Loading...
CC - Approval of Minutes - 09-14-99 ,JOT OFFICIAL UNTIL ADOPTED BY THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ROSEMEAD ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Vasquez 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 Bruesch The Invocation was delivered by Mayor Pro Tern Clark ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers Bruesch, Imperial, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tern Clark, and Mayor Vasquez Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 10, 1999 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 10, 1999, be approved as corrected. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Vasquez, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 24, 1999, be approved as corrected. Vote resulted Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Vasquez, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. PRESENTATIONS: NONE 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Lillian Sacco, 3220 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, stated that the Council did the right thing in establishing a reward for the capture of the murderer of the Pacheco and Lopez- Flores family members and for helping to pay for the funeral expenses. Mrs. Sacco congratulated the Council on behalf of herself and Mr. Sacco. Dolly Leong, 9554 Ralph Street, Rosemead, CA, spoke on the foreign language translations of candidate's running in the City's elections. Ms. Leong requested again, that the translations be printed in the Sample Ballot in Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese and added that the City of Monterey Park prints their Sample Ballots in Chinese and Spanish. Ms. Leong requested that the City of Monterey Park's Candidate Statement Resolution be distributed to the Council. CC:9-19-99 Pagel R. Alejandro Gandara, 2523 Dubonnet, Rosemead, thanked the Council for their efforts in coming to the aid of the victims' families. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, asked what type of construction is transpiring at Rush and Delta. Frank Tripepi, City Manager, responded that is SCE property and they are conducting soils test for possible sale or development of that lot. Mr. Tripepi, in response to Mr. Nunez's question about the rebar on the length of the trenching, stated that the rebar is probably to shore up the trenches so that they will not collapse while testing is going on. IL PUBLIC HEARINGS An explanation of the procedures for the conduct of the public hearing was presented by the City Attorney. The City Clerk then administered the oath to all those persons wishing to address the Council on any public hearing item. A. PUBLIC HEARING—ORDINANCE NO. 798—ENACTING AN UPDATED MUNICIPAL CODE,WHICH REVISES,AMENDS RESTATES, CODIFIES AND COMPILES THE GENERAL ORDINANCES OF THE CITY AND WHICH ADOPTS THE LATEST VERSIONS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODES—ADOPT VERBATIM DIALOGUE BEGINS: MAYOR VASQUEZ: The Hearing is now open to the public. Anyone have anything to say? Hearing none, the Public Hearing is now closed and open for Council comments. COUNCILMAN BRUESCH: Move the approval. COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL: Second. COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I've got several questions I would like to ask on this particular item. And, best way I can start with is if you'll open the cross-reference tables on the back of the book. On Page 455, there's one code number that's missing in here and I have a main objection to this particular one. This is the only code section where we're adding an entire County Code...if you'll go down to the new code number, 5.04.020. There's a new code number that's being added in there and it's just above that...it would be 5.04.010, and that's the adoption of...maybe, Mr. Kress, do you recall which one that is? That's the L.A. County Business License, Title 7, and, truthfully, in going through this code book for the City of Rosemead, that particular Title, Title 7, has 275 pages, and I have to admit that I haven't reviewed that particular code. But, by adding in this one section, by reference, we're incorporating 275 pages and have we heard anything from the Chamber of Commerce or the business community? ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: Sir. You already have the L.A. County Business License Ordinance. That is what the City utilizes. TAYLOR: OK. And, everything to this date, as far as how current it is...have we heard anything from the Chamber of Commerce or the business community? Any comments about this particular item? KRESS: No. TAYLOR: OK. I mean, that's._you can only do so much if they're not going to take any interest in it or they're in full agreement with this particular County Ordinance. FRANK TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: If I might,Mr. Taylor. Just to restate what the City Attorney is saying. I think the reason there's been no input is because that is the code that the City has basically been using to operate, probably for as long as I've been here. You've adopted CC:9-14-99 Page2 changes by reference every so often. That's what we do. So in effect, that particular Ordinance is the Ordinance that we've been using for some time. TAYLOR: OK. I'd like