The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - 06-23-81• 0 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL JUNE 23, 1981 AT 8:00 P. M. CITY CIF DAT The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Imperial at 8:00 p. m., in the Conference Room of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Blvd.-;-Rosemead. The Pledge to the Flag was led by'Councilman Cichy. The Invocation was delivered by Rev. Bill Freund. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmen Hunter, Cichy, Tury, Taylor and Mayor Imperial Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 10,. 1981 - Regular Meeting MOTION BY COUNCILMAN HUNTER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that the Minutes of Council Meeting June 10, 1981 be approved. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL,CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 6, 1981 - Budget Study Session MOTION BY COUNCILMAN'TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY that the Minutes of the Budget Study Session be approved. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL `:CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS /A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM L/ ON THE APPROVAL OF ANY CONDOMINIUM CONSTRUCTION PRO- JECT WITHIN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD Mayor Imperial stated that the Public Hearing was open and inquired if there was anyone in the audience who would care to speak. No one came forward, and-the Mayor closed the Public Hearing. The following Urgency Ordinance was presented for adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 532 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD EXTENDING A MORATORIUM ON THE APPROVAL OF ANY CONDOMINIUM CONSTRUCTION PROJECT WITHIN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AND DECLARING THE PRESENCE OF AN EMERGENCY MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY that Ordinance No. 532 be adopted with.the deletion of section No. 7 and the reading in full be waived. Vote resulted: AYES: Councilmen Hunter, Tury, Taylor and Mayor Imperial NAYES: Councilman Cichy Whereupon the Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CM 6-23-81 Page #1 III. LEGISLATIVE Al~ RESOLUTION NO. 81-29 DENIAL OF CUP AT PROPERTY / LOCATED AT 9001, 9005, 9007, 9007~'VALLEY BLVD. RESOLUTION NO. 81-29 A RESOLUTION OF,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-125, FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A TEMPORARY TRAILER ON.-- PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9001, 9005, 9007, 9007h VALLEY BLVD, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HUNTER that Resolution No. 81-29 be adopted. Vote resulted: AYES: Councilmen Hunter, Cichy, Tury and Mayor Imperial NAYES: Councilman Taylor:, Whereupon the Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor requested that the record show a copy of the City Attorney's report back to the Council, and he stated that he felt that when a councilman makes a request through staff, the City Manager and Assistant City Manager, he did not feel that this was a proper answer. Mayor Imperial stated that he agreed with his position and when any councilperson requests information, this information should be forthcoming prior to the next meeting, and directed the City Manager that this is done. MEMORANDUM FROM CITY ATTORNEY TO MAYOR''AND COUNCILMEMBERS: At the June 10, 1981 meeting the City Council voted to deny a conditional use permit for Union Federal's tempo- rary facility. At that same time, Councilman Taylor re- quested that the staff prepare a report on the Planning Commission's findings contained in the Commission's Reso- lution of denial. Attached hereto is a prposed resolution for adoption at the next Council Meeting. When the Commission or Council directs preparation of a resolution denying.a permit, the findings required by the Rosemead Municipal Code are always made in the negative, absent some specific instruction from the hearing body. Councilman Taylor is certainly free to inquire regarding the findings made by the Planning Commission, but such an inquiry should be directed to the Commission.. The word "project" in the findings must be read as the placement of the trailer and not the ultimate remodelling 'for a savings and loan branch. Finally, the findings presently required by the municipal Code are somewhat conclusionary. I have proposed to the Plannning Commission the following burden of proof for the applicants: 9811. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BURDEN OF PROOF. Before any conditional use permit is granted, the application shall show, to the reasonable satisfaction of the body hearing such matter, the existence of the following facts: CM 6-23-81 Page #2 r. Memorandum continued: (a) That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size, shape and topography; and (b) That the site has sufficient access to streets which are adequate, in width and pavement type, to carry the quantity and quality of traffic generated by the proposed use; and (c) That the prposed use will not unreasonably inter- fere with the use, prossesion, and enjoyment of surrounding and adjacent properties; and (d) That there is a demonstrated need for the use requested; and (e) That the use, if permitted, will, as to location and operation, be consistent with the objectives of the general plan; and (f) That the public interest, convenience, and neces- sity require that use be permitted at the location requested. ORDINANCE NO. 531 - ZONE CHANGE FROM R-3 TO R-3D AT 8514, 8516, 8518 VALLEY AND 3899 WALNUT GROVE ORDINANCE NO. 531 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-3, HEAVY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL TO R-3D, HEAVY MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL, DESIGN OVERLAY, FOR PROPERTY SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT "A" (ZONE CHANGE 81-123) MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY that ordinance No.Ordinance No. 531 be adopted and the reading in full be waived. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Mayor Imperial requested that he voted "yes" was for the control felt that he did not want a condom /C. RESOLUTION NO. 81-34 CLAIMS / RESOLUTION NO. the record show that although over the project, but he still inium project in that area. & DEMANDS 81-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS & DEMANDS IN THE SUM'OF $312,000.23 NUMBERED 7958-7969 & 1563 THROUGH 1662 INCLUSIVELY MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that Resolution No. 81-34 be adopted. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. D. RESOLUTION NO. 81-35 - 1981-82 ANNUAL BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 81-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1981-1982 AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE AMOUNT BUDGETED. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CICHY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY that Resolution No. 81-35 be adopted. Vote resulted: AYES: Councilmen Hunter, Cichy,'Tury and Mayor Imperial NAYES: Councilman Taylor Whereupon the Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CM 6-23-81 Page #3 Councilman Taylor requested that the record show that the reason for his "no" vote was for the items that he opposed at the Budget Session. _ IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (Except Item CC-J and CC-M) CC-A AWARD OF BID--JACKSON AVENUE (HELLMAN TO GRAVES) CC-B AMENDMENT TO BUDGETS--HCDA PROJECT ON JACKSON AVENUE CC-C AGREEMENT WITH BRIAN HUBBS--CURB NUMBERS CC-D AGREEMENT WITH WYCKOFF ASSOCIATES FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS CC-E AGREEMENT WITH GRAFFITI REMOVAL CC-F AWARD OF BID FOR DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 7863 WHITMORE CC-G ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES FROM METZGER & ASSOCIATES, DEL MAR AVENUE(HELLMAN TO HIGHCLIFF) CC-H AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND MAYORS' AND COUNCILMEMBERS' EXECUTIVE FORUM IN MONTEREY, JULY 15^17, 1981 CC-I AWARD OF BID FOR ANNUAL LANDSCAPE CONTRACT CC-K AUTHORIZATION TO SELL CITY PROPERTY CC-L PARKING--GARVEY AVENUE & SPEED SIGNS--DEL MAR MOTION BY COUNCILMAN HUNTER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY the the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar,be approved. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL'ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-J AGREEMENT WITH ARROYO GROUP FOR BUSINESS REVITALIZATION PROGRAM Councilman Taylor stated that he disagreed with the portion of the agreement in that states that the City ackbes to pay the Contractor an additional. compensation for Phase III services an amount equal to 1% of the building permit valuation,in any study area. He stated that he did not feel that the City should have to pay a consultant extra money when they pay a consultant $83,000 for a proposal. Jim Goodell, Arroyo Group, this would only take place if the Arroyo Group were still involved in trying to bring the project together and in the type of activities as listed in Attachment #2, such as sales & lease negotiations, solicitation and screening developers, initial presentations and negotiations with lending institutions and these types of activities where an hourly rat&m cannot be estimated the consultants only take the 1% as an expe- diting fee which is passed on to the developer.which is not a cost.to the City. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY that the Business Revitalization Agreement with the Arroyo Group be approved. Vote resulted: AYES: Councilmen Hunter, Cichy, Tury and Mayor Imperial NAYES: Councilman Taylor Whereupon the Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor requested that the minutes show that part of his objections are in reference to some of the newspaper articles given to the City Council which.