CC - 11-10-81L .
• • APPROVED
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
DATE as-8 i
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 10, 1981 AT 8:00 P. M.
The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called
to order by Councilman Cichy in the absence of Mayor Imperial at
8:10 p. m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley
Blvd., Rosemead, California.
The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman Taylor.
The Invocation was delivered by Rev. Tom Phillips.
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS:
Present: Councilmen Cichy, Taylor and Tury
Absent: Mayor Imperial (excused)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 27, 1981 - Regular Meeting
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY
that the Minutes of the October 27, 1981 Council Meeting be
approved. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
PRESENTATIONS:
Lt. Howard Tait was presented with a placque from the City
of Rosemead commending him on the five years he has spent in the
Temple City Sheriff's Station and expressed appreciation for his
outstanding efforts on the city's behalf.
Lt. Tait expressed appreciation for the kind thoughts and
the placque which was presented and he stated that he enjoyed
his stay of five years at the-Temple City Station and especially
appreciated the cooperation of the City Manager and the staff
during his tenure here. He stated that he will be training the
cadets in his new position with the Sheriff's department, and Lt.
John Phillips has become the liaison Lieutenant.
II. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL TO A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9423 E. VALLEY BLVD.
Chairraan'Cichy stated that the Public Hearing was open and in-
quired if there was anyone in the audience who would care to speak.
Ken Pike, Agent for the applicant, stated that the applicants
Min Seong Kang,and Mi Yong Kang no longer were asking for the CUP
for the sale of alcoholic'beverages. They just wanted to have..
a family operated convenience grocery store on the premises along
with the service station and a caretaker's residence.
Councilman Tury stated that this item should be referred back
to the Planning Commission since their has been a change in the
Conditional Use Permit requested.
Councilman Taylor agreed that this item should be referred
back to the Planning Commission and hold the appeal open so that
if the applicant should request an appeal on their decision it
would not have to pay any additional charges for that request.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY
that the Conditional Use Permit requested for the property located
at 9423 E. Valley Blvd., be referred back to the Planning Commis-
sion and that if an Appeal is requested by the applicant that no
additional charge be necessary. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
Chairmam declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
CM 11-10-81
Page #1
•
•
B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL TO A.CONDITIONAL.
USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8810 E. GARVEY AVE.
Chairman. Cichy stated that the Public Hearing was open and in-
quired if there is anyone in the audience who would care to speak
regarding this matter.,
R. Ernesto Villanueuva, spokesman for applicant Saul Calderon
Martinez, spoke in favor of the request, and presented the Council
with a list of signatures in favor of the sale of alcoholic bever-
ages at 8810 Garvey Avenue, "Saul's Market". This list needed to
be copied so that all the Councilmembers could review the list.
In order to expedite the Meeting, this item was..continued until
after the next Public Hearing.
C. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL TO A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3926 RIO HONDO AVE.
Chairman Cichy stated that the Public Hearing was open and in-
quired if there was anyone in the audience who would care to
speak regarding this matter.
Jack-H. Nugent,9419 E..Steele, petitioner'for the appeal to
the':approval of the Planning Commission, stated that he did not
feel that this was an appropriate place for a private church and
was opposed to its establishment on this site.
Eileen Yoshioka, 6932 E. Shorecrest, Anaheim, spokesman for
the church, explained the intentions of the church and stated
that they would abide by the conditions set forth by the Planning
Commission.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY
that the Appeal to the Conditional Use Permit for property located
at 3926 be denied and the Planning Commissions decision be upheld.
Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL TO A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY.LOCATED AT 8810 E. GARVEY AVE.
