CDC - 08-11-09Minutes of the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING
August 11, 2009
The regular meeting of the Rosemead Community Development Commission was called to order by
Chairwoman Clark at 6:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard,
Rosemead, California.
FLAG SALUTE: Chairwoman Clark
INVOCATION: Vice-Chairman Taylor
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Margaret Clark, Vice-Chairman Gary Taylor,
Commissioner Sandra Armenta, Commissioner Polly Low, and Commissioner Steven Ly.
OFFICIALS PRESENT: Executive Director Allred, Agency Attorney Montes, Assistant City Manager
Hawkesworth, Community Development Director Saeki, Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and
Recreation Montgomery-Scott, Economic Development Administrator Ramirez, and Commission Secretary
Molleda.
1. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
2. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Community Development Commission Five-Year Implementation Plan
Redevelopment Law requires that all redevelopment agencies adopt an Implementation
Plan (IP) every five years. An IP is designed to address activities within projects areas and
includes projects goals, activities (including affordable housing), and blight elimination. In
addition to adopting the IP, redevelopment law also requires that at least once during the
five-year period, a public hearing on the progress of the IP be held.
Recommendation: That the Rosemead Community Development Commission conduct a
public hearing, take public testimony, and adopt Resolution No. 2009-20 approving the FY
2009-2013 Five-Year Implementation Plan.
Community Development Director Saeki and Economic Development Administrator Ramirez reviewed the
staff report.
Chairwoman Clark opened the Public Hearing at 6:04 p.m.
Chairwoman Clark closed the Public Hearing at 6:04 p.m.
Rosemead Community Development Commission Meeting
Minutes of August 11, 2009
Page I of 4
Vice-Chairman Taylor asked for clarification on the Implementation Plan report on page 4, table 3. He
stated that the Project Area No. 2 did not make sense; there was no reference to any ordinance number
2577 in the rest of the staff report.
Economic Development Administrator Ramirez replied that the table should have reference Ordinance No.
809.
Vice-Chairman Taylor expressed concern on the wording of page 10 of the report. He mentioned
paragraphs 2 though 6, he did not agree with the percentages relating to the statement made that mentions
deterioration and dilapidation within the project areas. Mr. Taylor goes on by stating that the report made
the city look bad and it sounded as if 1 out 2 businesses were dilapidating; although there are some areas
that need some improvements on parcels that fit the category, but not 1 out 2. Mr. Taylor felt that the third
paragraph was not accurate where it stated, "high presence of adult businesses and high crime". He asked
staff to clarify how many adult businesses are in the city.
Community Development Director Saeki replied that there are zero adult businesses; however the report is
referring to massage facilities, which he had no figure at the moment.
Vice-Chairman Taylor expressed that by referring to adult businesses it made the city look bad and by
voting on the report the commission would be agreeing with the statistical findings.
Commissioner Low asked staff how the percentages were calculated on the report.
Economic Development Administrator Ramirez replied it was based on the blight survey done for Project
Area 1 and Project area 2, which was done by the consultant Urban Futures.
Vice-Chairman Taylor reiterated he did not agree with the figures on the report.
Chairwoman Clark asked for the report to be brought back with corrections.
Executive Director Allred stated staff would bring back the report along with the documents that led to the
figures on the report. Also, added that the numbers were brought by the consultant who did the survey.
Economic Development Administrator Ramirez clarified that when the two project areas were merged, the
survey was done.
Executive Director Allred added that the survey focused on the conditions of the project areas.
Chairwoman Clark stated that the figures could be damaging to the city and ask staff to bring back the
report and reword some phrases and obtain accurate numbers.
Commissioner Armenta asked that the phrase adult business be clarified on the report.
Commissioner Lowasked if the consultant will conduct a new survey or will staff reword the report.
Rosemead Community Development Commission Meeting
Minutes of August 11, 2009
Page 2 of 4
Executive Director Allred stated that staff will be going back and looking at the survey to make sure the
numbers are accurate.
Vice-Chairman Taylor felt the report should represent more factual numbers.
Agency Attorney Montes explained that in connection with the project area merger, the blight survey was
done in 2008 and adopted by the past City Council. Therefore, whatever that report states, that has already
been adopted by the City Council. Mr. Montes added, the information contained in the current
implementation plan report, is just a regurgitation of the study that was already adopted. He stated that if
the Commission did not agree with that study, some wordings may be rephrased.
Executive Director Allred stated that staff will look into the methodology that was use to lead to the
determinations on the report.
Vice-Chairman Taylorstated that when it was presented the first time to the Commission, he did not
analyze the report as he should have.
Chairwoman Clark clarified that she and Mr. Taylor had previously voted against the project area merger
for different reasons.
Agency Attorney Montes clarified that the consultant, when doing the survey, looked at physical blight,
there is a whole range of criteria and it many of the parcels had one of the items on the list and all got
lumped in the 85 percent category.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes
July 28, 2009 - Regular Meeting
B. Claims and Demands
Resolution No. 2009-26
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2009-26 for payment of Commission
expenditures in the amount of $15,609.00 demands Nos. 11141 through 11144.
Resolution No. 2009-27
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2009.27 for payment of Commission
expenditures in the amount of $9,051.29 demands Nos. 10049 through 10050.
Rosemead Community Development Commission Meeting
Minutes of August 11, 2009
Page 3 of 4
Commissioner Ly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Armenta, to approve Consent
Calendar. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
4. MATTERS FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & STAFF
None
5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS
None
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:16 p.m. The next Community Development Commission meeting will take
place on August 25, 2009 at 6:00 p.m.
22-7d 4e-r- ~
Margar lark
Chairwoman
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda, Commission Secretary
Rosemead Community Development Comm issionMeeting
Minutes ofAugust 11, 2009
Page 4 of 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.
CITY OF ROSEMEAD )
I, Gloria Molleda, Commission Secretary for the City of Rosemead, do hereby
certify that the minute, of August 11, 2009 was duly and regularly approved by the
Rosemead Community Development Commission on the 25`h of August 2009, by the
following vote to wit:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Glona Molleda
Commission Secretary