-were in the Star News dated June 4th and 5th, 1981. CM 6-23-81 Page #4 C CC-M STOP SIGNS--MISSION DRIVE AT ENCINITA AVENUE Councilman Tury inquired of the Traffic Engineer, John Mayerski, if there was any way to slow down the traffic at that intersection. John Mayerski, Traffic Engineer, stated that the only apparatus is Police.Enforcement and that could be counted upon a little heavier. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CICHY that the Traffic Commissions recommendation be approved. Vote resulted: UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. V. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. PARCEL AND MAP CHECKING AGREEMENT Councilman Hunter declared his intention to "abstain" for the appearance of a possible conflict. Councilman Taylor stated that he could not support Inspec- tions by the same organization that provides the Engineering Services. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY that H. M. Scott be selected due to the cost and their proximity to Rosemead and their past experience. The Motion lost due to a lack of a Second. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CICHY, SECONDED BY MAYOR, IMPERIAL that the Staffs recommendation be approved to select Willdan Associates, and that the City Attorney prepare an Agreement by the next meeting. Vote resulted: AYES: Councilmen Cichy.and Mayor Imperial NAY ES: Councilman Tury ABSTAIN: Councilmen Hunter and Taylor ABSENT: None Whereupon the Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor requested that the record show that he totally disagrees with the Safety and Building Inspection Ele- ment being with any.of the three proposals that were 'received. Mike Scott`of H. M. Scott and Associates expressed his feelings on the selectilon of Willdan and.Associates, Harry Scott also, expressed his displeasure and felt that these were highly irregular procedures, I V. MATTERS'FROM. OFFICIALS B/ FINAL TRACT MAP #38455c-1.IQQ WALNUT GROVE AVENUE The rest of the minutes on this subject are verbatim and are on the fol,lowrng pages,,...... CM 6-23-81 Page #5 V. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS /B. FINAL TRACT MAP #38455--1100 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE C/ John Carmona: At the last regular meeting staff was directed to identify specific concerns of this particular tract or project. With the assistance of few Councilpersons, the specific concerns pertaining to the tract were identified. J.H. Hedrick Company responded to those concerns.with the exception of one they are at a point of resolvement with the remaining concerns. If there are any questions that you have to ask me at this point, this concludes my staff report. C/M Tury: Mr. Carmona I have read the same letter that you read, and I don't see that the problems have been resolved. I think there have been vague offers to try and cooperate that doesn't cost them anything, but as far as any firm concrete proposals, I don't see them. Are they going to give us some more parking? It says here that they will give us more parking if when they get done if they find a few spaces. That is not solving that particular problem. I'll grant you that the emer- gency exit is ,a step in the right direction, but then that is subject to us•getting the approval to go across another persons tract which you may or may not have done. We are doing the work for them. I don't see that they are giving us anything. Carmona:. The Emergency exit has been agreed to by the neighboring project and that is not an issue as far as gaining exit from the neighboring project. Regards to the parking con- sideration set forth except for item B. a broad statement "pro- vide additional guest parking", Item A and C pertaining to CC&R additional improvments they have agreed to that in content if you will, but the specific language still has to be worked out. C/M Taylor; The crash gate between the two projects. What is the actual agreement? Carmona; At this point the Hedrick Company has agreed to extend a fire ^lane on the tract map identifying it as a fire lane tp'property.line'n front of the crash gate. Adjacent pro- ject, the.Vice President of,that project has agreed to give them access across,approximately ten feet to the existing driveway. C/M Taylor; Do you have that in writing? Carmona; No I don't have that in writing. The fire lane has been amended and added to the map. C/M Taylor: What about the retaining walls? Carmona: To my knowledge there is one property owner that has hot reached a point of .satisfaction, but I ,believe that they are still working on that though. C/M Taylor: What about parcels 1-6, on the top of the hill, is that where they are located? Starting right at Walnut Grove. Carmona: Parcels 1-6 are closest to Walnut Grove. C/M Taylor; How wide is the access driveway there? Carmona: The access driveway is.24 ft. C/M Taylor: How far are the garage doors from that. Carmona; As far as the backing up? This includes part of the back-up area. C/M Taylor: Can they park in front of their garages? Carmona: . They should not. There is no parking in front of their garages. I have to look at the plans. C/M Taylor: Do you have a blow up showing the project or a transparency showing the site at all. CM 6-23-81 Page #6 Robert W. Gibbs, Law Offices of Robert W. Gibbs, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles: I am speaking in behalf of J.H. Hedrick and Company. I don'..t know if you gentlemen have actually seen our response to the concerns memorandum which was prepared by Mr. Car- mona. Mayor Imperial: Each member of the Council got a copy of that sir. Gibbs: I don't want to beat a dead horse and I think you gentlemen want to talk about some of these concerns, but I do not want you to overlook the point that this is the second meet- ing at which the final map is to be considered and that for the reasons we have previously presented to that as a matter of right. Putting that aside, we still don't want to have any problems with the City of Rosemead. We don't want to be walking out of a meet- ing, we want to be living here and developing this project and getting along with everyone. So having said that, let's focus on a couple of things that have been brought up and I might just supplement some of the information that Mr. Carmona has passed on. You want to keep in mind that everything does not happen at once. We just got this concerns memorandum and I think Council- man Tury asked what have we given. The fact is that in orderly procedure we have done as much as we can up to this particular point and this is the bewitching point of the second night of the consideration of the final map First, let me supplement a couple things that Mr. Carmona has said. With respect to the emergency exit, we have conferred with an-executive vice president of the adjoining developer who has agreed in.principle whether or not it is the City who initiated that conversation I'm not sure of that. We feel sufficiently strongly that it was a firm committment on their part that we have actually made the change in the final tract map committing to continue the original road way to our property line at additional expense which includes grading and fill and changing the drainage and so forth and putting in that crash gate. The next step is that their civil engineer has been out of town and tomorrow will be his first day back and we have made arrange- ments for our:.ci;vil'engineer meet with theirs and carry forward with that particular feature'. I can't exactly tell you what that expense is, but'that is giving something. Next, is with respect to the excess parking since our letter, we have kind of projected in our minds eye how the site will look, and we feel that we can provide three additional guest parking areas for sure. So that's another thing. There is another problem, Councilman Tury, and that is although we have offered to document these things prior to tonight, it is pretty hard to conceive of how that precisely can be done. Keep in mind that we have to come back to the City for other: things as we-'are proceeding and we want the relation- ship every bit as much.as you do. Going to a couple of other things that Councilman.Taylor asked about. With respect to the first six parcels and the garage thing and all that and some concern that during peak hours especially during the morning when everyone is leaving the project that there may be some traffic conjestion. Some one from the City came up with the suggestion, I believe it was from the City, came up with the suggestion that we have a no right turn sign'to'be applicable at certain hours. Which would cause these people to 'back up and proceed down away from the exit to make a'U turn at a safe place and join the traffic flow then. We have agreed to that,in terms of documentation. If documentation were offered to-us we would I'm sure would be willing to consider it and sign it tonight. I think you have to be patient with us a little bit in terms of what an orderly process is. Now, there is another thing with respect to the CC & R's we don't think there are any problems with respect to'the suggestions that would attempt to maximize the availability of guest parking. We are right down the line with the City in wanting to have as much guest parking available as possible.:- It makes for commercially a more feasible project and amore liveable project. CM 6-23-81 Pages V C/M,Taylor: Mr. Carmona, do you have a copy of the CC & R's yet? Carmona: Yes, sir, they are in the vault. C/M Taylor: When did you receive them. Carmona: Months back. C/M Taylor: Why does it say in here in-item B it-states that they are in San Diego. Gibbs: That is a letter from us, and our copy of the CC & R's are in San Diego. C/M Taylor: You did not have a copy of your own.... Gibbs: I personally did not, but they are in our San Diego Office. C/M Taylor: You still do not have a copy of it? Gibbs: No, we will be reviewing those Friday. That is sche- duled for Friday. C/M Taylors You are telling us things about the CC & R's that you have not even reviewed.yet. You are going to do it Friday? Gibbs: That's correct. They have been reviewed by a person other than myself and who has advised me that there will be no problems. Councilman Taylor °I don't think that is a problem, I really don't. You don't know me from Adam but that's not really one that you should be terrifically concerned about. I might say one other thing in response to Councilman Tury. Namely, what have we given: There is another thing that we have committed to do and again it is difficult to document. That is the secured entrance way which is a substantial budget item and we had some problems with that, we would have had some problems with that in terms of concern'about'getting a variance so that it could be in our front yard set back, I take it from the concerns ex- pressed that ultimately that should not be a problem in having an application for.variance approved. I think that demonstrates among other things a kind of spirit that we are trying to offer. There is another thing what have we'given. I think there was a question about the retaining walls and the fence hutch. One of the problems, and Mr. Carmona reports, that still may be one adjacent owner who had some concern. We have agreed at some additional expense to provide post grade profiles, cross section profiles to show everyone how our retaining walls and fences will look from their property after grading is completed. It is sorta like preparing something to have baseballs thrown at. C/M Taylor: Where are they? Gibbs: Where are they? We have committed to prepare those. C.M Taylor: We've got a commitment from the adjoining owner that a crash gate can be installed. There will be no obstructions put on that property. Do we have that"in oral agreement from some vice-president of another company? Gibbs: My understanding is the answer is "yes", because in context for them I~-v,tt CM Taylor: Okay, you have answered my question, we have that. You have some drawings that are to be proposed or to be submitted to Staff to look at, and to residents. Gibbs: Yes CM,' 623-•81 Page #8 CM Taylor: You have not looked at the CC & R's yet, you will get them Friday to go through those. Gibbs: That is correct. C/M Taylor: We have not got in writing the extra parking stalls that are going to be provided. That's four items so far that is all tentative up in the air and your letter goes through talking about the different costs. I agree whole heartedly with Mr. Tury this whole letter is just congenial letter saying, ya, we agree to work with you and as soon as we approve it we can go to hell as far as that goes. I see in that too. Gibbs: Well, that wasn't intended to be included in the letter, nor was it C/M Taylor: Well, in any case, I am not,pre.par•ed to vote on this tonight, so I think this is where the humor comes in we laugh about it, there is a lady sitting in back of you right now who got laughed at at some of the meetings too and we've got a law suit with her and we are in court right now over it because of somebody telling us all of this stuff at a meeting just as you're telling us standing there that your word, I can't dispute it, I don't know you from Adam, as you stated, but I am not going to take your word, I am not going to take it from any- body until we get'all these things in writing and I am agreeable to extending this-to the next meeting or else voting to deny it tonight. 'Which-would your preference be? Till we get all this stuff in'writing. Gibbs: Well, I think that. CM Taylor: Which would you rather go, defer it for two weeks or motion to deny it? Gibbs: Well, I think, I know what my preferences, but I would like to have a brief recess if that is. the sense of the entire Council. C/M Taylor: I don't know about the rest of them, I am not going to say I am going to approve it in two weeks, if you don't have all that agreement and everything in writing its going to be denial or we will extend it another two weeks until you get it. Gibbs: I understand what you are saying. Mayor Imperial: Mr. Gibbs you asked about the consensus of the entire Council. I don't know if you are going to get that right now, but let me speak for one person. I would say exactly the same thing that Mr. Taylor did, but only word it a little different. We're looking at problems we've had in this City, I've talked to an individual that stood up here and promised me the moon. Mr. Gibbs, he is going to laugh all the way to the bank, but the people that live there aren't laughing. I am not laughing, I am not laughing at all. As far as I am concerned your explanation was beautiful and told me absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing and thats what I heard before, I have heard it many times'before, but this one time it was serious. As C/M Taylor says, we've got a law suit on our hands and the law suit isn't what is bothering me, it is really the principal of the thing. I am not prepared to vote a "yes" on approval of this thing right"now. Mr. Taylor has offered you a suggestion. Not for the Council, but just one person C/Taylor: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Gibbs, I might sound harsh, Mr. Imperial might sound harsh, like I say you don't know me personally, I don't know you personally, all I can go on is the things that come before this Council Meeting. When you get stung once or twice or kicked in the head, whatever you want to refer to it as, no, you may have the best intentions in the world and I have to accept that, but we haven't got anything to fall back on. And so my option still stands either we extend it or make a motion to deny it. CM 6-23-81 Page #9 Mayor Imperial: Mr. Gibbs are you still requesting a five minute recess. Gibbs: I think, right, I'd rather not take it on myself to respond to that. I might say this. I would like to request a five minute recess, but I'd like to say one other thing before and that is this. The vice of this exchange is that we're really talking about terms of legal rights, obligations and so forth which is pertinent because you're concerned with law suits, and I don't blame you for being concerned with law suits. But the vice of our discussion is that we are talking about things that a City Council has legitimate interests in which respect to a project in the city limits of the City. Mayor Imperial: I think every member of this Council really understands the full context of what you are trying to tell us now Mr. Gibb. C/M Tury: Pardon me Mr. Mayor, I think one thing, I am sure we all know that you can have us under the gun if you want to. I think there are other areas we can also work on and that would be the development schedule, and over a year between the filing of the tentative and the final tract map. And Section 9120.11, 9120.12 addresses those problems. We also have some options also. Gibbs: The point that I am trying to make is that the context of resolving the concerns should not be the context whether or not the final map is approved. And thats all I am saying. Mayor Imperial: Your point is well taken. This meeting is recessed for five minutes. Mayor Imperial: Meeting will come to order. Gibbs: Gentlemen: I have conferred with my clients and I would like to first tell you what conclusions will be, sadly we have come to, first conclusion is that we have done everything we possibly could to show our good faith with respect to a number of important concerns expressed by the Council that were deli- vered to us for the first time on June 12th, a weekend intervened, spent a great deal of time considering them, provided our response which was all-we were asked to do at that time, we provided a well thought out carefully checked response, we regarded it as respon- sible. In the period since then, and I might point out that was all we were asked to do. In the time since then we have gone as far as we could go, especially as manifested by even a change in the final map which commits'us with respect to one feature. Some of these things take time and unfortunately everything can't be done at once. We also have a history, as I understand it, of accomplishing a number of projects in the Rosemead area and we are responsible builders, we haven.'t had unresolved problems we haven't had unhappy neighbors, so we feel we have done as much as we could. Thats Conclusion #1. No. 2, for the-reasons previously stated, we feel that our legal position is a strong one currently, the City of Santa Monica attempted to do what Mr. Taylor and perhaps other Councilmen would like to do, essentially make a condition or add new conditions with respect to or conditions precedent to granting final tract map approval. Courts in California said they can't do that. I don't want Councilman Taylor or anyone else to get the impression that our insistence or wish to presently have the final tract map approved means that we'reject any'of these things. We have done the best we can regard them as different problems. The 3rd point is that were we to go along with a different program of contin- uing this matter to a meeting two or three weeks hence,we feel we would run the risk of waiving--of being prejudiced in a number of ways. 1. Waiving very important rights..running a risk of a certain expiration