Loading...
CC - 09-12-000 0 APPROVED CITY OF JJPO'MEAD MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING DATE _(Q/~ ~ 6' 0 ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman Vasquez The Invocation was delivered by Pastor Jonathan Wu of Evergreen Baptist Church ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers Bruesch, Taylor, Vasquez, Mayor Pro Tern Imperial, and Mayor Clark Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JULY 11, 2000 REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 11, 2000, be approved as corrected. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JULY 25, 2000 -REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 25, 2000, be approved as corrected. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 8, 2000 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 8, 2000, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. PRESENTATIONS: CCMIN:9-12-00 Page # I E 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Juan Nunez, 2703 Del Mar, Rosemead, voiced his concern with hosed off water from the Goodyear Tire store collecting on the property next to it. Mr. Nunez stated that the water, which may be contamined, could possibly runoff into the storm drain. Councilman Bruesch responded that this has been a recurring problem and the tire store will be notified. Ken Rukavina, City Engineer, stated he will contact Industrial Waste to check into this matter. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS An explanation of the procedures for the conduct of the public hearings was presented by the City Attorney. A. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 812 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSMEAD EXTENDING URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 811 FOR 10 MONTHS 15 DAYS ON THE ISSUANCE OF ANY NEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR GARMENT MANUFACTURING, PROCESSING, OR ASSEMBLING IN THE M-1 ZONE - ADOPT Frank Tripepi, City Manager, presented the staff report. The Mayor opened the public hearing for those in the audience wishing to speak on this item. There being no one wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Taylor verified that there are 29 businesses operating under current C.U.P.'s. Mr. Taylor confirmed that those businesses will not be denied a renewal unless they refuse to conform to the C.U.P. conditions. Mr. Tripepi responded that those garment factories are currently operating under a legal C.U.P. and they will need to correct the conditions that they were cited for. Mr. Tripepi stated that during this moratorium, no new applications for garment factories will be accepted. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the Council waive reading in full and adopt Ordinance No. 812. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The.Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. PUBLIC HEARING - MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 00-02 AMENDING SECTIONS 17.48.020 (PERMITTED USES IN THE CBD ZONE), 17.112.030(20) (HOTEL/MOTEL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS), & 5.42 (BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS FOR HOTELS/MOTELS AND TO REVISE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF APPROVL THAT ARE PLACED ON HOTEL AND MOTELS THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BI. ORDINANCE NO. 813 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ADDING CHAPTER 5.42 TO THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE OPERATIONAL STANDARDS FOR HOTELS AND MOTELS AND AMENDING SECTIONS 17.112.030 AND 17.48.020 OF THE CODE REQUIRING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH USES - INTRODUCE Frank Tripepi, City Manager, presented the staff report. CCMIN:9.12-00 Page #2 • • The Mayor opened the public hearing for those in the audience wishing to speak on this item. Stephen Jones, 520 S. Grand, Los Angeles, attorney representing motel owners that brought about the litigation, and is currently the attorney of record from which this compromise arose. Mr. Jones stated he and his clients met with the City and Sheriffs to work out an agreement, much of what is being presented on the staff report tonight. One of the agreements was to dismiss the litigation. Mr. Jones stated that this ordinance tonight addresses the key issues that they were concerned with and he thought the process was completed. However, people are still concerned, some of his clients included, and understands that their concern is not with the ordinance itself but over a fear of the way it will be implemented. Mr. Jones stated that the City's ordinance is a good compromise, and concluded that he is in favor of the ordinance as it stands. Frank Weiser, 3460 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, attorney representing the newly formed Rosemead Hotel/Motel Association. Mr. Weiser stated that his clients feel that they did not have any information prior to any settlement agreement and were surprised that this ordinance is being adopted, and that they are opposed to it. Mr. Weiser continued that one concern among the Association members is this ordinance will give law enforcment the right to come on the property and inspect the guest registers on demand, both in dealing and with the TOT tax and anything related to that, such as