbor had requested that the tree not be removed. Ms. VanDerEyken stated that the neighbor had not asked for the tree to be left alone, but had called City Hall to report the damage the tree could ultimately do to the sidewalk. 6. George Sarokin, 2328 N. Pine, Rosemead, stated that his fence and cactus garden had been destroyed by this project. When he was originally approached, he was told that only a small portion of his garden would be affected, but the work actually destroyed it entirely. Mr. Sarokin placed the value on his garden at $5,000.00, and his fence and inconvenience at $10,000.00. 7. Angleo Alvarez, 2358 and 2356 N. Pine, Rosemead, acquired the property in September of 1985. He had no knowledge of this project or the requested dedication of property. The neighbor's block wall has been placed on his property. 8. Joe zilioli, 2548 Pine, Rosemead, complained of the sloppy work and blamed the engineers and inspectors for allowing it to continue unchecked. CM 9-08-87 Page #2 Mr. Zilioli also lodged a complaint about the street sweeping service leaving debris in the middle of the street. Councilman Imperial stated the sweeping should be checked by staff on this street for the next thirty days and the Mayor so directed. 9. Rudy Sifuentes, 2313 Pine, Rosemead, stated that the drainage is now under his driveway, and ruining his wall; the sidewalk is cracked; and the street sweeper encounters only mud. Councilman Imperial asked if the problem with sweeping the turnaround portion of the intersection of Pine and Graves had been corrected. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch stated that it was his opinion that that corner cut-off was the County section and the City did not have permission to sweep. Donald J. Wagner, Assistant city manager, stated that a portion of Graves at Pine was county land. A joint street improvement project between L.A. County and the Rosemead Redevelopment Agency is slated for next spring, and will encompass the widening of Graves Avenue, limit to limit. This is the reason that Pine Street lots cornering on Graves Avenue had not been a part of the Pine Street Project. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch stated that residents on Graves had 'received a notice from the county informing them that a widening project is anticipated, and that it is a County project not a City project. Donald J. Wagner, Assistant City Manager, responded that this is correct. The County will do the engineering, and award bid on the contract. The Redevelopment Agency will then reimburse the County for the City's share of the cost. Councilman Imperial asked for verification that this project will be started in spring and Mr. Wagner so verified. Councilman McDonald stated his embarassment for the City at the shoddiness of the workmanship involved with this project. He asked that staff be directed to work with these owners in preparing a report on what will be required to correct these problems. This report to be brought back to the Council with an explanation from Sandoval, the contractor, of how they let this condition develop; to include a report from Willdan explaining their-tactics on acquiring dedications; and to include a report on how the engineers could allow this project to be finished when unusable conditions existed. Councilman McDonald restated his embarassment on the City's behalf concerning these items. Councilman Imperial agreed with Councilman McDonald and restated his opinion that all projects be stopped pending a full investigation. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch stat dedication of property may not individual homeowners but that workmanship that was executed. that one of the excuses he had taking so long to complete had been one of the driest winters not hold water. ad that the legalities involved with have been properly explained to the did not excuse the poor level of Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch also stated been given as to why this project was been the rainy weather; but this had on record and he felt this excuse did Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch concurred that the spacing between fences and utility poles did not accomodate wheel chairs and asked if there was anything the Council could do to ensure that this situation would be alleviated in future projects. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch stated that sidewalk accessibility for the handicapped should be a prerequisite for all future projects. CM 9-08-87 Page 43 Councilman Imperial stated that the placement of utility poles in the middle of sidewalks presented a danger to the handicapped and elderly, and the City might want to consider the undergrounding of the utilities in residential areas. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch brought up the question of applying for liquidated damages from the contractor. Donald J. Wagner, Assistant City Manager, stated that the City had not yet done so, but it was one option available. He stated that the City has been meeting with the property owners on an individual basis. Staff has also been meeting with the contractor in an effort to get corrections made; the project has not yet been finalized. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch requested that a representative from Willdan, a representative from Sandoval, and the property owners affected be brought together for a meeting at City Hall to try and resolve these problems and bring them to a successful conclusion. The problems to be addressed would include the fact that some homeowners had been paid, while others had not. He felt that all the legal options should be explained to the property owners. Councilman Imperial reiterated his opinion that a full investigation is necessary and a meeting is to be arranged with all the interested parties. Mayor Cleveland,concurred and so directed. Councilman Taylor stated that the reports required on this project should be prepared by Willdan and not by City Hall staff. Every homeowner in the Pine Street project should be contacted and the Council provided with a written list of all names, addresses, and individual