Loading...
CC - 02-09-60CITY Or ROSEMEAD ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA February 9, 1960 40 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rosemead was held in the City Hall, 3964 North Rosemead Boulevard. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Stead at 8:01 o'clock p.m. 1. The.pledge of allegiance was lead by Mayor Stead. 2. Present: Councilmen: Buchanan, Cook, Horning, Lowrey, Stead. Absent: None. Ex officio: Woollett, Watson, Stump, Armstrong. Mayor Stead stated that in the appointment of the Historical Commission he had inadvertently given the name as Margaret Wilson. The records should be corrected to show the name Margaret Watson. 3. It was moved by Lowrey, second by Horning and unanimously carried that the minutes of January 26, 1960 be approved as printed. Councilman Lowrey stated, I have a duty to perform that is most distasteful to me and I would much prefer to not have to do it - but for the good of the City of Rosemead in view- of the lack of cooperation and the c9dw disregard of the rest of the council in the dealings of the City, I must move that our Mayor be relieved of his duties as Mayor effective immediately. This motion was second by Horning. After short discussion Councilman Buchanan stated that we must have coopera- tion within the Council if any progress in the government in the City of Rosemead is to be made, and that the council has a duty and a responsibility to do what is best for the community. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Cook, Horning, Lowrey. Noes: None. Absent: None. Stead abstained from voting. CA Woollett asked the Attorney the proper procedure to be followed. Attorney Watson stated the Mayor pro tem should take the chair. Mayor pro tem Lowrey asked the Attorney to clarify his position before he took the chair, he wished to know if his motion could be made from the chair. Attorney Watson stated that it could. Mayor pro tem Lowrey took the chair and moved that Harry Buchanan be nominated for Mayor, this nomination was second by Horning. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes: Cook, Horning, Lowrey, Stead. Noes: None. Absent: None. Buchanan abstained from voting. Attorney Watson stated that it would not be necessary for Mayor Buchanan to take the oath as his original oath would suffice. Mayor Buchanan stated that we had reached the time on the agenda which is reserved for the audience who desire to address the council, but that he felt it would be wiser to handle the items on the agenda at this time. There would be ample opportunity later in the meeting for anyone who so desires to address the council. 4. ORDINANCE NO. 15 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING SECTIONS TO ARTICLE III, CHAPTER I: FIREWORKS. (2nd READING) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD PROHIBITING THE USE, POSSESSION AND SALE OF FIREWORKS, DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF, AND THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE IMMEDIATE EFFECT. It was moved by Cook, second by Lowrey that Ordinance No. 15 be referred to • the CA for further study. Gene IWillard, Commander, John Guess American Legion Post, Rosemead, spoke in opposition to this ordinance. Weaver Adams, Past Commander, John Guess American Legion Post, Rosemead, spoke in opposition to this ordinance. Burl Blue, 9313 DeAdalena Street, Rosemead, stated he wished his letter which he would read at this time spread in full in the official record of this meeting. - 1 - • February 9th, 1960 • City Council, City of Posemead, Rosemead, Calif. Gentlemen: As a citizen of Rosemead I am interested in the proposed fireworks ordinance which will receive its second reading tonight, February 9th. This ordinance appears to be ill-advised and unfair to people of this community for the • following reasons: 1. People in Rosemead will, as they have in the past continue to purchase fireworks outside the city limits in E1 Monte, Alhambra, San Gabriel and other communities where sale is legal. This means the community will suffer a loss of any license fee which can be collected from the vendor, sales tax is made by veterans group's or other charitable or- ganizations for non-profit and who use the funds derived therefrom for local activities, such funds would not be available. for example, the local American Legion Post would like to sponsor a Jr. American Legion ball team made up of high school age boys who would represent this community. The cost of supporting such a team is in excess of $1,000 per year. If the Post were able to raise funds from the sale of fireworks, this money would be expended on such an activity. 2. The enactment of such an ordinance will create a moral problem when children of this community have to be explained to why it is lawful to do something in one town and not in another. When their parents, friends and neighbors violate the law by having fireworks displays in their own back yards, as they have for years in violation of the County ordinance, the child loses his basic respect for law and order. The enactment of such a law will be almost impossible to enforce and if enforced, will cause more harm than good, in cost and ill feelings. 