licensing and dealing with C.U.P's. Mr. Weiner cited other court cases and argued that a "warrant substitute" is still required. Other concerns of the Association is that the Ordinance will leave too much discretion to law enforcement and City officials. Mr. Weiser stated that another concern is with transient occupany and that the language defining dwelling or lodging, as being vague as it may include possible permanent occupancy. Councilman Bruesch ask if the City uses the State definition of what a transient occupancy is? Peter Wallin, City Attorney, stated affirmative; however, the City is not amending the Transient Occupany Tax (TOT). Mr. Weiser stated that regardless of the City's ability to tax under State law, the Federal Constitution places certain restrictions on that power. Mr. Weiser continued that he is not disputing the power to tax, but that the language used in implementing that section uses the exact same language found to be unconstitutional under Federal law. The TOT needs to be amended and to redefine permanent versus transient occupancy for clarification of who is and who is not subject to the C.U.P. process. Mr. Weiser stated that the ordinance should be amended so that the Sheriff's and City officials are not given absolute discretion in implementing inspection of books and records on the premises. Councilman Taylor cited a situation a few months ago where a crime was committed at a motel and witnesses called the Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's were able to apprehend the criminal from inspecting the guest register. Mr. Taylor requested clarification in what Mr. Weiser is proposing. Mr. Weiser responded that some owners have reported that within the past year and a half that the Sheriff s were going to a few hotel/motels asking to see their register, and if it was not produced, the owners were cited. Councilman Taylor requested documentation to ascertain if there was legitimate cause or abuse in going to the hoteWmotels. Mr. Weiser stated that there is a Civil Code of Procedure that addresses administrative inspections, such as when a warrant can be implemented, is it reasonable cause, that implementation occur between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and that prior notification be given. CCMIN:9-12-00 Page #3 • • Councilman Taylor stated that the covers the administrative area, but criminal activities should be included. Councilman Bruesch, referring to abuses as discussed by Mr. Weiser, stated that there have been two meetings in the past at City Hall dealing with those issues and that those incidents were isolated. Mr. Bruesch stated that the police do need some type of power to be able to respond to criminal activity at the premises. Mr. Weiser responded that in those types of cases, where there is a crime actually being committed or an emergency situation, the police have the right to enter the premises. Councilman Taylor stated that there needs to be something in the ordinance specifying administrative action in regards to the hours of inspection of records or logs. Mr. Weiser added, and with reasonable notice to the owners. If the owner does not want to have the records inspected, they do not have to. Mr. Wallin referred to Section 5.40.100, which requires that the owner/operator allow the inspection to take place. Mr. Wallin suggested the following language be added to the that Section following Section 5.40.070, to state "Upon reasonable prior notice or for reasonable cause"... Councilman Taylor asked about adding hours, in addition to Mr. Wallin's suggestion, to stipulate that inspection take place during a working day, such as 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Wallin suggested that addition read, "Upon reasonable prior notice during regular working hours, or for reasonable cause Mr. Wallin stated that by using the language that he is suggesting, it implies reasonable restraints and the power to exercise inspection of the register which will be exercised within Constitutional restraints. Mr. Weiser stated that the other objections that the hotel/motel owners have is with the inclusion of new zones within the CBD area, and that the time period for phasing out the legal non-conforming uses without a C.U.P. has now come, or is long expired. Mr. Weiser stated that even if they agreed with that premise, the time period is not reasonable and that there are certain prior entitlements which cannot be phased out by this type of process. Mr. Weiser continued that under State law, there are certain entitlements to people staying at a motel beyond 28 days. Mr. Weiser questioned if a City can legislate a C.U.P. process when the type of people staying there are low-income residents and those people have vested rights. Mr. Weiser explained that the owners could possibly be placed in the middle by evicting people who cannot find alternative housing, leaving the owners subject to possible lawsuits in implementing the City's conditions. Mr. Wallin stated that State law does not specifically address hotel/motels, but does have provisions protecting low-moderate income housing. Mr. Wallin stated that this ordinance will stand up under State law. Councilman Bruesch explained that the C.U.P. is in there to ensure that the owners will be protected because once an occupant becomes