comments so that the Council can go to Pine Street, in person, and know just exactly what each person is talking about. Councilman Taylor stressed that Willdan do all the preparation of these reports and bring them back to the Council. He, too, was appalled at the quality of this job and did not recognize the name of Sandoval. He asked that these complaints be placed in the record as far as any future contracts be concerned. Councilman Imperial agreed that Willdan do the work of preparing the reports but asked that staff also should prepare a report as to why staff had not acted on the citizens' complaints and caught some of these problems before they developed. Councilman Taylor did not agree and felt that this.was purely an engineering problem and not involving City staff. He wanted a professional report submitted by the engineers and inspectors of record. Councilman Imperial reiterated his position as wanting an answer as to why staff had not caught this problem. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch stated that this was not the first time the City has had problems with, or complaints, about Willdan. He felt that the amount of money paid to Willdan by the City should guarantee a higher quality of workmanship than the City seemed to be getting, and maybe it was time to seek another engineering firm. , mayor Cleveland directed Willdan to provide the answers and reports that had been asked for by the members of the Council. 10. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, stated that the Council should not be surprised by the aforementioned complaints; he repeatedly told the Council that the same conditions exist on Del Mar and expressed the opinion that the City's Engineering Department lacks responsibility. CM 9-08-87 Page #4 0 0 Mayor Cleveland stated that he appreciated everyone's concerns and was grateful this item had been brought to the Council's attention. Mayor Cleveland and Councilman Imperial had been to the site. Mayor Cleveland stated that action would be taken on all questions raised at the meeting and the City Manager has a note on them. A full study will be conducted and the homeowners will be kept aware of the results. Councilman Imperial asked for reassurance from Mayor Cleveland that a meeting will be arranged between all interested parties and Mayor Cleveland so stated. Councilman Imperial also asked that staff investigate the nurseries located on Pine Street. He felt there may be a problem with dirt or mud washing onto the streets. Mayor Cleveland called a 5-minute recess and reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE NORTH SIDE OF MARSHALL STREET EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO RUBIO WASH Mayor Cleveland opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Discussion by the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch asked for clarification of the use of the word "alley" as used in the staff report. Donald J. Wagner, Assistant City.Manager, stated the word alley had been used in error, and it was a vacation of an easement. Norm Rubel, City Engineer, stated that the correct word usage appeared in the Resolution itself. Councilman Gary Taylor stated that this would be made clear upon the formal reading of the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 87-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD VACATING A PORTION OF THE NORTH SIDE OF MARSHALL STREET EAST OF AND ADJACENT TO RUBIO WASH There being no further discussion, it was MOVED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH that Resolution No. 87-38 be adopted. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. III. LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 87-37 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented for adoption. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $406,577.70 NUMBERED 00401-00423/20268 THROUGH 20362 INCLUSIVELY. There being no discussion, it was MOVED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that Resolution No. 87-37 be adopted. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CM 9-08-87 Page #5 B. ORDINANCE NO. 609 - AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE REAGRDING DENSITY AND NON-CONFORMING REQUIREMENTS IN THE R-2 ZONE (ADOPT) The following Ordinance was presented for adoption. ORDINANCE NO. 609 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AMENDING PART V SECTION 9105 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING THE LOT COVERAGE AND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS AND REPEALING SECTION 9105.20 CONCERNING DEEP LOTS IN THE LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH to adopt Ordinance No. 609. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC-B, CC-D PULLED) CC-A REQUEST FROM GARVEY PTA FOR WAIVER OF CARNIVAL FEES CC-C PARKING RESTRICTIONS - PINE STREET FROM GRAVES AVENUE TO NEWMARK AVENUE CC-E ACCEPTANCE OF ROAD DEEDS/PERMITS TO ENTER EVELYN AVENUE PROJECT MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar by approved. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-B AWARD OF BID - GRAFFITI REMOVAL SERVICES Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch questioned the amount on page 4 as being unclear ($300,00 and should have been $300,000). The documents sent out had the correct amounts and this was merely a clerical error. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch was concerned about oil base paints and asked the contractor's representative, Tim Sullivan, if any were used in the removal of the graffiti. Tim Sullivan, Graffiti Removal, Inc., responded that his company does not ordinarily use any oil base paints. Once or twice a year there might be a special case requiring the use of oil base paints but the vast majority of their work is done with non-oil base paints. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR to award the contract for graffiti removal services to Graffiti Removal, Inc. Before vote could result, Councilman Imperial raised a point of information. Councilman Imperial stated that he had not received the report from staff on the cost of a City-operated graffiti removal program. Councilman Taylor stated that he had seen such a report, and that it showed to be cost-prohibitive for the City to run such a program. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch concurred with Councilman Taylor that the initial expense did not justify any potential savings when the company that has been performing the service has been doing a satisfactory job. Councilman Imperial reiterated that he had not seen such a report and that he was not prepared to vote on this item without having seen a copy of the report. CM 9-08-87 Page #6 Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch withdrew his motion for approval. Councilman Taylor asked what impact would be made on graffiti removal services if the contract was not renewed at this time. Donald J. Wagner, Assistant City Manager, stated that there should be no problem in obtaining a two-week extension of the existing contract. Councilman Taylor withdrew his second of the motion for approval. Councilman Imperial requested a copy of the aforementioned report before he left that evening. The Mayor declared CC-B withdrawn and postponed for two weeks. CC-D PARKING SURVEY - AREAS SURROUNDING THE AUTO AUCTION Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch stated that the report showed no clear consensus on parking restrictions to be imposed and suggested that the answer was to require on-site parking at the Auto Auction itself. He inquired if such a condition could be placed on.the usage of that property. Donald J. Wagner, Assistant city manager, stated that the discussions with the new owners of the property, General Electric Credit Auto Auctions, Inc., included plans for a parking structure at the location. The City's position on the parking situation has been strongly stressed and the new owners are aware of this position. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch stated that the Auto Auction must police their customers and ensure that parking regulations are enforced. Donald J. Wagner, Assistant City Manager, assured Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch that all parking regulations in that area were enforced. Councilman Taylor felt this situation created an enforcement problem since on-street parking is allowed. There would be no way to tell if the vehicle belonged to a visitor to a home on that street or if the vehicle was a customer of the Auto Auction. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch suggested that patrons of the Auto Auction could be given a ticket at the time they enter the on-site parking facilities and could not enter the Auto Auction premises without presenting this ticket at the gate. Councilman Taylor requested that the Parking Survey tally sheet be mailed to all property owners who responded, informing them of the results of the survey. Donald J. Wagner, Assistant City Manager, agreed to send a copy of the tally sheet and a cover letter to all respondents. Councilman McDonald stated that the council consider sending another survey to the occupants rather than the homeowners who did not respond to the original survey. He felt this item affected the occupant more than the property owner. Councilman Taylor agreed with Councilman McDonald and asked that staff be directed to obtain the names of the occupants and mail surveys to those resident-occupants who did not respond to the original survey. Staff was so directed and this item was filed. No vote was required. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION A. CHOICE (FORMERLY FALCON CABLE) TELEVISION - SENIOR RATES VERBATIM dialogue follows. CM 9-08-87 Page 47 WAGNER: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. You have before you a staff report from the City Attorney. We have Mr. Derick in the audience at this time. He has requested an opportunity to address you regarding this. DERICK: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Chris Derick, I'm the President of Choice Communication. I'd like to make a few comments on this issue. In the last few months, we've had some substantial correspondence between the City and this company and I thought the issue was fairly clear but I don't think it is. I think it's important that we understand it before we get locked into a debate. To start with, we have no objection to a senior rate; no difficulty with a senior rate at all. We do, however, feel the importance for qualification and there is a reason for this. We can go through a lot of exercises. I'll concede Mr. Kress's point and get to the real meat of the issue; the operational and economic impact to the company. We are, right now, going through a substantial demographic change in this area. Not only is our population getting older but it is, quite frankly, becoming Asian; and we know from our experience that they live many generations within a household and we feel that this could potentially lead to a large use of an unqualified senior rate. This is a perspective evaluation on our part, but the situation exists and we deal with it on a day-by-day basis. It's the biggest problem we have as a cable company; dealing with this particular demographic group. We just don't understand it; a culture so different from ours. We consider that a significant-issue. If, in fact, we ended up with about a 25% use of the senior citizens rate, of our total population, the subsidies that would be transferred to the non-seniors and could be as much as $1.50 per subscriber, per month. Our product is not a necessity; our product is a pure luxury in this marketplace. There is nothing we deliver that cannot be obtained somewhere else. So, our public is quite sensitive about both the service and the price and we feel that this could potentially be a substantial risk to us. Cable, in terms of its own success in this market, the jury is very definitely out. Our own success in going through first time is not anything to write home to mom about. So we feel that this is a significant issue, and a significant risk, and what motivates us. Now, there's another issue which I would like to mention, and that is very simply, I do what I say I'm going to do. I came into this community at the time you were having