an update on all of the changes in that L.A. County Code and our approvals of it. Whatever they've changed and, if you say it's been years, I'd like to see what it is. Like I said, that particular code, we have...I believe our particular code has 20 pages in it, something of that nature... KRESS: No, no, it adopts by reference... TAYLOR: What we have now in our code book as far as...I'm sorry, it has 60 pages under Title 5. It's 20 pages under the Health Code, which we're adopting tonight also. I think that's...I'm going to say Title 9, and that also has 280 pages... KRESS: And the Subdivision Ordinance has a number of pages, the Traffic Ordinance and the Parks Ordinance. TAYLOR: That's correct. All I'm saying is that what we're given tonight is...my guess is there's probably...to really go through a complete revision, which we're doing tonight, the entire code and all of the codes, the County codes we're adopting, would it be fair to say there's probably 2,000 more pages in those codes? KRESS: I'd like to say between 1200 and 2000, yes. TAYLOR: I know that in the two that we're talking about, the Health and Safety Code is right at 275 pages and 281 pages, so that's 550 pages just in those two alone. COUNCILMAN ROBERT BRUESCH: Point of information. When Councilman Taylor refers to a complete revision, I don't know, my feeling about revision is writing new policy within the code. What we have done with this is really recodifying. And, in this book here, and I went through almost all of it, they went point by point on how they reorganized and took out superfluous language, redundant language and there are a few instances in each title where there are, especially in Chapter 9 and Chapter 4 where portions that were removed because of new Court cases since this was adopted in 1959, I guess, since it was adopted. There was language in there that went directly against those cases. But, I don't know that would be really a...termed a revision, I think it's more a codification. I'm just overwhelmed by the clarity that this code now has, because finding anything in the old code meant that you had to go almost into a search in terms of an index that wasn't there. Now we have a clear index which can be accessed, not only on paper, but also electronically. Once we're on the net it will be on the intemet. Right now it's also on CD Rom. What we're asked to approve right now is a codification of what was existing minus the language that is redundant or actually unconstitutional. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. If I may continue. What Mr. Bruesch just referred to in Title 9, some of the things that have been removed or suggested that they be deleted have to do with public peace, morals and welfare. And, one of the items that he was referring to with the changes that have been taken out...our code number of 4169 and 4169.1. This has to do with public nudity, or nudity in public places. I think in just a moral context that the Council would be in agreement that public nudity is not allowed whether it be at the swimming pool, at the City parks or even in front yards, for that matter. But, what it states here: "Nudity in Public Places. To the extent that regulations like prior code or our code 4169.1 and 4169.6 prohibit nonobscene nude performances in establishments that do not serve alcohol. They have held unconstitutionally overbroad". Then it says see Morris vs. Municipal Court, etc..."Because the Moms Decision was based upon an analysis of the First Amendment of the federal constitution, it has in effect been overruled by Barnes vs Glen Theatre Inc, etc....in which the United States Supreme Court held that nude dancing is not a protected expression under the First Amendment. Whether nude dancing is protected expression under Art. 1 § 2 of the California Constitution has yet to be determined." So under the California Constitution, it has yet to be determined. That means it's just in limbo to me. We have something in our code that says we do not allow that in Rosemead. cc 9-14-99 Page3 KRESS: You still have it in two key places. You have a broad generalized prohibition here that's out of date. Instead of that you have in the County Code, the Parks Ordinance specifically prohibits nudity in the parks. And, your adult business ordinance that you adopted a couple of years ago deals with nudity in performance type situations. So, you have something that served its purpose 30 years ago, but the Courts insist that you be much more refined in your prohibitions and regulations, and that's what we believe we've done here. TAYLOR: How does it work if a public nudity...if an individual nude walks on a school campus or goes into the Ralph's parking lot nude. What ordinance covers that? KRESS: Stu(Lt. Heller), help me out. What would you do? I don't know that there is a municipal code violation, it may be state law violations that apply. LT. STU HELLER, TEMPLE STATION: Indecent exposure on the Penal Code would be 314. TAYLOR: Indecent exposure would cover genital exposure or breast exposure, or how does... HELLER: Genital. TAYLOR: Genital. What about breasts? HELLER: I'm not certain that 314 covers that. TAYLOR: The reason that I bring it up is because I think that's moralist type thing where we could keep it in the