non-transient, they become low-income, and then a new set of laws will apply, including expensive eviction proceedings. Mr. Bruesch cited as an example, rooms being rented to long-term businesspeople that deal within the area and use the hotel/motel as a business base, if low-moderate income people are denied that same right long-term rights as the businessperson, then that opens this up to a potential Federal lawsuit. Mr. Weiser concluded that the general objections to the C.U.P. process is when changing an entitlement, a property owners right to use it is being modified. In the general C.U.P. process there has to be specific facts under the due process clause, not under the equal protection analysis. Mr. Weiser, stated that security cameras cannot be required as this would violate the 4a' amendment, as would fingerprinting and surveillance, it can become too intrusive and then would become a "search and seizure" issue under the 0 amendment. Mr. Weiser stated that those requirements cannot be imposed unilaterally be a City. Lastly, the C.U.P. process is asking CCMIN:9-12-00 Page u4 0 • for requirements of source of income and fingerprinting of the new owners and that is far too intrusive under the 4's amendment. At this point, Mr. Tripepi asked the hotel/motel owners to come forward and speak. Jung Fu Chen, owner of Nice Day Inn, 8463 Garvey Avenue, stated that he does not agree with the ordinance. Felix Chen, manager of Friendly Inn, 3146 San Gabriel Boulevard, stated that he does not agree with Mr. Jones, but agrees with Mr. Weiser in opposing the ordinance. Shang Hua Chen, owner of Best Inn, 8714 Valley Boulevard, spoke in opposition of the ordinance. Kantelal Bhakta, owner of Gale's Motel, 3029 San Gabriel Boulevard, stated that he has not been in agreement with the C.U.P. conditions under Mr. Jones or with Mr. Weiser. Mr. Bhakta continued that there are too many conditions which could affect future C.U.P. applications. Mr. Bhakta stated that he wants to cooperate with the City, but the different agencies need to get together with the hotel/motel owners to reach a middle ground. J.P. Desai, owner of Flamingo Inn Motel, 8621 E. Garvey Avenue, stated that he has had a good relationship with the City for 20 years and wants to continue that. Mr. Desai stated that the owners fear the conditions, but they want to work with the City to reach an agreement. G.J. Patel, owner of Virginia Motel, 3327 N. Del Mar Avenue, stated that he and his family have lived on the premises since 1977 and would like to continue the good relationship they have with the City. Mr. Patel stated that there have been some problems with the Sheriffs stopping in their parking lot and jotting down license plate numbers and on occasion checking their guest register and asking guests questions. Mr. Patel continued that within the last couple of weeks, the Sheriffs have been there about 2-3 times a day, with no explanation. Mrs. Patel came to the podium and added that whenever they mistakenly allow undesirable customers to rent a room, they will politely ask them to leave, and that the Sheriff's were there three weeks ago on a Sunday and arrested two customers. Councilman Taylor explained that the Sheriffs may have been investingating certain individuals, and that the City's parking control officers might have been in the parking lot issuing citations for expired registrations. Mr. Tripepi explained that a car on private property can be given a citation. Mr. Tripepi further explained that since someone was arrested at their facility, the Sheriff's Deputies may have had prior information that this particular person was staying at their location and may have been waiting for that person to show up. Mayor Pro Tem Imperial stated that it is the obligation of the Council and staff for Rosemead to continue to be a nice and safe place to live and raise families. Councilman Bruesch explained that the ordinance is making the C.U.P. more structured and does not change the relationship of the businessperson with the City. Mr. Wallin stated that the C.U.P. requirement was added in 1987 and every hotel and motel in the City was to have complied with it by 1990. Except for the three motels that did obtain C.U.P.'s every other motel and hotel is out of compliance under existing law. This ordinance is not adding another C.U.P. requirement, but is changing the compliance date to December 31, 2000. Mr. Wallin continued that the City has not put anyone out of business because of non-compliance and all the City is doing is trying to bring everyone else into compliance. Jerry Wang, member of Greater Los Angeles Hotel/Motel Associations, 1455 Monterey Pass Road, Monterey Park, stated that the C.U.P.'s are only good for one year which would CCMIN:9-12-00 Page #5 reduce the value of his property, if he owned a motel in Rosemead. Mr. Wang stated that any violations should be violations against the City's Municipal Code, and not under the C.U.P. conditions. Mayor Pro Tern Imperial pointed that many of the hotel/motel owners have owned their businesses for many years and they are still in business. Mr. Imperial reiterated that there have to be rules and regulations in place in order to maintain a healthy business environment between the City and the businesses. . Mr. Wallin stated that the C.U.P. is