dates and we just don't feel we can do this. Especially; with your rather candid,-forthrightness Mr. Taylor and perhaps, there are others with the same mind that even then there would be no assurance of approval of the final map. So we don't feel in balance the risks of weakening what we regard as a strong legal position would be warranted particularly when there can be no assurance what the vote would be.two or three weeks hence. CM-6-23-81 Page #10 So I would like to say at this time without being in any way disrespectful because I feel confident that everyone concerned is trying to do their best for Rosemead. I hope that you feel the same way about us. Perhaps, you don't. I know that your staff is duty bound to do what is best for the City of Rosemead, and you have theik-recommendation of all these things. I only regret, and I think perhaps, who ever is concerned however this goes tonight, I only regret that these concerns were laid out on the table a lot earlier all to the end that by tonight or two weeks ago whatever documentations might have been necessary for a person who is skeptical by way of past experiences in this-. Council or perhaps in other places in life that all-of your objections could have been satisfied: But the fact of the matter is that but for a sort of hint of one or two of these factors all of them are pretty new, or totally new, to the devel- oper as of June 12th. So I regret that we did not know about those things earlier and perhaps you had not collected your thoughts together but all I can say is we hope that you approve of the final map and we hope that we can work together starting tomorrow and resolve all these things in due course of business and avoid the headaches of 'litigation. Now, let me say something about that. I don't mean to sorgrow, but let me tell you this and I think you can well understand this. I am an Attorney and I have no interest in this development. They only look to me for legal advise. They have an involvement in this project of a substantial amount of dollars that if the final map goes down the tubes, and they cannot develop the project, they have lost that money if they don't do anything else. The anything else is got to be litigation:' I mean there minds are made up for them. It is not a matter of threatened litigation in any way. That would be the only development route that they have to go, and the law seems to be very clearly on their side. on the other hand, if the final map is approved, we have the same problem we have a huge involvement with no motivation to tell the City to go jump when the City wants this-and wants that. You have a lot of leverage still. It isn't the kind of thing where...you are acquainted with the development process...there are building permits and all sorts of things. We have to get along'with the City. We have given you what are thoughts are and we have tried our best. I think your staff will attest to that. Mayor Imperial: Thank you Mr. Gibbs. C/M Taylor: Mr. Gibbs your points are well taken and as far as the feelings that the Council may have toward the developer we have gotten this far along on what has to be said. A positive relation- ship. There has been no negative feelings about the Hedrick's Co., or any disagreements. A fine development firm. That is not the issue. What is happening on that hillside now, could not have been seen four months ago or five months ago. When that equipment gets up there and starts moving that earth al-l around and then people begin to see what is going on. Perhaps, that is one of the reasons these final maps have to comeback. What was presented. If we did not have the total picture when it was presented then all of these elevations that you were referring to of the different properties that information must be available... should be available, I don't know-why it wasn't made available when that project started. We get a piece of flat paper and that really doesn:',t tell us what it is going to look like. Disregarding all that. This has nothing to do with the Hedrick's Company. I would like to discuss that map up there on the wall showing the buildings. 'Mr. Carmona it shows landscaping on both sides of that driveway. Would you clarify that driveway situation. The width of it and the landscaping on each side, parking stalls. It says 26 feet on the plan. Carmona: There is 26 feet for the driveway and a spacing of three or four feet. I would be glad to point it out. I think on the final map there is an increase as well. C/M Taylor: We are looking at this. I don't see a final map. CM 6-23-81 Page #11 C/M Taylor: What is this? Carmona: Three feet.of landscaping. C/M Taylor: What is all this in front of these houses? Carmona: Drainage ditch. C/M Taylor: Where'is'the edge of the driveway? What is this? Carmona: These are parking stalls. -C/M Hunter: Along the lines of the questioning by Mr. Taylor it brought about item #3 on 'page four. Even though I am pleased that Mr. Taylor has jumped up front on this tonight. The Council- men that met with the Director of Planning were Mr. Tury and myself. Not being Engineers we had to go into a lot of detail work asking questions and that was one of them. On your response on page four points that out. Why Mr. Tury requested lots one through six be rearranged. It is right along with that last question Mr. Taylor has brought about. I wish too that the entire Council had met one on one with the Director of Planning to help resolve some of these issues. I think the Attorney has informed us of their legal rights and you've said no hard feelings. I think the entire Council feels that way. I have been pro development since I have been on this Council and I haven't changed, but on these projects I have changed until we get an ordinance. We have recognized and identified some real problems and I don't think any of us knew existed. Most cer- tainly did not know existed in the tentative map. We simply want them changed. The letter is loosely written and I can understand that from a legal standpoint. You don't want to commit yourself beyond the legal rights you already have, but go back to A. CC & R's are located... the recommendation given to Mr. Carmona by Mr. Tury and myself were extensive and we knew it would take a lot of research but the fact that you put CC & R's out and you tell a homeowner that you must park two cars in your garage. We both recognize that as absolute garbage unless there is some law or something'to enforce it. We have witnessed condominiums being lived in the one full year which is prescribed by most lenders today as a primary residence and then they are rented. The law has struck down any rights to eliminate more than one family per unit or per home. I can take you to some very beautiful, well-built condominiums in that area that have three families living in one condominium. It was designated two and one half parking per.unit. Out of the families that live there you have nine automobiles. There is no way service it. Then you have created a problem on the other citizens by overflowing to the streets. I am going on and on and on. There are problems here and I recognize your rights. I feel very remiss that I didn't pick up these problems on the tentative and I can assure that this entire Council will review tentatives and now that we have an engineer on board on staff we will spend a lot of time with them asking questions. Non-professional people in the engineering field will ask these questions. Why is this this way. So at least the things pointed out to you or through Mr. Carmona.are valid. They are not nit-picking. The accessability of a second car easement or a disaster easement. When you eluded to in the mornings in this driveway of some 26 feet the length of a car is approximately 12 feet. O.K. come out of a garage from these six units and you have approximately 44 units in there so this means approximately 120 cars that go to work and exit. You will have in excess of 700 movements a day. I am predicating that on the complex across the street which has 169 units. There are some real problems. I recognize the fact that if our economy stays as is high density housing is a thing of the future. If we won't allow it I think the courts will allow it for us. It is the way of the future unless the economy reverts back to what we enjoyed some ten years ago. Where you could afford to build one house on one lot. So we know that these condominiums will be built in the future, and all we are asking is don't create any more problems for us than we already have. Mr. Mayor that is all I have tonight..I'am rambling on and I apologize. CM 6-23-81 Page #12 C/M Taylor: What is this? Carmona: Three feet of landscaping. C/M Taylor: What is all this in front of these houses? Carmona: Drainage ditch. C/M Taylor: Where is the edge of the driveway? What is this? Carmona: These are parking stalls. C/M Hunter: Along the lines of the questioning by Mr. Taylor.. it brought about item #3 on page four. Even though I am pleased that Mr. Taylor has jumped up front on this tonight. The Council- men that met with the Director of Planning were Mr. Tury and myself. Not being Engineers we had.to go into a lot of detail work asking questions and that was one of.them. On your response on page four points that out, Why Mr. Tury requested lots one through six be rearranged. It is right along with the last question Mr. Taylor has brought about. I•wish too that the entire Council had met one on one with the Director of Planning to help resolve some of these issues. V1 think the Attorney has informed us of their legal rights and you've said no hard feelings.; I think the entire Council feels that way.' I have been pro development since I have been.on..this