some frustrating negotiations. I was asked to give a date, I gave a date. As I stand here right now, unofficially, we're done. The system's built. Right now we lack five permits in order to finish a few odds and ends in the communiity, and to send the final proofs.to your consultant. But the community will be done, completed, by September 15th, as I said it would be. As far as the Norwalk standards are concerned. As Mr. Kress knows, I picked those standards because I needed some standards. They're open to any kind of discussion. If you don't like the standards, we can change the standards. I'm not locked into those, I just feel we need some standards. I have to take a position, in the operating of the company, which I think is the best long term issue. It's not always the easiest issue but I believe it is the right one and it's one that's got to survive what comes after me and what comes after you. The market is one that is difficult for us. I don't want to make short-term decisions that could potentially get us in trouble. I do not believe that I'm a devious man and I don't believe I'm really a small man. I'm trying to make the right kind of decisions and I'm trying to the right kind of thing. I'm happy to sit and discuss with all of you collectively, individuals, City staff, alternatives to the standards; entertain any kind of standards, but I feel that for the best interests of the company, which I presume would be your interests, too, since you are in an informal partnership relationship with us, necesssitates that we do have some kind of standards. Thank you. CM 9-08-87 Page #8 IMPERIAL: I'd like to go over part of your conversation about partnership. My partnership is with the people of this community. They elected me to that partnership. My conversations with your company, whether you were the president or not, was the fact that I was concerned with senior citizens having a limited amount of worthwhile viewing because eventually, for instance, with cable TV, and with Home Box Office, and what have you, they wouldn't be able to see anything worthwhile. These seniors and handicapped are on a fixed income. My concern was that they have a discount so they could afford the only entertainment they might have, okay?; to sit in front of a TV and watch the best programs available, okay? Your company, whether you were the president or not, agreed to that. We had two companies agree to it and I went to bat for Falcon at that time because they were a home town-type operator, okay? We would have more access to them. I took criticism from my councilmembers, some of them, because I went to bat for Falcon, okay? The fact remains, I thought I was doing the right thing. Now, you come up here and tell me, and the rest of this Council, we're not going to get a senior discount and you haven't mentioned the office in Rosemead that I requested. DERICK: I conceded that, sir. IMPERIAL: No, we're not qualifying anybody, that wasn't the idea, to qualify people, okay? DERICK: You mean.all I have to do is be 62 years old. IMPERIAL: That's right. That was the understanding, and that's what we requested, and that's what we got. You also promised us an office in Rosemead so the people in this City would not have to leave the City for some kind of attention on their problem, okay? I don't see that either. And I don't know about the rest of this Council, but for me, I can't buy that. You made an agreement and I think as an honorable person with an honorable company you ought to stick with it. DERICK: We're making arrangements now to have an office. I appreciate what you're saying and I agree with you in concept. Unfortunately, we're living in a dynamic world and circumstances have changed. If the scenario, as we see it, and, in our experience, it occurs, it will compromise your ability to have a cable system at all. IMPERIAL: You can bet one thing, sir, that if Falcon changes the way for the seniors and the handicapped, they will have a harder time than they ever did. , DERICK: But sir, that is not the issue. I'd be more than happy to sit down to the table.... IMPERIAL: That is the issue and if you discuss it with me, it will be before the Council, here. DERICK: Okay, but I'm not understanding; somebody's got to explain it to me; you are saying that we've got people here on a fixed income, and they are suffering on the basis of a fixed income. Okay, let's set a standard. Let's set an income standard so that... IMPERIAL: The standards had been set when you went into a contract and that was that any senior citizen would be given a discount of 25% and an office would be put in this community. Senior citizens and handicapped. DERICK: We are offering a 25% discount now to those people who meet the income and residence qualification. I'm more than willing to discuss'those qualifications. IMPERIAL: Why, do you folks think you are in the INS business or what have you that you have to qualify to somebody? CM 9-08-87 Page #9 TAYLOR: In difference to what Mr. Imperial was saying, I don't have a problem with a limitation. It will take care of the handicapped; it will take care of those on fixed incomes. I believe it's a reasonable request. Put it this way, maybe it's a compromise position. But I think it is in agreement. The day that cable TV becomes a necessity for anybody, they're in pretty bad shape. If anybody want to subscribe to cable TV, I have no problem with it. But by the same token, we have gas rates, water rates, fuel rates, bus rates. I think those are good, and are needed. But when we start throwing cable TV into the mandatory, necessities of life; I don't think we need it. So, my feeling is that those that need it, they're being offered a proposal that will satisfy that need. I don't believe it should be....... one of the things today that really disturbs me is the young people, 18-25 years old, who have one hell of a hard time going out to buy a home, they don't get a discount on their gas rates, or water rates, or phone rates. Pick up your L. A. Times and find out what's happening to the young people in the world today. So, when you start throwing cable TV in as a necessity of life, something's