3. It is understandable that the County Fire Dept. would be against fire- works in any community they service, from a fire safety standpoint. However, in my experience as a fire insurance agent there has been no greater instance of fires over the 4th of July than other holiday. There is a greater number of traffic accidents caused by crowded highways and if you prohibit our citizens from displaying fireworks in their own homes it requires them to travel elsewhere to either view or set off such a display. This travel, by auto to me is considerably more hkzardous and more lives are lost than through the display of fireworks. Jtn conclusion, in view of the fact that most cities in this area do not pro- hibit the sale or display of fireworks, it would appear they do not feel such an activity on the 4th of July is detrimental to the best interests of their citizens. The Board of Fire Underwriters of the Pacific do not penalize any City that does not have a fireworks ordinance. For example, the City of E1 Monte, which permits the use of fireworks, is rated in National Board Class • 4 as is the City of Rosemead. Your consideration of the above mentioned facts will be greatly appreciated at the time you make your final decision on this ordinance. Very truly yours, Burl Blue Councilman Horning moved that this proposed ordinance be read in full, motion was second by Cook and unanimously carried. Proposed Ordinance No. 15 was read in full by CA Woollett. Roll call vote on the.motion to refer to the CA for further study was as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Cook, Horning, Lowrey, Stead. Noes: None. Absent: None. J. B. Blue, Sr., 3866 N. Rio Hondo Avenue, Rosemead, wished to know if there would be an opportunity to further discuss this ordinance before its passage. Mr. Blue was informed that all meetings are open meetings. - 2 - 5. ORDINANCE NO. 16 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING SECTIONS TO ARTICLE V: EXCESSIVE UNSIGHTLINESS. (2nd READING). ORDINANCE NO. 16. AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING EXCESSIVE UNSIGHTLINESS. It was moved by Horning, second by Cook that Ordinance No. 16 be read by title only. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Cook, Horning, Lowrey, Stead. Noes: None. Absent: None. • It was moved by Cook, second by Lowrey that Ordinance No. 16 be accepted as read. Mayor Buchanan requested CA Woollett to briefly explain this proposed Ordinance. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Cook, Horning, Lowrey, Stead. Noes: None. Absent: None. 6., -ORDINANCE NO. 17 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING SECTIONS TO ARTICLE V: FENCING. (2nd READING). ORDINANCE NO. 17. AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE FENCING OF ANY PREMISES WHEREIN CERTAIN ARTICLES OR MATERIALS ARE STORED IN THE OPEN. It was moved by Cook, second by Lowrey that this Ordinance be read by title only. Councilman Stead stated that a written request from the audience had been placed on the Council table to have Items 6 & 7 on the agenda read.in full. Ordinance No. 17 was read in full by CA Woollett. It was moved by Lowrey, second by Cook that this Ordinance be accepted as read. Mayor Buchanan asked if the requirement of eight (8) foot fencing didn't seem high. CA Woollett explained that the eight (8) foot high was necessary to screen from public view the type of materials covered by this Ordinance as they are usually stored. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Cook, Horning, Lowrey, Stead. Niles: None. Absent: None. 7. ORDINANCE NO. 19 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING SECTIONS TO ARTICLE VI: FORTUNE TELLING. (2nd READING). ORDINANCE NO. 19. AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING FORTUNE TELLING AND SIMILAR PRACTICES FOR COMPENSATION OR DONATION. This ordinance was read in full by CA Woollett. J.B, Blue, Sr., 3866 North Rio Hondo Ave., Rosemead, asked the Council who had "dreamed this up", and why. He wished to know if we have ffcrooks" of this type in Rosemead. It was moved by Cook, second by Lowrey that this ordinance be accepted as read. It was explained by CA Woollett that within a matter of weeks after incorpora- tion the City was approached by various groups and individuals to operate this type of business in the City since the City was no longer covered by the County Ordinance. It was further explained that Ordinance 19 is the same as the • County Ordinance. Councilman Stead stated that one item in the ordinance psychometry is used in school kgiacln~ would like to request that the word psychometry :be stricken from the ordinance. Councilman Cook read that portion of.the Or- dinance which permitted this use within schools. Attorney Watson stated that at this time he was not prepared to give a defin- ition of psychometry_:'. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Cook, • Horning, Lowrey, Stead. Noes: None. Absent: None. 8. ORDINANCE NO. 20 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING SECTIONS TO ARTICLE VI: BICYCLES. (2nd READING)., ORDINANCE NO. 20. AN ORDI?':!