Council and I haven't changed, but on these projects I have changed until we get an ordinance. We have recognized and identified some real problems and I don't think any of us knew existed. Most cer- tainly did not know existed in the tentative map. We simply want them changed. The letter-is loosely written, and I can understand that from a legal standpoint. You don't want to commit yourself beyond the legal rights you already have, but go back to A. CC & R's are located ..the recommendation given to Mr. Carmona by Mr. Tury and myself were extensive and we knew it would take a lot of research but the fact that you put CC & R's out and youtell a homeowner that. you must park two cars in your garage. We both recognize that as absolute garbage.unless there is some l.aw.or something to enforce it. We have witnessed condominiums being lived in the one full year which is perscribed by most lenders today.as a primary residence and then . they are rented. The law has struck down any-rights to eliminate more than one family per unit or per home: I can take you to some very beautiful, well-built condominiums in that area that have three families living in onelcondominium. It was designated two and one half parking per unit. Out of the families that live there you have nine automobiles. There is no way service it. Then you have created a problem on the other citizens by overflowing to the streets., I am going on and on and on. There are problems here and I recognize your rights. I feel very remiss that I didn't pick up these problems on the tentative and I can assure that this entire Council will review tentatives and now that we have an engineer on board on staff we will spend a lot of time with.them asking questions. Non-professional people in the engineering field will ask these questions. Why-is this this way. So at least the things pointed out to you or through Mr. Carmona are very valid. They are not nit-picking The accessa- bility of a second car easement or-a.disaster easement. When you eluded to in the mornings in this driveway of some 26.feet the length of a car is approximately 12.feet. O.K. .come out of-a garage from these six units and you have approximately 44 units in there so this means approximately 120 cars that,go to work and exit. You will . have in excess of 700 movements a day. I am predicating that on . the complex across.the street which has 169 units. There are some real problems. I recognize the fact that if our economy stays as is high density housing is a thing of the future. If we won't allow it I think the courts will allow it for us. It is the way of the future unless the economy reverts back to what we enjoyed some ten years ago. Where you could afford to build one house on one lot, So.we know that these condominiums will be built in the future, and all.we are asking is don't create any more problems for us,than we already have. Mr. Mayor that is all I have tonight..I am rambling on and I apologize., CM 6-23-81 Page #12 • • C/M Taylor: Just for the record I would like to read what the building code states here. So that there is no malice or no misunderstanding. It states under the Liability. Any official or any employee charged with the enforcement of this code acting in good faith and without malice for the County in the discharge of his duties shall not thereby render himself liable personally and he is hereby relieved of all personal liability for any damages that may accrue to the persons or property as a result of any act required or by reason of any act or ommission in the discharge of his duties. Any suit brought against the building official or employee because of such action or ommission by him in the enforce- ment of any provisions of this code shall be defended by the legal department of the County until final termination of the proceedings. It is true you can sue the city and us being officials we have to see how that is handled, but as far as what we do with the build- ing official and whatever the proceedings are going to be we have to do that. The next section we have to refer to is the validity of permits. Section 302 (c) The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans and specifications shall not be construed to be a permit for or an approval of any violation of any of the pro- visions of this code. No permit persuming to give authority to violate or cancel a provision of this code shall be valid except in so far as the work or use which it authorizes as lawful. The issuance of a permit based upon plans and specifications shall not prevent the building official from thereafter requiring the correction of errors in said plans and specifications or from pre- venting building operations from being carried on there under when in violation of this 'code or any other ordinances of the City. I wanted to read those-two sections because we have to do what we think is right.. There is too many questions on that project yet. The full information, I don't believe that this Council or maybe the Planning Department didn't have. All the information pertain- ing to the way it is ending up now. So you will have to pursue your course and we have to pursue ours. I would like to see the project in. I would like all the building and development that we can get. But it has to be within reason, and when there is a problem, we better get it straightened out because everybody looks crazy after it is all done they say,gee,why didn't you people see that. We have another problem though, I guess I'll hold off a little bit on that. That's all I have for now, Mr. Mayor. C/M Tury: Just a brief question for Mr. Carmona. Mr. Carmona was there any extensions granted on this project. From the time of tentative approval til this date? John. Were there any exten- tions granted on this project from the time of the tentative tract approval. Carmona: None have been granted. C/M Tury: Wonder why section 9120.12 of the Municipal Code says that if the final is not filed within one year plans shall be null and void, and this tentative tract map was filed January 7, 1980 and the.final was filed February 23, 1981 which was 13 months. City Attorney: On that particular point the sub-division map act would supercede our own code. That particular provision is somewhat out of date and is not included in the new draft code. C/M Tury: How about the development schedule for the P-D zone. Is that in here too. Carmona: It has not been offered with their project and it was not asked for by City. C/M Tury: I would like to see a written memo on both of those items. They are both in the municipal code and they both would help us at this particular point. C/M Taylor: Mr. Mayor, I think we could probably go on dis- cussing this item but we have to make some kind of decision. Mr. Gibbs, I take it from your discussion you will not agree to a post- ponement for three weeks. CM 6-23-81 Page #13 0 Gibbs: That's correct. C/M Taylor: We could talk the rest of the night. C/M Hunter: Mr. Gibbs I would encourage you to reconsider that. I don't think the Council wants litigation any more than your client does. We simply would like to resolve some of the problems and the only one that I see could be expensive and I am sure it would be is the realignment of one or two of the lots in the entrance. I would ask you to reconsider. C/M Taylor: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Hunter has mentioned one item that stands out and I would have to stand by what I have mentioned before that there is four items that have been agreed to but we don't have it in writing. I would have to have those items. C/M Hunter: I think that the Attorney understood that if you did reconsider the items that were requested by Mr. Tury and myself and possibly others now. We would have an answer in writ- ing. I would be hesitant to say to you that if you postpone it that you would have a favorable vote. But I would rather see it go in that direction than a legal law suit.on either side. Mr. Taylor expressed an opinion that he would like to see it built and I know I would.. I think that housing is needed, and with some corrections, and admittedly some of them might be expensive I think it will be worth it. Gibbs: Mr. Hunter, I appreciate your sentiments-and respect your suggestions. one of the principle reasons--two principle reasons I guess, for the decision that I previously mentioned. 