way out of perspective. So, if those that need it and want it, to sit in front of the television, give it to them. But I don't think it's a total necessity for everyone to have it. BRUESCH: Take the middle course. I've got a couple of questions that I want to ask about these...... no place, can I see the principal owner, primary resident defined. That is a very nebulous statement and I think if you are going to be asking us to qualify and quantify this discount, we are going to have to have something much more specific. It says here, the primary resident or the principal resident, of the residential unit being serviced. What does that mean? It doesn't mean anything to me. A senior citizen could live in my home and I would say, put the name on the deed, you know, it's very simple. You could get around that requirement very simply. Does it mean the name on the deed, does it mean the person who spends the most time in the house? In order to make a quantification of this, you are going to have to come with something a lot more specific than that, I think. If you're saying that this is going to be affecting your ability to make a profitable business in the City, it's going to have to be a lot less nebulous. The second comment I want to make questions to you ...we've had service for a little over a month, now. Have you canvassed all the neighborhoods right now for people to sign up? DERICK: There are two power supplies left, and a few odds and ends. BRUESCH: For those areas that have had service since, say, the 1st of August, what is the percentage you're receiving of occupants to subscribers. What is it? 300? 250? . DERICK: 22%. I can give you the numbers, exactly, if you'd like. BRUESCH: Okay, do you have them there? DERICK: As of Monday, we had 2,094 subscribers and we had actually canvassed 9,518 units. TAYLOR: Would it be possible to get a copy of that, and is that broken down with senior citizens, also? DERICK: We can.get you a report. I can give you a complete report on this. A lot of these are notes from the... TAYLOR: Okay, I'd appreciate that. It would give us a clearer perspective of just what is happening with this. BRUESCH: One of the problems that I've run into - a lot of people have come to me and said they want the cable but your salesmen are coming during the day when a lot of our people are out of their houses and not being contacted. I know for a fact, in my CM 9-08-87 Page #10 neighborhood, the person came between in a fairly blue-collar neighborhood are away to school, or whatever and a who wanted it. • 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. I live and both parents work, the kids lot of people were skipped over DERICK: Believe me, we won't skip over anybody. We use what we call, I call, a combined-arms approach. We use direct mail, direct sales, knocking on the door, and we also use telemarketing. So, we will go through; we will effectively hit everybody. We are planning to go back through again because we have just engaged another service which we think might sell a little better in this community. We're going to try this new service put out by a Time, Inc., called Festival. We're going to go through completely, again. It's for people who can't quite accomodate to the new movies; who feel they're a little rugged. Just a different kind of service. BRUESCH: This leads to my third comment. Twice, it's been brought up to me that any person in the household, that can get the number of the contract, can call up your business agent and have the Playboy Channel put on their TV set. This has been told to me directly from a parent who did not want that channel put on their TV. Their sixteen year old boy called up, gave them the number, and it was on the next day. Is there no way you can screen these calls, or have it put in writing? DERICK: We try. We do have standards. We try and control that. You have to have a-certain amount of information, and there are going to be some faults but quite frankly we don't have too much difficulty with that. We have circulated among other cable companies to find out what kind of abuse they are having. We've considered things like pin numbers, other ways of controlling access. Frankly, it has not been a significant problem. But to tell you the truth, as far as Playboy is concerned, a lot of people have Playboy and they will have a parental control that puts in a code that locks it out, so the kids can't get it. Well, it took about an hour and every high school had it; you could get it off the playground, out of the cafeteria. The simple truth is, this is something we're all suffering with. If you're a parent, you've got to do your job as a parent. We can't do it for you. BRUESCH: One parent said it happened twice. It happened twice. They had it discontinued, and the kid went back and did it again. DERICK: I think, maybe, some 1940's discipline is applicable there. BRUESCH: Is there any way that you can ask something like that to be in writing? DERICK: What we could probably do, if the parent called, I believe we can put a note in the file that would say "DO NOT AUTHORIZE PLAYBOY" to anybody in that home. BRUESCH: So, in other words, they direct a call to you and say "I do not want that particular channel". DERICK: In the comment file, under no circumstances, no matter what I tell you, what condition I'm in, please do not give me Playboy Channel. McDONALD: What do you think your obligation is as far as your company having signed a contract and it definitvely saying in the contract that you will provide a 25% discount on both basic service and converter rental to any subscriber over the age of 62 years or demonstrates that he or she is disabled. What do you think your obligation is to fulfill that? CM 9-08-87 Page #11 DERICK: Well, I think, and to be perfectly honest when I read it, it never occurred to me that there was ever any expectation that there not be a standard because those kinds 'of phrases in contracts are not unusual. It was not a positive decision on my part to write back to the City and say that we're going to do it, but there are going to be qualifications that weren't there. I frankly, was really