subject to review in one year. However, a C.U.P. is not revoked unless there have been violations. Mr. Wang stated that they are willing to work with the City, but continued to question why the C.U.P.'s are only issued for one year and that it causes stress to all the owners. Councilman Bruesch clarified that the C.U.P. is good forever unless the conditions are violated. Wilson Wang, representing the Taiwan Hotel/Motel Association of Southern California, 3152 Redhill Avenue, Costa Mesa, asked what is current length of the C.U.P. and when are they reviewed, and what is the current length of the business license application. Brad Johnson, Planning Director, responded that the applications can take anywhere from four week to two months. Councilman Bruesch stated that Rosemead's approach is cautious and that Rosemead has long-time, good hotel/motel owners. Mr. Wang stated that other cities will issue a business license in one day for an existing business. Mr. Wang concluded that his organization is against the C.U.P. ordinance and that the application process should be shortened. Fernando Wong, member of the Greater Los Angeles Hotel/Motel Association, 2200 W. Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, asked why does Rosemead need C.U.P.'s if it is as well-run as stated previously. Mr. Wong stated the City should think about the welfare of the. businesspeople. Mr. Wallin repeated again, that in 1987 the City adopted the Ordinance which required all motel/hotel owners to obtain a C.U.P. within three years. By 1990 every hotel/motel in town was to obtain a C.U.P. Today's ordinance extends that time until the end of this year. Mr. Wong continued that he understands that, but in 1987 conditions were put on C-3 and M-1 zones for motel/hotels. Mr. Tripepi stated that this happened 13 years ago. Mr. Wong stated that the City changed the rules 13 years ago and within three years they have to come in and comply with that. Mr. Tripepi asked Mr. Wong how many hotels/motels in Rosemead that did not obtain their C.U.P within those three years have been closed down? Mr. Wong admitted that none have been closed down, but people fear that the government is going to overpower them and they will lose their businesses. Mayor Clark took issue with Mr. Wong's statement and stated that the ordinance tonight is setting standards for the benefit of those law abiding citizens and property owners of hotels and motels in this City. CCMIN:9-12-00 Page a6 Mr. Wong disagreed with some of the C.U.P conditions such as citing owners for not cleaning up trash or removing graffiti in the allotted time, and for requiring I.D. from guests. Mr. Wong stated that this is not a police state. Councilman Bruesch responded that if a new owner allows graffiti and trash to collect, allows prostitutes to use their rooms because they pay high prices, then the City should have the power to govern or to remove them. Mr. Wong stated the City can use denial of business licenses as a tool to control violations rather than imposing C.U.P.'s.. Mr. Wallin clarified that a business license is a revenue raising tool, it is not a regulatory mechanism. The C.U.P. is a regulatory mechanism. Mr. Wong stated that there are 49 items on the C.U.P. list and asked if staff really checks them all. Mr. Tripepi replied that the Council gets a copy of all 49 conditions, a copy of every C.U.P. that has to have one in this City, nothing is hidden in the files. . Mr. Wong stated that there are identical items on the C.U.P. list. In conclusion, Mr. Wong stated that too much power is granted to City officials. At this time the Mayor closed the public hearing. One more person from the audience requested to speak at this time. Mr. Cha, certified hotel administrator, American Hotel/Motel Association, stated that Los Angeles area is the crime capitol area. Mr. Cha stated that in Rosemead the situation is not as dire and that the businesspeople here are nice, not like those in the Los Angeles area. Mr. Cha stated that the C.U.P. should be reduced. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM IMPERIAL that the Council approve Municipal Code Amendment 00-02, introduce and place Ordinance No. 813 on first reading and schedule the item for a 2nd reading at the meeting of September 26, 2000 with the addition of "...upon reasonable prior notice or for reasonable cause..." be added to Section 5.40.100. Before vote could result, more discussion ensued. Councilman Taylor verified that the current motel/hotel owners will not have to go through a background investigation, that this Ordinance will apply only to new applicants. Mr. Taylor stated his concern with good citizens having to be registered and fingerprinted, i.e., applying for a contractor's license, owning a gun, people working in schools, churches and other organizations. Mr. Taylor stated that he is in favor of the intent of the C.U.P. and that there is a reason for having it, but the licensing requirement is extreme. Mr. Tripepi clarified that the background investigation is for new owners only, it does not address existing hotel/motel owners. Vote resulted at this time: Yes: Bruesch, Clark, Vasquez, Taylor] No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Bruesch requested that staff investigate administrative procedure in having the C.U.P. remain with the property rather than with the owner. CCMIN:9-12-00 Page #7 E Robert Kress, City Attorney, stated that the City has required a new C.U.P. upon transfer of ownership. However, traditionally landuse C.U.P.'s are transferable with the land. Mr. Kress stated that the Planning Department is looking into managing the existing C.U.P. that have been issued and will provide more information in the future. At this time, the meeting was recessed at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened accordingly. M. LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-45 - CLAIMS AND DEMANDS The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,603,140.85 NUMBERED 31435 THROUGH 31714 Councilman Taylor asked if Check No. 31522 in the amount of $1412.40 for department supplies to Diana Evens, were for personal expenses. If so, shouldn't she have been issued a purchase order for such a large amount. Frank Tripepi, City Manager, responded that Ms. Evens may be a contract teacher; however, a memo will be forthcoming. Councilman Taylor requested a copy of the report on Check No. 31583, to Internal Revenue Service - Pars/Determination Fee, in the amount of $700.00. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2000-45. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. ORDINANCE NO. 814 - AMENDING SECTION 17.125 OF THE . ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH WILL AMEND THE APPEAL PROCEDURE FOR VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS - INTRODUCE This item was introduced to the Council. ORDINANCE NO. 814 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING ORDINANCE NO. 814, AMENDING SECTION 17.124.070 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE REVISING APPEAL PROCEDURES OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS ON VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ENTITLEMENTS - INTRODUCE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that the Council introduce Ordinance and consider adoption at the City Council meeting of September 26, 2000. Before vote could result, more discussion ensued. CCMIN:9-12-00 Page #8 Councilman Taylor asked how this issue arose. Frank Tripepi, City Manager, responded that an issue arose concerning an ABC license Planning Commission determination, and that a Councilperson disagreed with the fee procedure according to the interpretation of the Ordinance as it exists, that does not exempt anyone. Mr. Tripepi stated that adoption of this Ordinance will allow any Councilmember to bring up an item on appeal without having to paying a fee. Councilman Taylor stated that in that case anyone can approach a Councilmember asking him/her to appeal their case for them to avoid paying the appeal fee. Mr. Taylor stated that he does not like this Ordinance for that reason. Mayor Pro Tem Imperial stated that he requested that this item be placed on the agenda because he disagreed with the Planning Commission decision to issue an ABC license to a business. Mr. Imperial continued that in order for him to do his job for the community, and without showing any partiality, a Councilmember should have the right to appeal proceedings without having to pay the appeal fee. Mr. Imperial stated that if he thinks that a particular business should not have an ABC license, then, he, as a Councilperson should have the right to override the Planning Commission decision. Mayor Clark added that it would be a violation of the Brown Act to try and influence a Planning Commissioner. Councilman Bruesch stated that in the last three years, he has disagreed with some decisions of the Planning Commission. Mr. Bruesch continued that the only way that a Councilmember can disagree with a Planning Commission decision that is not before the Council is to pay, out of pocket, the $337 appeal fee. Mr. Bruesch stated that he did not feel that a Councilmember should have to pay to bring up a policy issue and the Councilmembers should have the right to bring up an appeal before the Council. Vote resulted at this time Yes: Bruesch, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-A APPROVAL OF UNDERTAKING AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENTS FOR TRACT MAP 52575 -3331 BURTON AVENUE CC-B APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK BIDS FOR 1999-2000 STREET RESURFACING AND STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS ON VARIOUS CITY STREETS CC-C ACCEPTANCE OF BIDS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT IN GRAND AVENUE CC-D ACCEPTANCE OF BIDS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR 1999-2000 SLURRY SEAL PROJECT ON VARIOUS CITY STREETS CC-E AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIM AGAINST CITY FROM INEZ MARTINEZ CCMIN:9-12-00 Page a9 0 0 CC-F AUTHORIZATIN TO REJECT CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY FROM JAMEL K. MORROW AND ELVIS PONCE DE LEON, JR CC-G ANNUAL ADOPTION OF CITY'S INVESTMENT POLICY MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that the Council approve the aforementioned items on the Consent Calendar. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION - None VI. STATUS REPORTS - None VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 26, 2000, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: c~~ Gr~.~-~srti~ City Clerk APPROVED: MAYO CCMIN:9-12-00 Page # 10