•'iCE OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD PROVIDING FOR THE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING OF BICYCLES AND ADDING SECTIONS TO THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE. CA Woollett explained that this ordinance was the same as the County's ordinance licensing bicycles. - 3 - • • It was moved by Horning, second by Lowrey and unanimously carried that this ordinance be read by title only. It was moved by Cook, secondtby Lowrey that this ordinance be accepted as written. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Cook, Horning, Lowrey, Stead. Noes: None. Absent: None. 9, ORDINANCE NO. 21. PUBLIC HEARING: PROTEST HEARING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS • COMPANY FRANCHISE. (2nd READING). ORDINANCE NO. 21 Ali ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY A CORPORATION, THE RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND FRANCHISE TO LAY AND USE PIPES AND APPURTENANCES FOR TRANSMITTING AND DISTRIBUTING GAS FOR ANY AND ALL PURPOSES UNDER, ALONG, ACROSS OR UPON THE PUBLIC STREET'S, WAYS, ALLEYS AND PLACES, AS THE SAME NO;! OR MAY HEREAFTER EXIST, WITHIN SAID MUNICIPALITY. It was moved by Horning, second by Lowrey and unanimously carried that this ordinance be read by title only. It was moved by Lowrey, second by Cook that Ordinance No. 21 be approved as read. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Cool, Horning, Lowrey, Stead, Noes: None. Absent: None. 10. RESOLUTION N0. 60-11 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION. RESOLUTION NO. 60-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF APRIL, 1.960, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF SAID CITY AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAed CITIES. It was moved by Lowrey, second by Cook and unanimously carried that Resolu- tion 60-11 be read by title only. It was moved by Lowrey, second by Cook that this Resolution be approved as read. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Cook, Horning, Lowrey, Stead. Noes: None. Absent: None. NO. 11. RESOLUTION/60-12 ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIh5 AND DEMANDS. RESOLUTION N0. 60-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $2,760.03 DEMANDS NUMBERS 164 THROUGH 182. It was moved by Lowrey, second by Cook, that this resolution be read by title only. • Councilman Stead requested that these expenditures be read in full. Resolu- tion No. 60-12 read in full by CA 1loollett. Councilman Stead called to the attention of CA Woollett that the FICA was based on the old rate instead of the new rate, he stated that this can be adjusted on the next payroll. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Cook, Horning, Lowrey, Stead. Noes: None. Absent: None. 12. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO DESIRE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL. • The following persons addressed the Council in regard to the change in Mayor: Burl Blue, 9313 DeAdalena Street, Rosemead. Mike Timrott, 8874 Barrette Avenue, Rosemead. R.K. McCaffree, 9271 Steele Street, Rosemead. John Phinney, 4516 Delta Street, Rosemead. Mary Pierce, 8734 East Valley Blvd., Rosemead. E. Paul Lieberg, 9617 East Lorica, Rosemead. J. Crissman, 3710 North Temple City Blvd., Rosemead. Attorney Watson explained that to his knowledge there had been no violation of the Brown Act. The Brown Act precludes the meeting of a quorum. It does - 4 - not preclude one Councilman talking to another Councilman, a course of • action may be determined, this does not constitute a secret meeting. 13. MATTERS FROM CITY OFFICIALS. CA Woollett reported that the Rotary Club had considered placing benches around the City at various locations, but to date had been unable to overcome the cost of liability insurance. It was moved by Lowrey, second by Cook and unanimously carried that the CA be instructed to contact the Bench Ad Company and see what arrangements could be made. • It was moved by Horning and second by Lowrey that the City Council author- ize the CA, with the cooperation of the Chamber of Commerce, to spend not to exceed one (1) years estimated income of the area, to protect in any legal manner, our rights regarding contested annexation areas. Such expenditures subject to audit approved by the City Council. Councilman Stead stated that since annexation was a major item in differ- ences of opinion that he would like to read at this time excerpts from a session at the League of California Cities prepared by Harry Marks, former Mayor of Modesto. Dr. Stuart H. Maude stated that the volunteer workers on the Chamber of Commerce annexation committee had been worked nearly to the point of endur- ance and that all the assistance they could receive would be most welcome. J.H. Blue, Sr., 3866 North Rio Hondo Avenue, Rosemead, stated that it seemed to him that the most important question concerning a proposed annexation was whether or not the people in the area wanted to be annexed. CA Woollett explained that the property owners of the new shopping center had expressed three different preferences on three different occasions. John D. Phinney, 4516 Delta St., Rosemead, stated that he is in favor of Rosemead going ahead by spending money wisely but with discretion. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Cook, Horning, Lowrey. Noes: Stead. Absent: None. City Attorney Watson stated that Annexation No. 6 has progressed to the point where petitions have been filed with the City Clerk, February 4, 1960, bearing the signatures of 53 electors. This Annexation is a minhabitated one and the next step is to determine the sufficiency of petitions. The City Clerk shall check these petitions and certify the sufficiency of signatures thereof. The Council should acknowledge the receipt of these petitions as of February 4, 1960. It was so moved by Lowrey, second by Horning. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Cook, Horning, Lowrey, Stead. Noes: None. Absent: None. CA Woollett stated he had two communications from the Chamber of Commerce. The communication dated February 4, 1960, regarding the slogan contest was read in full. The proposed rules of the slogan contest were read in full. It was moved by Lowrey, second by Horning and unanimously carried that these communications be accepted and filed, and the requested answer be written. • A communication from the Chamber of Commerce dated February 9 1960, with regard to the business license ordinancd was read in full by CA Woollett. It was moved by Lowrey, second by Horning and unanimously carried that this communication be accepted and filed. CA Woollett stated that at the last meeting of the Traffic Commission the fol- lowing recommendation -.,me made to the City Council: • The Traffic Commission recommended to the City Council that a crossing guard be requested for the corner of Valnut Grove Avenue and Marshall Street. CA Woollett explained that if after considering this matter, the board decided a guard is not warranted, the City would have to assume the cost but if the study reveals that a crossing guard is warranted, the County would bear the expense until July 1, 1960. It was moved by Lowrey, second by Horning that the City Council authorize a crossing guard for the corner of Walnut Grove Avenue and Marshall Street regardless of who pays the bill. Roll call vote as follows: Ayes: Buchanan, Cook, Horning, Lowrey, Stead. Noes: None. Absent: None. - 5 - • CA Woollett stated that he had received a letter from the California Highway Patrol concerning a request made by the Council at its last meeting. This communication regarding the traffic signals and dated February 4, 1960 was read in full by CA Woollett. It was moved by Lowrey, second by Horning, and unanimously carried that this communication be received and filed. • CA Woollett read a portion of a communication from the County of Los Angeles Road Department concerning the possible extention of Lower Azusa Road. This communication was dated January 28, 1960. It was moved by Lowrey, second by Horning and unanimously carried that this communication be received and filed. CA Woollett called to the attention of the Council that at their last meeting they had authorized the payment of $50.00 annual dues to the League of California Cities - this being incorrect, the check had been stopped. Authorization should be for payment of the sum of $50.00 annual dues for the California Contract Cities. It was moved by Lowrey, second by Horning, and unanimously carried that the Council authorize the payment of the $50.00 annual dues to the California Contract Cities. CA ;ioollett called the Councilvs attention to the comparitive study of tax rates made by the City of San Gabriel. Memorandum from the CA to the Council was read in full. Councilman Stead called attention to the recent 14% raise in rubbish disposal rates. He stated further that other cities such as Maywood charge 750 per month for residences and 450 for apartments, Baldwin Park has a limit of $1.75 per month by special ordinance and a licensing of $400.00 per year per truck. Councilman Stead recommended that the City Attorney and City Administrator draw up a rubbish disposal ordinance for the City of Rosemead. Stuart H. Maude, Chamber of Commerce President stated that you receive "nothing for nothings' and urged the Council not to forget to protect the businessman. Councilman Horning stated he would prefer to have the Council consider the possibility of a franchise and not just a license, so the City could mdntain a proper amount of control over rubbish disposal operations within the City. A copy of a letter was passed to the Council table from the audience. This letter was addressed to Fred White, et al, 1367 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, 15, California and dated December 15, 1959. Mayor Buchanan requested the CA to read this letter in full. This letter concerning Rosemead Annex- ation No. 2 was signed by J. Ercel Cleminson, Orval Davis, Telpher E. Wright, and Travis L. Manning. It was moved by Horning, second by Cook, and unanimously carried that this communication be noted. • It was moved by Lowrey, second by Cook that the meeting adjourn. Next regular meeting, February 23, 1960. Meeting adjourned at 10:12 o'clock p.m. MAYOR CITY CLERK 06 - 6 -