surprised, when I got that letter back saying but it's got to be unqualified. McDONALD: Do you know how many people are really surprised when they go to court; that didn't read the fine print in the contract; that said something; that they're liable for that. If it doesn't say something in the contract, there is no indication. DERICK: I understand that, and the contract is very clear on that matter. McDONALD: The problem that I have with that is just the basic tenet that you are not observing the contract. You are renegotiating the contract that exists and if we allow you, as the contractor, to come into this hall, deal with the City Council, renegotiate a contract, we have to allow every contractor to come in, midterm, on the same grounds as you are and say, "Hey, we want you to reconsdier it". Now, here you're making us reinterpret this in a different way than we thought. Okay? You're actually renegotiating the contract, here. DERICK: You asked me what my responsibility is. Secondarily, you asked what yours is, in regard to the contract. And,I say, yes it is your job and it is my job to look at the contract and look at it in the terms of what is occurring. We can take a constructionist view of the contract and say you will do it, no matter what. or we can take a look at the situation and say what is the goal of the contract? The goal of the contract... McDONALD: But clearly, you're renegotiating something that hasn't even started, in this case. DERICK: In a strict construction sense, you're absolutely right. I'm saying that the dynamics as I understand them, now, are such that it represents a risk. I think I have the responsiblity, although you're perfectly correct in calling me on it; saying, hey, you're walking away from the contract, but I think I do have a responsibility to say to you that your ability, as a City Councilman, to get a cable communications system in here, may be compromised if we stick to the letter of what was written at the time it was negotiated. I give you a perfect example of that.... BRUESCH: That was why we wrote a contract. I don't know how long it took us to locate a cable TV company by investigating that all and then they wrote a contract. DERICK: Circumstances change, sir. TAYLOR: I would like the comment that I'm going to make, to be put into the Minutes, verbatim on this subject. This gentleman is asking for an amendment to his contract but I would like the record to show that we have had a tree trimming contractor come up here for amendments to his contract; we have had our rubbish contractor up here repeatedly giving amendments to his contract; we had the street sweeper contractor up here getting an amendment to his contract because of cost factors. Now, that is something that we do on a routine basis and I want it in the Minutes because I know that those contractors, coming up here in a short while, and I want to see how we handle them. So, you're right in bringing it up, you have every right to bring it up, and ask for an amendment. We have been making those amendments to every one of those contracts because of the legitimate hardship or a cost, to all of those contractors. So, what's fair is fair. CM 9-08-87 Page 12 IMPERIAL: If you can remember, during the time we voted on this last contractor that requested a raise, I voted against it because I was concerned with the fact that we were setting a precedent. Now, I do not want to see partiality in this community; in any area and with any of our citizens. So, I'm going to request that if we allow this gentleman to prequalify senior citizens or handicapped for the 250 discount, then I am also going to request the City prequalify all riders of our Dial-a-Ride for prequalification, also. TAYLOR: That might not seem fair. IMPERIAL: No, I'm saying this, that if you prequalify one, you should prequalify another. I don't think either one of them should be prequalified. TAYLOR: I don't have any problem, if you want to do that. The ridership is a convenience to those that cannot drive, themselves. Cable TV is not a necessity. IMPERIAL: It is to me. It's a thing that gives company to some people who have no company; like that senior citizen on a fixed-income that very seldom sees any member of their family. okay. That's one. That's as important to them, maybe, as the telephone. Maybe, not to you or me. Okay, that's the only kind of entertainment they have. I know people in that category in this community. It's not just an isolated case. DERICK: I spent a lot of time trying to convince everybody of that and I haven't been terribly successful, and one of the reasons is, in this particular market you have 19 signals out there, so where there have been situations where special rates have been created to accomodate the fact that there is little other alternative entertainment. In this market, we have a tremendous amount of entertainment; and in fact, what is normally referred to as the Universal Service is available for the price of an antenna. BRUESCH: I feel this Council knows how I stood on the original contract. Since the deregulation, I feel there's been a major washout in the industry. We've seen a lot of the promises made in the heyday of the push and pull type of negotiations not come true. We don't have two-way communications in our cable systems, yet. I don't see it in the near future, either. We don't see a double-capacity cable, yet. I don't see it in the near future. The capital expenses; the outlays are just not there. The profitability of these things are not there. We are in the process, of actually renegotiating, an aspect of our contract with Choice Cable. Any type of negotiation is a give-and-take and a push-and-pull. You want us to give up something, we need to have something, in return. I think one of the things we need to have is a specific definition of the principal resident. I think that your gross monthly household income is significantly too low in this time of inflation. I think this was adopted from Norwalk. When was that? Three or four years ago? I believe this came from a contract that is three or four years old. Inflation has gotten us all, and $1,200.00 for a fixed-income