1st reason is that any further delays in granting the final map approval is likely to prejudice us because it comes up for expi- ration very shortly, I think the 3rd week in July. C/M Hunter: City Attorney, is that true? If both parties agree on the extension? Attorney: I think that the City can certainly meet the de- veloper have way and we could reach an agreement on the City's side that would mean a waiver for only three weeks and it could not be...the City could be estopped from asserting in any further proceedings...that the developer had waived any of its rights.to require approval tonight. Gibbs: Let me say this..I feel as an Attorney without really researching that to death, I feel that's a kind of risky approach in the sense of whether the City really has the authority because perhaps, the City Council could be estopped but I don't know what would happen if a citizen sued for example, or if the State At- torney General got into this or something of that sort. That is the first problem. Maybe there'is another suggestion, I thinking of one as ,I am speaking. Mr. Taylor candidly said look go along for three weeks and let's talk about'this more and I still can't tell you that we can approve. Now, I don't know whether there are things that will come up along these same lines whether there is a section 6 or section 7 of the concerns that are not in the memo- randum maybe thought of and maybe legitimate.next week or two weeks from now after more carefully considering this. Let me ask you this, Mr. Kress. What about the possibility of approving the final map with some agreement with'respect to a condition subsequent. That is if we don't reach... now I'll have to consult with my clients because I' am concerned about waiving rights again. But if we don't reach agreement on a certain something or other that the approval granted tonight would be considered revoked, or something of that sort. C/M Taylor: Point of information, I don't care what the answer is. I would be opposed to it because the deadline has passed and the administrative part has been handled and we have no right to go,-back on it. I- think we would.be right back where we are tonight. Alright let's have a lawsuit on us. Let's do it tonight. CM 6-23-81 Page #14 Gibbs: I would like to say one thing in closing. A couple of things that Mr. Taylor said. Accepting them totally. That is that in January, 1980 when the tentative was considered one of more of the Councilmembers did not invision how the impact would be of building this project on the site, and now they are going to have a!.1locally stationed City Engineer that will give them advise and consultation and so forth, and hopefully, this quote "whatever it is won't happen again". Let me say this, the City Council contracted with the County... the City contracted with the County. They were and have been your experts. They were includ- ing your staff as well. I don't happen to agree with you in prin- ciple, let's even assume your points are all valid. Those are the people who you should presently look to...and say by God...they are the ones that should have told us. Now, we live in a..not Hedrick. We told you everything we had to tell you and every- thing we were asked to do. What happened in the meanwhile, is that Hedrick expended in excess of a $1,000,000 in reliance upon the City's judgement in approving the tentative map based upon the City's own experts. Now, we are still living in a.... it-is a democracy..citizens big and small... somebody mentioned big people and small people should be treated alike. My client is not all that big, but bigger than a little guy. But the fact of the matter is that in good faith my client relied upon the conduct and decision making of the City Council which the City Council evidently regrets... evidently some members of the City Council do. That ...The City Council presently feels that they want to protect the rights of some citizens and there is a weigh- ing of interests because Hedrick's a citizen too. The weighing of these interests were determined by the Supreme Court of this State and'follow6d,.by two District Courts of this State and pro- bably numerous trial courts in this State that said in balance because the'City Council's or the County Board-of Supervisors whoever might have been involved in the Supreme Court case that was in San Diego County,Board of Supervisors. Because the de- veloper relied on their decision making would have stood to have lost an enormous amounts of money as compared to some of the after thoughts that a City Council like Santa Monica brought up and tried to impose on the developer by denying him the right to develop after the developer had done everything he had been asked to do and after-he had expended an enormous amounts of money in 'reliance. The Courts said the City Council can't do that. That the equitable considerations, the interests to be protected are such that if they made a mistake they have to look the citizens. Mayor Imperial; Mr. Gibbs, your point is well taken and we are covering the same ground over and over again. We realize our position and .we realize yours. We appreciate.your effort -in the matter_of the courtesy given this Council with the explana- tion. C/M Taylor; What Mr. Gibbs stated what the map was...how it was originally proposed and presented to the City as far as us relying on professional help to give us that information. If they do make 'a mistake and I'm not saying that they have, there's an oversight or whatever that might be...as I stated I think the validity that there'is something questionable in there and-that's all they are standing on now. I think everyone of us want to see that project completed. I think it will look excellent when they are finished.as buildings, but the functioning of that particular tract or that development and the safety involved of the people primarily trying to get out of that or into that project Mr. Hunter was mentioning the length of a car I would have to say that they are 18 to 20 feet long. If they back out of that garage they are going to have to get six to eight feet of that car out of the garage before they can even see over their shoulder. Until they get half of that car out they are going to be looking at the-''front wall of their garage. So, the condition, and I would like the minutes to include the letter that was sent to the City stating the agreements that have been agreed to or potentially agreed to. I would like those minutes in there,;because when I ask for that tonight none of it was physically here in writing. So based on that information we couldn't, I couldn't make a valid judgement on are we actually going to get the safety features that CM 6-23-81 Page #15 r I think we need or those residents need. I am not going to live there but I think that those people are entitled to a safe ingress and egress. Aesthetics sometimes we really can't get into that. But I would like the minutes to have this letter in their plus the fact we had not received any of this in writing as of this meeting. Mayor Imperial: So be it. LETTER FROM HEDRICK & CO., REGARDING FINAL TRACT MAP #38455 Dear Mr. Carmona: As you know, approval of the final map was on the City Council's June 10, 1981 Agenda; but consideration of that matter was deferred until the next regular meeting on June 24. Although the reasons for such action were not spelled out, it appeared that at least some members of the Council felt that your confering with us in the meanwhile. would be desirable; and, accordingly, we met on June 12, at which time you gave us a memorandum entitled "Specific Concerns Regarding the Valley View Terrace Project (Tenta- tive Tract No. 38455)" for our consideration; and we pro- mised to provide you with our reactions, hence this letter. First, let me say that many of the items contained in your memorandum can be happily dealt with; however, before get- ting into specifics, on advice of counsel', the following should be made quite clear at the outset. a For a number of reasons-including those set forth in Mr. Gibb's memorandum-which all members of the City Council received at the June lO;Meet- ing--all prerequisites to the approval of our final map have been met; hence, pursuant to the Subdivi- sion Map Act and applicable court decisions, we are entitled to such approval as a matter of right. b. By our even considering the various items set forth in your memorandum at this rather delicate time, we do not in any way imply either (i). that we are waiving that absolute right or (ii) that the City Council has•any discretionary power to impose any conditions before approving the final map. c. Thus, we expect the City Council to accomplish the ministerial act of approving the final map on June 24 and. will; view our dialogue concerning the subjects raised in your memorandum as truly unrelated matters. John, I realize you never came right out and. said that any or all of the'.items i1n your memorandum-must be resolved to each'Councilmanl,s satisfaction before the City Council will approve.our final :map; but that certainly could have been implied from the record of the June 10 Meeting and your remarks of last-Friday. Accordingly, we all felt it best to clear the air on that.point. Having done so, we now turn to your memorandum, Since re- ceivng .the same, we have spent.-many hours considering each and every matter raised therein. We found.some of the.items to present no problems; others appear to lend themselves to satisfactory resolution, if we all cooperate with one another; a.couple`are difficult, though not impossible; and perhaps-only one or two:.really present insurmountable ob- stacles," in other words,, we have tried to understand the concerns,you raise and be reasonably responsive thereto, as Mr.. T,r.ipep asked -us.to be, fully anticipating that each (member of the City Council will similarly be understanding of our problems as well. CM 6-23-81 Page #16 Continuation of Hedrick Letter: Now, making reference to the section and sub-section designations in your memorandum, our comments are as follows: I. On-Site Circulation and Emergency vehicle Access. Ingress and egress over the same road was always the plan, as described in our presentations right from the beginning in connection with the tentative map, the annexation and the zoning; and all requisite reviews were accomplished by or in behalf of the City and all approvals were obtained. Moreover, taking into account all pertinent factors, we be- lieve that the current arrangement is more than adequate and the concern you express is unwarranted. But having so stated, we would nevertheless be happy to pursue an alternate exit over the adjacent property, as has been suggested. Mre specifically--notwithstanding the additional expense--we would be willing to extend the 16 foot wide road between Buildings 8 and 9 some 20 or so feet to the McCarthy Co./Charter Oak Development property--includ- ing making adjustments for additional fill, change in drain- age, etc., and to install a crash gate on our side of the property line: provided, of course, that the McCarthy/Charter people give us the necessary easements to permit our road, as so extended, to tie in with their road at the property line. As a first step, we would suggest that the City initiate the dialogue with them; and please be rest assured that, if they are cooperative, we certainly shall be. II. Adequacy of On-Site Park Parking Spillover Onto 'P you asked whether it is of several approaches. you mentioned, our views and the Pbtential Of uDiic brreers. in your memoranau possible to accomplish any or all Taking up each of the three items are as follows: A. Because the CC&Rs are located in our San Diego office, we have not as yet reviewed them to see if your three suggested items have not already been taken care of. However, assuming no legal impediments, we have no problems with your second and third items; nor do we havey any problem with the first, if the appro- priate language can be worked out. We are of course anxious to avoid any undue burdening of our guest park- ing area by any legitimate means. B. As reflected in our plans, over-and-above the 49 two car garages, we have 25 spaces for guest parking. With adequate CC&R restraints on the use of guest park- ing by regular residents, that should be more than ample. .Providing more would always be better; but, based upon- our review of plans, redesigning for additonal guest parking would involve an enormous expense. .On the other hand, after completion of grading, we have every intention of again assessing the situation. it is altogether possible that actual field conditions might then permit a few more guest spaces without sub- stantial additional expense. C. Assuming all requisite regulatory approvals can and will be obtained, a security gate in the project's front yard set back (with a user actuated opening device) is certainly feasible. So doing would involve consider- able additional expense; but this is something we would be willing to do, in the spirit suggested by Mr. Tripepi. CM~.6 23-$1 Page #17 • • Continuation of Hedrick Letter: III. That the Proposed Units/Lots 1 Through -6 Be Rearranged In a Manner that Eliminates Vehicular on-Site Traffic Conflicts. This concern relates to the location of the garages for the first six lots, which locations were clearly set forth in.the presentations back in 1979 and early 1980. The concern, as we understand.'it,is that automobiles backing out of those garages may in some way conflict with automobiles leaving the project during peak hours. At the outset, we would be less than candid if we were not to acknowledge that such de- sign changes at this late date would be horrendous. Fortunately, when taking into account all of the pertin- ent factors, we believe you will conclude that the problem you mention is not at all serious--if it is,a problem at all. For one must keep.in mind (i) that, during peak hours perhaps two or three dozen--not hundreds--of cars from the other units would be passing the garages for Lots 1 through 6; (ii) that, because of the terrain alone--not to mention caution signs, etc.--such departing automobiles would necessarily be proceed- ing at a slow speek; (iii) that visibility as they would pro- ceed toward the six garages will be good; (iv) that any cars backing out of those six garages likewise would have excellent visibility and a full lane within which to maneuver before getting into the traffic flow; and (v) that all drivers would be totally familiar with the whole traffic circulation within the project. Under the circumstances, any substantial risk of collision--let alone even a moderate traffic jam--we believe would be unlikely. However, if there still remains a concern, we would be most anxious to do whatever we can--short of redesign--to remedy the problem. Thus, we would be amenable to appropriate striping, signing, control devices, mirrors or whatever the City's traffic people might reasonably suggest--although we really think that any such extraordinary measures will prove to be unnecessary. IV. Grade and Wall Height Differences At Property Lines And Between Nei'ghb'oring Properties. Please be assured that all of our grading, wall and fence work will continue to conform to the Tract Map, our approved grading plan, and all govern- ing standards. Moreover, as you are well aware, we have tried-. to work along with the half dozen or'so adjacent owners, who have expressed varying concerns as to wall/fence heights fac- ing their properties. Some have wanted the heights to be in- creased, while others have wanted them to be reduced. Not- withstanding such differences, we have nevertheless tried to work with those people and intended to continue to do so, even before receiving your memorandum. We really have no problems with the fundamental features of the approach you suggest, other than the notion of having to obtain written concurrences from each of the adjacent owners. What with our being duty bound to comply'with the law, our demonstrated concern with good neighborly relations, etc., the leverage that would be given such adjacent owners is really unnecessary, not to mention undesirable from our point of view. In summary, we would be most willing to prepare and dis- tribute grade profile cross-sections--showing the post-grad- ing relationship of our walls/fences to the neighboring pro- perties. What with the different conditions involved at the site and the difficulties that some of the adjacent owners have in visualizing how the walls/fences will ultimately look from their property, that appears to be an indispensable step to constructive and conclusive dialogues as to what they want and what we can provide. Both preparing these profiles and continuing to-meet with'the,'owners will involve additional expense; but we feel that is the only way to proceed under the circumstances. And, though--as Mr. Tripepi suggested-- there may be some adjacent owners who will never be satisfied we intend to do our best to try with them as well. CM 6-23-81 Page #18'_ So much for the areas of concern expressed in your memoran- dum. We understand that you will be passing on to each member of the City Council the various thoughts we have expressed herein. In so doing, please advise them that we are most anxious to answer any questions they might have and, should they have any constructive suggestions, refinements or what- ever, we would be most anxious to hear them as well. You might also advise them that we would be perfectly willing to further document the intentions expressed in this letter, but are somewhat hafdpressed to conceive just how that could be accomplished. Here again, we would be amenable to any suggestions in that regard as well. I look forward to hearing from you in the next few days. Very truly yours, J. H. Hedrick & Company By Stephen E. Boggs CC: Robert W. Gibbs,Esq. President C/M Hunter; I want to make a motion but I want to talk to Mr. Carmona first. Mr. Carmona do you have the items listed or the letter you sent to the Hedricks Company on the discussion that you,-myself and Mr. Tury had 'on the areas of concern? Carmona: I do. C/M Hunter; .0. K, I'm going to make a motion to deny with each one of those listed as the reason why. I think it is pretty much what Mr. Taylor said but I'm putting it in a motion form not only the minutes but the reason that I recommend-denial. C/M Taylor: I said we had another problem. I would second the motion but I think we`are getting into another quandary and this is the second problem that I' referred to before. Mr. Kress stated to us before that he will have to bow out, correct me if I'm wrong,because he is-involved with Hedrick`•s and we will have to get another attorney: Is-that , correct? City Attorney,;. Tha.t.'s correct. Let me explain for the benefit of those in. the audience, One of my partners has repre- sented this development firm in a totally unrelated-matter. An Eminent Domain action in the City of Whittier. This was brought to the attention of the Council, approved by the City.Council,and was also approved by the Developer. Total disclosure was made at the outset. This was•many-months ago, At that time, I cer- tainly did not realize Ghat there was,-a problem with this tract map. Now there appears that there is. I don't think that's a matter for any particular action tonight. If'I sense where Council is going with thisy you-may infact be involved with litigation a,nd.a,t,.-such time thatx~s,the time to consider another law firm to represent the City. C/'M Taylor; The reason I need to bring it up tonight the courts can move :very fa.st, and we are hit with a potential law suit-.for Immediate relief. We have got a. little bit of reluc_. tency or hesitency-who we.going to have. I don't have anybody lined •up to take the case. Do any of the other Councilmembers? I don•,t want their name but do they ha-ve somebody? C/M Hunter: In answer to Mr..Taylor, I have not talked with, an Attorney, but. I do have two suggestions,. CM 6-23=81 Page #19 C/M Taylor: I just bring it up because if we deny it tonight I am sure that we will be hit with an immediate lawsiiit' -and Mr. Gibbs will be explaining the economic damage being done to his clients and such. That's where it stands. So we have got to be able to very candidly move quick on it, and if Mr. Hunter's motion still stands, I will second it. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN HUNTER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR. that the request to approve the Final Tract Map #38455 be denied because of the specific concerns regarding the Valley View Terrace Project such as: 1. On-Site Circulation and Emergency Vehicle Access. II. Inadequacy of On-Site Parking and the Potential of Parking Spill-j,.oyes- onto Public Streets. III. That the pro- Units/Lots i'through 6 be rearranged in a manner that eliminates vehicular on-site traffic conflicts. IV. Grade and Wall Height differences at property lines and between neighboring properties. Vote resulted: AYES: Councilmen Hunter, Tury, Taylor and Mayor Imperial NAYES: Councilman Cichy Whereupon the Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Mayor Imperial;. The Motion, to Deny was carried by a four to one '-vote., C/M Hunter. .I. don•,t know-if at this point it is worth,a tinkers•-damn but. I; would. hope that the Attorney for Hedricks Company would consider possibly solutions or resolutions to the problems and let-us move'forward. Because spending your money and our money is•not really going to solve our problems the way I see it. I am not an Attorney and I am not going'to si,t as a Judge, and I donut even know at this point if you can even come back, but it is worth. a, try. C/M Taylor: Mr., Mayor my comments are similar to what Mr. Hunter referred to, I't. seems, like the, time would be lost one way or the other. I,,-would like to seethe development move along.',.!To set Mr. Gibbs,, one of the fears that he has, if he comes back in"three weeks and there. are other conditions added to this then I think you have got. a valid point.,, -We have all been put on notice.the'past two-weeks,-month, whatever it may be, the additional three weeks,, There-.comes a. point where I think you have exce.llen;t. ground. to stand on and I'~q not an Attorney either," I,j-ust want to express myself the way I feel: That i,f Mr.•Gibbs thinks that we can add something back_i;n three weeks, well,,then -,if I did that then I would tell someone to go to blazes too. You had your chance,,' I can'+t say that any of the other Council-members would not have any other items but we had our chance to present them to you and I think. that .the're7: quests that were ;made were.-all-valid and if they. are 'resolved..., I don't have. any others, h had,myopportunity, and you can take your pot shots at,,me, i\f I' mention at„ any: other >meetin,g. C/M Tury; All the concerns I have are in that letter, and if those.concerns are resolved then I would have no other problems. Mayor Imperial; 'Mr, Gibbs, I would like to say at this time, that if you can remedy the problem that we've.got,,.,some of us have with.. the situation,. then I am sure that if you can back with.this in say a week,: this•Council would consider such a meeting.. Gibbs: Let me express a kind of overall response.to what you just said. ' Inherent, in any of these problems is the docu -mentation of them that would go to satisfy Councilman Taylor and others, similarly. ..having similar feelings. I' don't want to sound arrogant in what I am about to say. But the problem is that we receive a,memorandum and we presented a lengthy letter -and at the end we said in the letter that we would be delighted to document thingsfurther the best as, we can within the time allowed. What has happened between then and now,, is that the Final-Map has-been 'disapproved. I don "t know, if that can. be un done. But let•me say this...by•virtue of applicable law it is impossible for us to sit down and negotiate with the Councilmen. CM 6-23-81 Page #20 i • Gibbs: continued. We can spend all the time in the world with Mr. Carmona in Mr. Tripepi's good offices and still that won't do the job, as well intentioned as everybody might be. Along the same lines and in the same spirit without changing anybody's rights as a result because we must do what we have to do. I would suggest this, if the City Council could somehow convey their thoughts to the City Attorney or someone else acting in his place instead with respect to this matter. To the end that an agreement could be structured requiring our signature on one hand to agree to do A, B, C, and D and on the other hand the assurance being that the final map will be reinstated and approved. Otherwise we are just going to be feeling our way along like this ...the com- munication of necessity in order to prevent illegal conduct be- tween and among public officers is good, but it is really a handicap.to expeditious agreements and so forth and so on. So, I would suggest that avenue and I would be delighted to work with whomever your representative is if we could achieve something like that. But, in the meanwhile, we have to do what we have to do, and again, I don't want to sound like it is a threat. We would like to avoid....I would like to be paid for the legal expenses involved in a hassel like this, but the fact of the matter is that John Hedrick is a long standing client of mine and his best interests are to get on with the project. I think that is in the best interest of the City. You might in a work session or whatever, you might focus on that kind of an approach. I would like to get a call-from somebody tomorrow or give me a telephone number and I will call them. C/M Hunter: Mr. Mayor, to the Attorney. Is what Mr. Gibbs suggested possible? Attorney: I believe he suggested that earlier, or something close to that and Councilman Taylor indicated "no" he didn't want to agree to agree at a later time. He wanted to see it tonight. There is an inherent danger in agreements to agree later. One of the first things you learn in Law School is that it would be very nice to shake hands over this and say that we can resolve all these things. If there is an insistence on the part of the Council to see these matters resolved in writing prior to the approval of the final map, it is very difficult. You have taken some action and whether or not it can be undone? Yes, I think it could pro- bably be undone. Certainly courts cannot do it. If there is litigation filed in this matter, Council with their designated representative might enter into negotiations at that time. C/M Taylor: I' would like to state again that, we had a list of proposals that w6 thought we did...or we were more or less in formed that they had been agreed upon and Mr. Kress mentioned something... that the first thing you learn in Law School about a handshake... we would like to rely on that. Well, that's about all we had to go on tonight. It isn't what the courts will stand behind. We had a list of items that need to be resolved. We did not have to the best of my knowledge one physical signature tonight between the different parties saying that they would do whatever was in that letter on those items. We did not have one piece covered. So the original comment Mr. Tury made...I can't accept it the way it is. Mayor Imperial; Thank you. Gentlemen...is that all. C/M Taylor: Let's move on to the next item. C. COLLEGE WORK STUDY PROGRAM--CAL POLY, POMONA, & CAL STATE, L.A. Councilman Taylor stated that he could not support this program because of funding with all the conversation from the State regarding the lack of-money. Councilman Cichy stated that many Valuable services have been received -under this program at a. very low rate and also increased the education of future Planners and City Administrators. CM 6-23-81 Page #21 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CICHY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY that the College Work Study Program be approved. Vote resulted: AYES: Councilmen Hunter, Cichy, Tury and Mayor Imperial NAYES: Councilman Taylor Whereupon the Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. VI. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. Councilman Taylor inquired if the staff had received a list of use and proposed use of the Dinsmore.House. Mr. Foutz stated that he would have the list by the next Council Meeting.. B. Councilman Taylor inquired if the park addition would be completed by next Friday. Mike Burbank stated that the Contractor had said it would be completed. C. Councilman Taylor requested a copy of the Mid Valley Transit regulations to see if it is available for people to use back and forth to work. D. Councilman Taylor requested a copy of the amendments to the Trash Contract and the minutes of the City Council approv- ing such amendments. E. Councilman Tury inquired about the drinking in the Parks. John Phillips,Sheriff's Department, stated-that with the increase in surveillance the drinking is not completely controlled but it is markedly decreased. There have been some arrests and some citations. F. Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager, stated that regarding the budget in Sacramento and Rosemead was one of 30 cities that had losses under SB102 replaced under a trailer bill with the budget. The Legislative Advocate stated that that bill exempt from the Governors blue line so there is no way that that bill will be vetoed.so the loss of $97,000 is reinstated under another bill. He stated that the battle was won this year although it may come up again next year. G. Mayor Imperial stated that a memorandum from the Sheriff's Department stated that the major crime rate in the City of Rosemead has decreased from 161 to 128 in May „ 1981 for the same month a year ago. H. Mayor Imperial read a letter from Bellflower regarding ACA-35 and Resolution No. 81-39 which was adopted by the Bellflower City Council on June 8, 1981. This Resolution opposes the ACA-35 which if passed would' mandate all local governments to have the offices of City Clerk and City Treasurer as elected positions. This item to be deferred to the next Council Meeting for additional information regarding ACA-35. I. Councilman Hunter directed the City Manager to replace his chair in his office. Respectfully submitted: There being was adjourned to 8:00 p. m. APPROVED: Q OR no further business, the City Council Meeting the next regular Meeting on July 14, 1981 at ..ate) City Jerk CM 6-23-81 Page #22