code, and that's what I would like to see done so that if anybody does question it and the City Attorney's not around, or the Lt. from the Sheriff's Department isn't around, that someone in City Hall can open it up and say here it is. That this is something that is not allowed, it's against the public morals. Is that possible to leave that in there? KRESS: Yes. TAYLOR: Because I would like to see that left. It doesn't hurt anybody. It just informs people that you need to be careful that we can specifically call City Hall and say it's in our Ordinances and it's not allowed. There's another one in here that...disorderly...if you go to page 455...our old code number is 4206. If you look across it just says deleted. That's disorderly to others. And I believe_.is that the drunkenness. In other words we have a prohibition against being drunk in a public place...public streets, I think, because we deleted the other. KRESS: Again, there are penal code sections. If you look at page 15, toward the bottom, "Public Intoxication cannot be made a federal offense. See Penal Code §§ 647(f) and (g). Accordingly we suggest repeal of those sections". TAYLOR: They suggest repeal of it. Is there any reason why we can't leave it in our code? KRESS: I guess at some point I'd have to ask the question, why hire these experts if you're going to reject their suggestions? TAYLOR: No. You look through this thing and there's probably...God, only knows...I'm going to speculate. How many items do you think are in this code book? And, I have questions on maybe a half a dozen of them. If nobody questions anything. This is what happens. Do you recall last week in the California State Legislature, and correct me if I'm wrong. There was a lesbian homosexual type situation where I believe it passed by one vote. One vote with 33 million people in this State. And, because nobody questions something that happens. I just find it shocking that if you don't say something, and incidentally, one of these clarifications that they have in here, it states that the reason we can't have these in our codes is because they're redundant or they are already in State code... BRUESCH: They're preempted, that's the word, preempted. CC:9-14-99 Pagc4 TAYLOR: OK. They're preempted. Do you realize how much has been preempted? And what I'm saying is that the State Legislature is passing a lot of different laws that are being decided on by just maybe one vote or five votes that affect 33 million people in the State of California. And they preempted, which means, this book says because it's in the law somewhere in the State of California, we cannot do anything about it, we as a local City Council. And I find that very disturbing that these types of laws are being changed at the State level where a lot of people are not even aware of the effect that it becomes a State law and preempts. COUNCILMAN JAY IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor. We have a Motion and a Second on the floor. If there are some problems with some of these items, I think Mr. Taylor should write down these items. We can approve this and delete the ones we have a problem with until we clarify it. But, we need to get this done. This can go on forever. Now, I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I've had a lot of experience with not only military government, but in regular law too. And I'm saying that you're going to find this no matter where you go or what you do, or what you're dealing with. Let's get down to the problem with what we've got. If we're having a problem, delete those and let's vote on the rest of the items so that we've got something going and we can look at those later. TAYLOR: OK. That's fair enough then. We'll just start back... BRUESCH: As the maker of the Motion, if Councilman Taylor has a...he's mentioned two things which he'd like to amend that Motion with so far. Do you have any other ones? TAYLOR: Yes. If we go to page 449—Illicit Sex, as far as prostitution goes, or 4120... BRUESCH: Which one is that? TAYLOR: They've been deleted out as far as 4120, 20.1, 20.1... KRESS: These are matters that are preempted by State law. There is State law. Your Sheriffs Deputies out in the field are going to enforce those State laws. They're not going to be looking at the Rosemead Municipal Code for any assistance on those kinds of issues. I don't believe that those types of issues, realistically, anyone is going to call City Hall and say, "Is prostitution legal?" And, some staff member is going to find a Municipal Code section that says, no it's not. That is a matter of State law, and by deleting out of the Municipal Code does not mean that this Council is condoning that type of activity. Quite to the contrary. We're just trying to deal with the issues over which you have regulatory authority. That is one of them. TRIPEPI: Mr. Taylor. If I might help out here. Perhaps we should observe or look at the Municipal Code as a tool that we're trying to adopt in its present form. It is not something that is cast in concrete. Just by way of example, as you know we have now a live slaughter house on Garvey, where they slaughter the chickens, if you recall, on the south side. We did not have a section or an Ordinance that prohibited that in that M-1 zone. As soon as the