person, is artificially low. I think we have to go back and look at what the base-minimum required income for living expenses, food, so forth and so on. DERICK: The usual standard, sir, is the Social Security Income. That's what is generally used. BRUESCH: I have a DERICK: A great deal of the industry. BRUESCH: Well, that is officially low. I have a parent that lives on Social Security, and he doesn't make it. We have to help him. But not many senior citizens who are on Social Security have the family around to give them that help. This has to go back and be negotiated upward. I would like to see an office in our community, so that the people...... I've already received complaints from people that have the cable and want it disconnected because they're not getting their complaints aired by the young gal at the other end of CM 9-08-87 Page #13 the.... it's the old telephone roulette wheel. They can't get any response. The frustration level is getting, in some of the areas, is getting very high. We would like to see somebody in the City that they come to with those types of complaints. I think if you would go back to any negotiating table you cannot be the only one that offers something. We have to have a give-and-take. I hope that my comments can direct you and direct staff to at least come up with some type of equitable solution to this problem. DERICK: I think we've come a long way, already. I think that there is no problem, at all. I have been willing to negotiate standards; I'm not locked into standards, at all. I think the position is very reasonable. BRUESCH: I'm willing to send it back to our City Attorney with the idea that there is some merit in their proposal. We should give specific direction to Mr. Kress and which way we want to... KRESS: Mr. Mayor, if I may. That's fine. As I pointed out in the memo, I think that's exactly what Mr. Derick was attempting to do, is reopen the negotiations, and as long as everyone understands it as such, that's fine. To me, the significant deal points here are an income standard; we have block grant income amounts that could be incorporated by reference; we have some other possible standards that could be used. Mr. Derick's proposal if a senior citizen or a handicapped individual buys more than the basic, low-level service, they lose the discount. That is not what the ordinance says, now. So that's another point for negotiation. BRUESCH: I think that a COLA - cost of living adjustment each year - has to be worked into this. Because right now, inflation is very low but who knows what is going to happen to the prime rate, and the money market, and the value of the dollar if we start getting into double digit inflation. $600.00 forever and ever or $700.00 forever and ever... DERICK: I don't Mr. Kress's issue on for the premium serv policy issue of that HBO and Showtime and services. But, more wholesale service. have any problem with that. I would like to get the table with regard to discounts on the rates ices. Again, I have trouble with the public because we clearly ...when we start getting up tc those kinds of things ...they are purely luxury importantly to us, we are a retailer of a KRESS: That isn't the issue. DERICK: It most definitely is because it becomes a really true economic issue to us. KRESS: The discount only applies to basic service, but in your proposal that discount is lost if an individual subscribes to something over and above. That's the only issue you have to deal with, not the wholesaling. DERICK: That's clear. BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor, I think we have direction, then to send our staff attorney back to do some negotiation. I'd like to see what they come up with in the next couple of weeks. I have an open mind. DERICK: Would you like to make some suggestions to us, Mr. Kress, or would you prefer it the other way around? KRESS: I'd like to see what you come up with in terms of primary resident. DERICK: If you have some standards; you were referencing some then, it would seem more helpful if you would come across with those. KRESS: Sure. I think it's a solvable problem. CM 9-08-87 Page #14 TAYLOR: When this comes back to the Council, next time around, I'd like the verbatim minutes of when this contract was awarded to Falcon. There was a lot discussion on there, and I don't recall the extent of the rates, and the necessity, and the premium stations, and such. Now, we've gone from a necessity of the basic services, above and beyond the 19 channels that are accessible, now; we will get cable; but now, we're getting into all the add-ons, also. So, I think that will help refresh all our memories. IMPERIAL: I'd like the record to show that I'm very much opposed to any renegotiation of the basic contract with the cable company. We had a contract, as far as I'm concerned, they are violating the contract, and I'm not willing, as an individual council member, - and I want this verbatim in the record - to go back into negotiations. We're not talking about a rate increase, now, we're talking about basic parts of the contract. Thank you. BRUESCH: I'd like my final comment to be verbatim, also. Again, I reiterate, I was against the contract from the beginning for many reasons. But, now that we've got a product in our City that is being used by the public; if it's a question between having that product or having this discount; that's the choice. I'd rather keep the product because people are using that product. TAYLOR: To make it simple on everyone who's asked for different comments, verbatim. If the Council doesn't object, it's only been a 25-minute conversation, let's put it all in, verbatim. DERICK: Let's add that we're done. TAYLOR: Pardon? DERICK: The cable system is built, gentlemen. TAYLOR: You're correct. DERICK: We've built your cable system. TAYLOR: And I think there were some hard times coming along with it, but I have to admit, you've met the deadline and that was the whole intent to get it in. You worked out the bugs a couple of months ago; you were behind on it and as far as I'm concerned, you met the deadline. DERICK: We need one thing from you, sir, where do you want your