Chairman: Cichy stated that the additional information received
from the applicant has been reviewed, and since there was no
further information the Public Hearing was closed.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR
that the Appeal to the Conditional Use Permit for property located
at 8810 E. Garvey Avenue be denied and the Planning Commissions
decision be upheld. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
D. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION, BY REFERENCE, OF
THE PLUMBING.CODE, MECHANICAL CODE AND BUILDING CODE OF
L. A. COUNTY BE CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 24, 1981 TO MEET
LEGAL ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
E. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CONFIRMATION OF ASSESSMENTS
-FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON THE FOLLOWING STREETS:
WALNUT GROVE E/S, W/S (Grand to North City Boundary)
Ivar Street W/S
(Mission
to
Boydton)
(Boydton
to
Lansford)
(Lansford
to
Barrette)
(Barrette
to
Domaine)
(Domaine
to
Grand)
E/S
(Mission
to
Boydton)
(Boydton
to
Grand)
ARICA W/S
(Rio Dell
to
Rose)
E/S
(Rose to
Rio
Dell)
RIO DELL N/S
(Encinita
to
Arica)
CM 11-10-81
Page #2
MARSHALL N/S, S/S
MUSCATEL E/S, W/S
GLENDON WAY N/S, S/S
HELLMAN N/S
S/S
Chairman:Cichy stated that the
quired if there was anyone in th
regarding this matter.
(Temple City Blvd. to Ellis Lane)
(Marshall To Glendon Way)
(Muscatel to Rosemead Blvd.)
(San Gabriel Blvd. to Twin)
(San Gabriel Blvd. to Gladys)
Public Hearing was open and in-
audience who would care to speak
No one came forward, and the Public Hearing was closed.
Councilman Tury inquired if the people who had made deposits
with the City for these improvements had received credit for.that
amount.
Robert Dickey, Assistant City Manager, stated that they have
not as yet, but it has been worked out with the Finance Department
that once these amounts are confirmed those deposits will be dis-
bursed.
Councilman Tury requested a copy of the names of those people
who have made previous deposits.
Councilman Taylor inquired if Edison Company will be refunded
the cost of their improvements.
Robert Dickey, Assistant City Manager, stated that the pro-
cedure that was followed to simplify the paper work involved. At
this meeting the Council will be considering the confirmation' of
the total cost of this assessment, but in essence the assessment
has been paid by Edison. There was involved in that particular
transaction the acquisition of right of way and the assessment
for the cost of the improvement, plus the cost to the City for
the relocation of power poles in which the Edison Company had
prior rights. Payment was rendered to Edison and in fact the
assessment which is being considered tonight really represents
an item that has been in.fact paid.
Councilman Taylor stated'as a point of-information that'the
Edison Company was'paid $.8500 for.the property from Edison,_the
relocation of the power poles was about $11,000 which means the
City paid Edison Company approximately $20,000 then there was
an assessment of approximately $9,500 for the curb and gutter
work. He.inquired if Edison. paid this $9,500 to the City?
Robert Dickey, Assistant City Manager, stated that it was
offset by those dollar amounts. A warrant has not been received
from Edison Company._
Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that that amount will
be subtracted from the total billing that will be received from
the Edison Company as a credit. He inquired of Mr. Reep if the
Edison Company was treated any.differently than any other resident
for the acquisition of a right of way.
Mr. Wayne Reep, representative of Scott & Associates, stated
that they were not treated any differently.
Councilman Taylor stated that there is a clause in the agree-
ment that was approved at the last Council Meeting that states
Edison will be reimbursed for any construction within a two year
period.
Robert Dickey, Assistant City Manager, stated that clause
simply means if the Council should direct realignment of the road-
way that would cause the relocation of the facilities that have
just be relocated. In which case Edison has indicated that if
that fact should occur, they wish to be reimbursed for any cost
incurred to relocate again.
CM 11-10-81
Page #3
Councilman Taylor read the letter from the Edison Company
of October 21, 1981 in which Paragraphs 11 and 15 of.the Road
Easement are referred to. He stated that this is the reason he
wants this issue cleared up because it states that this improve-
ment and what they have paid will be reimbursed.
Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that whatever answers
come back on these questions, the Council should consider the
request to levy these assessments at this time. He stated that
the City Attorney can look into the questions brought up relating
to the Edison Road Easement.
Robert Kress, City Attorney, stated that he was not present
at the last Council Meeting, but he would look into the letter
that Councilman Taylor quoted from.
Councilman Taylor stated he had requested that the item be
deferred from the meeting a month ago for clarification, and he
still feels that Edison will reimbursed even though there had
been information presented at the last council meeting at which
time the Easement had been approved. He still requested clari-
fication on this item.
Councilman Tury stated that he felt that Mr. Bergeson made
it quite clear that Edison had performed services for the City
and given the City right of way before the City signed the agree-
ment, and he may be quite concerned that he will be double charged.
He agreed that a clarification on the matter would be desirable.
Councilman Taylor also requested the assessments for the
lineal footage of all corner properties within this assessment.
Chairman Cichy inquired if there was anyone else who would care
to speak regarding this matter.
No one came £orward,,and the Public Hearing was closed.
The following Resolution No. 81-60 was presented for adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 81-60
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
CALIFORNIA CONFIRMING THE STREET SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT
& ASSESSMENTS THEREIN
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR
that Resolution No. 81-60 be adopted with the inclusion of the
changes made.- Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
Chairman, declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
B. RESOLUTION NO. 81-61 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS
RESOLUTION NO. 81-61
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS & DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $209,492.99
NUMBERED 8084/8094-8109/2580 THROUGH 2695 INCLUSIVELY
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY
that Resolution No. 81-61 be adopted: Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
C. ORDINANCE NO. 540, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE, L. A. COUNTY
PLUMBING CODE, BUILDING CODE, & MECHANICAL CODE
4
CM 11-10-81
Page #4
ORDINANCE NO. 540
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
50022.2, LOS ANGELES COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2269, ENTITLED
"PLUMBING CODE", LOS ANGELES COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.2225,
ENTITLED "BUILDING CODE" AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY ORDINANCE
NO.9944, ENTITLED "MECHANICAL CODE" 1981 EDITIONS, AND
AMENDING THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE IN ACCORDANCE THEREWITH
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN.TAYLOR
that Ordinance No. 540 be introduced for its first reading and
the the reading in full be waived and that a Public Hearing be
set for November 24, 1981. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE...
-Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
IV. CONSENT.CALENDAR (CC-D deferred)
CC-A CLAIM AGAINST CITY ON BEHALF OF CHARLES AND BETTY HULSE
CC-B AUTHORIZATION REQUESTED TO ATTEND ANNUAL CONTRACT CITIES
LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE IN SACRAMENTO, JANUARY 19-21, 1982
CC-C APPROVAL OF SPECIFICATIONS & AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK BIDS
FOR STREET SWEEPING CONTRACT
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY
that the foregoing Items on the Consent Calendar be approved.
Vote resulted: .
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
CC-D AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO ATTEND LEGISLATIVE AND
EXECUTIVE BOARD CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON, D. C.
DECEMBER 2, 1981.
Councilman Tury stated that it.was his:-understanding that
Mayor Imperial would be in Detroit for another conference and
this would just be continuation of that trip and not a separate
one.
Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that was correct
and that the Mayor would be attending a conference in Detroit
from November 28 to the 2nd of December.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR
that the Mayor be authorized to attend the Legislative Conference
in Washington, D.C. on December 2, 1981. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION
Councilman Tury requested that all items A through F except
for E be deferred until the Mayor is present at the next meeting.
E. CONSIDERATION OF PARTICIPATION IN THE HCDA PROGRAM
Councilman Tury apologized that there was not a full Council
present at this time, but this item cannot be put off. He felt
very strongly about the fact that there is $2,400,000 for the City
of Rosemead to be used here in Rosemead or it will be used some-
place else. The program has been highly successful. The new
low interest loan program is getting quite a lot of inquiries.
The Housing Element which has been submitted to the State shows
a clear,defined need for this program. There is no other funding
source available except for this. We have assurances that in order
to get out of the program the City simply has to stop taking the
money.
CM 11-10-81
Page #5
Marshall Krupp, Willdan Associates Consultant for the HCDA
Program, stated that theCity has been extremely successful work-
ing with the County and working directly with HUD in the implemen-
tation in the last three years. He stated that we just completed
last years audit with a clean bill of health. At all times the
County has cooperated with our requests and so has HUD. At no
times has the County or HUD made requests of us that were out of
the ordinary or inconsistent with Council policy. One of the
concerns when the program was originally started was that there
might be strings on the money and that there would be requirements
imposed upon the City after the City became a participant in the
program and at least in the 2' years that he has been involved
with the City there has never been a request that has been out of
the ordinary or inconsistent with Council policy.
Councilman Tury inquired if that pressure arises we can simply
stop taking the money, is that correct?
Marshall Krupp,stated that on several occassions after the
request was received attempted to get a written confirmation of
what the liability would be if the City would reject any funds
in the upcoming years. We were advised and as indicated in the
letter by Mr. Donald Galloway is that all the City has to do is
indicate that you don't want the money any more and as he indi-
cated in his letter there are three ways that that money could
then be dispursed. All three of those ways could be as a result
of a City recommendation. There would be no liability for staying
in the program or undertaking any projects after that time that
the City decided to back out of the program.
Councilman Taylor requested that the statements made by Mr.
Krupp be verbatim in the minutes.
There being no objection it was so ordered.
.Councilman Taylor stated that he intended to vote for the
program this time. He had opposed it everytime in the past.two
years and he still opposes half of the program. The half that
he opposes is the excessive administration costs. The element
studies that have gone into it, they have been excessive dollars.
He has voted against those and will probably still vote against
certain aspects of the plan, and he requested that one paragraph
of Mr. Galloway's letter be placed in the minutes.
"As you may know, the County is solely responsible for
disbursement of all CDBG Funds received from the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Any
City which signs the three year cooperation, is responsible
only for the monies associated with projects which are car-
ried out under contract..with the County. If a city does
not accept the funds, either-in whole or part, it may allow
the County to redistribute the funds among other jurisdic-
tions. Under such circumstances, the City will not have
the responsibility for the redistributed funds. Instead,
the responsibility will revert to the County or City which
subsequently receives funds under project contract after
approval by the County of Los Angeles and subsequent re-
lease of funds by HUD."
Councilman Taylor stated that what Mr. Tury stated he agreed
with wholeheartedly that because the money is collected and redis-
tributed from the Federal to the County.. He also agrees that
the Rosemead residents are entitled to those dollars and if we
don 't get them they are redistributed. But he reiterated that
he does not agree with the concept to-tax people and then give
it back to them. That is something that we have to work out an
other way.
CM 11-10-81
Page #6
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY,.SECONDED BY.COUNCILMAN TAYLOR
that the cooperation Agreement with the County of Los Angeles
be approved for the CDBG FY 1982-85 Funding period; the Mayor
or other..Councilmember, City Clerk and City Attorney be author-
ized to execute said agreement on behalf of the City; and the
City Manager be authorized to forward three executed copies to
the County along with certified copies of the City Council
minutes approving the City's participation in the program.and
direct the City Clerk that all this discussion on this item
is in the minutes. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
'Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
VI. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS
A. Councilman Taylor inquired if there was any discussion
at the Traffic Commission Meeting regarding truck parking on
Temple City Blvd.
Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated John Mayerski
stated that the problem was basically a visibility problem
and will look into a recommendation of restricting parking
at that particular location, and he stated that he wasn't
sure if that truck falls within the 80" width in the ordinance.
Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that the other item
was a contracting firm is doing some work in the City so perhaps
personal contact can take care of the problem.
Councilman Taylor felt that this particular corner should
be restricted parking for two hours or whatever so that the
residents can park.
B. Councilman Tury stated that the Condo Ordinance should
completed by the Planning Commission in the near future.
C. Councilman Tury also requested that the Yard Sale
ordinance be revised and updated..since there have been many
abuses of the current ordinance.
There-being no further business, the Council Meeting was
adjourned in honor of the 210th Anniversary of the United States
Marine Corps.
Respectfully submitted:
City C1 k
APPROVED: '
M'
MAYO
CM 11-10-81
Page #7