problem came to the Council's attention, this Council went in and you amended the Ordinance and you put a code in place that basically says that that is not going to be allowed in the future. So what I'm saying is if anything that comes to you after the adoption of this code that you find to be a problem and or we find or are advised by the City Attorney that it's an unenforceable act, obviously you will get a recommendation and an Ordinance from your City Attorney basically urging you to adopt it and amend the Municipal Code. We're going to have lots of amendments to this code, Gary. By no way shape or form is the code that you may adopt this evening is cast in concrete. It's going to be changed, I'm sure many, many times throughout the history of this City in the near future. Another one that I would call to your attention is the karaoke's, because they became, in our opinion, houses of illicit sex. So, the Council took that, took the Business License Ordinance from the County, we basically did some amendments, strengthened our Municipal Code and our dance and entertainment permits and now karaoke, pretty much, as you can safely say, I don't think we've seen...you haven't seen an application to open one of those up in some time. So, in reality, I don't want you to feel that we're forever barred from changing anything in this code. If we discover something that has been eliminated or has been changed and that the Council is not comfortable with, you certainly can do that at any given time by way of an Ordinance or cc:9-1499 Pages amendment. Then the code will come in a reprinted form from the folks that we've hired to do this particular code. BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. In support of what the City Manager's saying, 1 too spent a lot of time on this particular Chapter, the Title 9. I continually cross-reference it to what the Penal Code says and what basically our contractor is saying to us here is that it is covered by Penal Code or if it's covered by State law, why go into putting it into our code because of the fact that, codes, because of their language have been judged unconstitutional. Just recently the motel code in Baldwin Park was struck down because of one word in there they found out could be construed as unconstitutional. One case in point here it says 4120.4 —though it may not be unconstitutionally vague, the conduct which prohibits is prohibited by the Penal Code, so why not go by the Penal Code and don't put yourself out for a lawsuit. Basically, that's what they're saying throughout. I tend to agree. I don't want to go into Court over vague language. Even though four years down the line, we may win because it would be judged by the Supreme Court not vague. I don't want to use the City resources to protect when it's already mentioned in another code, especially the Penal Code. As I went through this whole thing, time and again, they said base it on the Penal Code or State law, don't put yourself out for litigation by having constitutionally vague, or what may be in the future,judged constitutionally vague language. I'm very satisfied with this. There are particular things in here that we need to adjust. There's four, or five, or six or seven things. Let's bring them back one at a time so that we can study each one on its merits and look at the Penal Code Section or the State Code Section that it's based on. And, if we don't feel strongly enough that it meets our needs, then we can go through the process of drafting language that is more modern, more up-to-date, and will be meeting the standards of the Court of today, not 30 years ago. IMPERIAL: Mr. Mayor. I want to touch on this again and reiterate my previous position. Whether this be a law, whether this be a regulation, this is a guideline. That's what it amounts to, a guideline for which you can reach out if you have a problem, and resolve it. I'm happy with this thing. If there are some problems, I think we ought to look at those separately, but let's get on. We've got a Motion on the floor. Does that Motion still stand? BRUESCH: It still stands. IMPERIAL: I Second that Motion. Call for the question, please. VASQUEZ: Gary? TAYLOR: I'm not going to debate it. I've got._there's items in here that... VASQUEZ: If you can give us a list we'll... TAYLOR: Why do we have a gambling Ordinance in here? Does the State preempt the gambling? KRESS: Regulation gambling, yes. a TAYLOR: Regulation gambling. ..OK...if you can give a at regulation gambling. TRIPEPI: In other words, for gambling to be legal in Rosemead, it has to be passed by the voters as an initiative and this Council has to adopt an Ordinance that allows the gambling pursuant to the election. Otherwise gambling is illegal. TAYLOR: OK. And that's a State Ordinance? TRIPEPI: State law. Again, and I know the question has been called for. But I'll give you an example, Mr. Taylor. I know Stu can tell you without a doubt, there has not been a prostitute arrested in Rosemead for violation of any of our Ordinances. They are always arrested under violation of State law. You probably won't find in our Ordinance something that says heroin is an illegal substance that is not allowed. But, I guarantee you, you have people arrested daily in this City for possession of heroin. In reality, you can possibly cover everything that is of CC9-14-99 Page6 • concern. If it isn't covered somewhere, what I want Council to feel comfortable with is that we can come back and address it so that it is enforceable in the Municipal Code if we feel that there's a loophole somewhere that allows this not to happen. That's really what I guess we're trying to say. BRUESCH: And, I would agree with Councilman Taylor that the question of public nudity, and I have that in my notes also, bothered me. I think, maybe...at your earliest convenience,Mr. Kress, you might want to bring to this Council what Penal Code sections and State law refers to public nudity. And, if it is not strong enough to meet our needs, can we go beyond that, or has the State preempted our authority on that. The questions has been called for. VASQUEZ: Please vote. MAYOR PRO TEM CLARK: Mr. Mayor. Was the Motion amended to leave in the two items that Councilman Taylor wanted? BRUESCH: No. What we're going to be doing is asking for those two items to come back under separate agendas so that we can match it to a State code and see if it's strong enough, and it it's not, can we under State law, make a stronger Ordinance. IMPERIAL: Until then, let's operate with a code, and I call for the question. VASQUEZ: The question has been called for, please vote. Vote taken from voting slip: Yes: Bruesch, Vasquez, Clark, Imperial No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'll ask that our comments be in the Minutes verbatim, please. VASQUEZ: OK. Staff is so directed. BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. I'd also like for us to have, if we need to, even a study session on that question of public nudity and other morals type of code items. VERBATIM ENDS. III. LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 99-38 - CLAIMS AND DEMANDS The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 99-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $570,609.89 NUMBERED 28164 THROUGH 28497 MOTION BY AGENCYMEMBER IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BRUESCH that the Council adopt Resolution No. 99-38. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Taylor, Bruesch, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None CC:9-14-99 Pagc7 The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor asked for backup information on voucher no.'s 48975 and 48998 to California Contract Cities in the amounts of$1642.11 and $720.00, respectively. Mr. Taylor also requested information on voucher no.'s 49300, 301 and 302, to Kelley, Jiggins&Ferris in the amount of 31,514.00. B. RESOLUTION NO. 99-39—A RESOLUTON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD CELEBRATING THE BIRTH OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1787 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL the Council adopt Resolution No. 99-39. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Vasquez, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (Item CC-B was removed for discussion purposes) CC-A ACCEPTANCE OF WORK FOR STREET RESURFACING, STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS, AND HANDICAP ACCESS RAMP PROGRAM ON VARIOUS STREETS—FISCAL YEAR 1998/99 CC-C APPROVAL OF FIRST ADDENDUM TO 1999 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY—VALLEY BOULEVARD CC-D RENEWL OF AGREEMENT— STREET TREE MAINTENANCE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that the Council approve the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Vasquez, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-B AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY BY JOHNSON THAI Councilman Taylor stated that incidents of this type has happened before and that this appears to be a legitimate claim and to pay the claimant the amount requested. Mr. Taylor stated this type of small claim will cost the City more by the time all the paperwork is done. Frank Tripepi, City Manager, stated that the claimant did not want to settle for $500,the amount the City can pay without Council approval. Mr. Tripepi stated that the Council needs to make a Motion to authorize payment of$822.92, the amount the claimant requested. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the Council authorize payment of$822.92 to Johnson Thai. Vote resulted: CC:9-10.99 Page8 Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Vasquez, Clark No: Imperial Absent: None Abstain: None The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Imperial stated for the record that he voted No as he feels the City should go through the established system of having the City's claims adjuster handle this claims against the City. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION A. SELECTION OF TREE SPECIE FOR STREET TREES ON VALLEY BOULEVARD Frank Tripepi, City Manager, presented the staff report. Mr. Tripepi stated that the Sweetshade Trees that the nurseries have been growing for the City have died or are in distress. Mr. Tripepi stated that the Australian Willow is recommended rather than the Brisbane Box based on Council's previous comments regarding the latter. Councilman Bruesch asked if the trees are distressed because of a disease relevant to this type of tree or due to lack of over or under watering. Dave Hayes, Arborist, stated that the trees are not distressed due to a disease, but that they are very sensitive to watering, whether it be too much or too little. Mr. Hayes explained that that is why nurseries are reluctant to grow those trees. Councilman Bruesch confirmed that the Australian Willow has a denser shade than the Brisbane Box. Councilman Imperial pointed out that the Brisbane Box drops marble size pods all over the sidewalk and street, which upsets people in that area. Mr. Imperial stated that the main concern should be that the tree selected grows into a healthy tree, and that it does not hide the business signs. Dave Hayes explained that the Brisbane Box grows more rapidly than the Australian Willow. However, the Australian Willow does not cause root problems, but requires special attention to maintain a central leader when pruning limbs to raise them off the sidewalk and street in order to clear the business signs. Mr. Hayes stressed that if the central leader is pruned when the tree is young, it will result in horizontal branching and it will not continue to grow tall. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the Council approve the"Australian Willow" as the parkway tree on Valley Boulevard. Before vote could result, more discussion ensued. Councilman Taylor stated that he is puzzled about the availability of the Sweetshade Trees as 450 trees were purchased for the Orange Country State highways approximately the same time that the City acquired ours. Mr. Taylor requested backup information on the lack of availability of those trees. Frank Tripepi, City Manager, responded that the Council had requested mature trees to replace the ones that were removed. Mr. Tripepi stated that the problem occurred when the trees were being grown in the boxes, they do not do well in that situation as they are sensitive to over or under watering. Mr. Tripepi continued that the Orange County Transit Authority most likely planted 15-gallon trees all over the toll ways and slopes of the toll road. Councilman Taylor inquired about the size of the boxed Willows. CC:9-14-99 Page9 Frank Tripepi responded that the original Sweetshade Trees selected were 36-inch boxed trees. However, the Willows will be 24-inch. Mr. Tripepi stated that the 24-inch trees will not grow much more to reach the 36-inch box size, and that the 24-inch Willows are available and ready for planting. Councilman Taylor expressed his and the Council's previous concerns with protecting small, narrow trees from being snapped off by vandals once they are planted. Mr. Tripepi stated that the Council was concerned that if the small 15-inch Sweetshade boxed trees were planted, the trunks would be snapped by vandals. Mr. Tripepi explained that there is not much difference in circumference between a 24-inch box and the 36-inch one, however, it is considerably larger than a 15-inch box size. Mr. Tripepi continued that the 24- inch Australian Willows are available now and will grow considerably better if they are planted in the ground as soon as possible. Councilman Taylor asked what the reimbursement to the City is for down-grading the size of the trees. Frank Tripepi responded that the 24-inch box trees are approximately$100 less per tree. Mayor Vasquez stated the question has been called. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Vasquez, Clark, Imperial No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. VI. STATUS REPORTS -None VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. MAYOR PRO TEM CLARK Stated that there is a bill before the Governor, AB 84 (Floyd) that has been totally "gutted" from its original form and changed without going through committees, and is obviously being promoted by special interest groups. Ms. Clark stated that this bill would affect local land use control. Ms. Clark requested that a letter of opposition be sent to the Governor. Frank Tripepi stated that the Council will need to make a motion to approve consideration of AB 84. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CLARK that the Council approve amending the Agenda to include consideration of AB 84 (Floyd) as the need to take action on this item arose after the posting of the Agenda. Vote resulted Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Vasquez, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM CLARK, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BRUESCH that the Council send a letter to the Governor that he veto AB 84 which would prohibit local governments from approving retail developments of over 100,000 square feet which devote more than 15% of floor space for non-taxable sales. Vote resulted: CC:9-14-99 Pagel0 Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Vasquez, Clark, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain; None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, Rosemead, asked if the businesses or the Chamber of Commerce had been notified of the Ordinance adopting the re-codified Municipal Code as discussed earlier in the meeting. Frank Tripepi, City Manager, explained that the new Municipal Code will not affect businesses any differently. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 14, 1999, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: APPROVED: City Clerk MAYOR CC:9-14-99 Page 11