outlet in this building? BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor, it slipped my mind. When are the school outlets going to be installed? DERICK: We have stubbed out every location, I believe. Three schools have been installed; it is now in the school's hands. We have connections to the outside of the buildings; we have started the process of making contact; I'm about to... if you're involved in the educational system, you know how difficult it's going to be to get anybody to focus on that. It's there, when somebody calls us and says to put the outlet in "X" spot, we'll put it there, we're there, ready to go; it's just an installment. BRUESCH: The schools do have to call you, though. DERICK: They have to tell us where they want it. We made some attempts to contact them but it.... BRUESCH: Well, it was during summer. DERICK: It gets pretty wild. That's one of the most difficult aspects of completing a cable system is getting the schools to figure out where they want their outlet. CM 9-08-87 Page #15 BRUESCH: Give them a couple of weeks. KRESS: I think this has turned out to be a matter for discussion rather than formal action, although I do understand the direction and we will attempt to work with Choice Television to iron out our differences and come back to you with an ordinance that covers this discount. CLEVELAND: Thank you, Mr. Kress, thank you, Mr. Derick. END VERBATIM DIALOGUE Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, asked if there was any way to regulate the positioning of the cable television wiring. He felt these wires, when added to the utilities, could begin to cause a problem and become unsightly. Mr. Derick, Choice Television, stated that this was a regulatory issue; the application of General order 95, which is the relationship of the various utilities to one another, spacially, on the telephone pole. Cable television wiring runs parallel with the telephone lines. Councilman Taylor asked if each unit had a separate drop or if a junction box was used. Mr. Derick, Choice Television, responded many units were involved, junction boxes were units were signed up at one location. VI. STATUS REPORTS A. ILLEGAL BUILDING ACTIVITY that, depending on how installed after 7 or 8 This item was presented for informational purposes. B. DEVELOPER FEES Councilman Imperial asked who was utilizing it and what justification is being given. He asked that this item be brought back to the Council. Donald J. Wagner, Assistant City Manager, stated that a survey would be done and the results furnished to the Council. VII.MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch reminded the community and the members of the council about the waste recycling meeting to be held on Thursday, September 17, 1987. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch also questioned the possibility of undergrounding the utilities. He asked if any studies had been done on the establishment of undergrounding districts. This would be one way to alleviate the problem of utility poles in sidewalks, and cable television wires added to utility wires. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch felt that homeowners would be in favor of such a plan. He asked that staff be directed to prepare a short report on the feasibility of such a project. Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch cited complaints from several customers of Modern Service as to the cavalier way they are being treated by Modern Service concerning problems with trash pick-up. These are primarily commercial customers, and they are being given a run-around by Modern Service. If Modern Service cannot adequately service both residential and commercial customers, what options are available to the City to correct this problem. CM 9-08-87 Page #16 0 Donald J. Wagner, Assistant City Manager, stated that these complaints are usually handled on case-by-case basis. Councilman Taylor requested that Mayor Pro Tem'Bruesch give the names and addresses to Mr. Wagner, so the problems cited can be looked into and resolved. B. Councilman Taylor referred back to Mayor Pro Tem Bruesch's comment on the undergrounding and asked if the City had approximately 95 miles of streets. He felt that this would be, economically, an unreasonable solution to a problem. It would be cost-prohibitive to underground utilities on that many streets, City-wide. C. Councilman Imperial asked for a Resolution for the Garvey School District PTA, to be presented at the next meeting. Councilman Imperial stated that property line markers had been removed from a neighbor on Ralph Street during a City project. The markers were not replaced, and this person now faces paying a fee for the property to be surveyed in order to replace these markers. Councilman Imperial felt that since the City removed them, the City should replace them, at no cost to the homeowner. Staff to be directed to contact Mr. Genetti, 8748 E. Ralph St., and take care of this problem. D. Donald J. Wagner, Assistant City Manager, stated that the telephone call that;,was received during the meeting, had come from the City Manager, Frank Tripepi, who was in Sacramento working on the "no and low" property tax issue. A compromise had been reached, which will allow Rosemead and other cities who qualify, to receive a portion of property taxes; ten cents of the existing dollar. A memo, giving full details, will follow. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Margaret Clark, 3109 N. Prospect, Rosemead, requested Council support of the passage of AB 1700 (Roos). She asked if our Legislative Advocate could work with the Governor and persuade the passing and signing of this bill. This bill would allow high schools to add-on to their existing sites for expansion, rather than having to build new high schools. Councilman Taylor requested that copies of this bill, with the current amendments, be presented to the members of the Council. The Mayor directed staff to provide the copies of AB 1700. There being no further action required at this time, the Council Meeting was adjourned to September 22, 1987, at 8:00 p.m. APPROVED MA CM 9-08-87 Page #17 Respectfully submitted: