Loading...
CC - 02-08-94APPROVEAV CITY OF ROSE Ate' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING DATE ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 8, 1994 1BY The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Bruesch at 8:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Mayor Pro Tem Vasquez. The Invocation was delivered by Pastor Bill Miller of the United Methodist Church. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers Clark, McDonald, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Vasquez, and Mayor Bruesch Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 11, 1994 - REGULAR MEETING Councilmember Clark requested that Page 2 of the Minutes have Mr. Lyons' statement added regarding denial of licenses near schools. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER McDONALD, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 11, 1994, be approved as clarified. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. PRESENTATIONS: A Resolution was presented by the Council to Arturo Martinez in recognition of his actions in assisting the Sheriff's Deputies responding to a residential burglary in progress. Councilmember Clark added her congratulations to those of the Council and reported on her attendance at the recent two-day crime summit held in downtown Los Angeles regarding the need for community involvement to solve the local crime problem. I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE A. Rene Hernandez, teacher in the City of Rosemead, asked the purpose of the Sheriff's Substation in Garvey Park and requested that it be open for longer hours. Staff was directed to meet with the Sheriff's Department to evaluate the substation's use and effectiveness. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None III.LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 94-04 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 94-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,330,736.09 NUMBERED 8357 THROUGH 8654 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER McDONALD, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that Resolution No. 94-04 be adopted. Vote resulted: CC 2-8-94 Page #1 Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. The following item was taken out of order in deference to those in the audience. E. RESOLUTION NO. 94-08 - OPPOSING THE PROPOSAL TO USE RECLAIMED WATER FOR REPLENISHING THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 94-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD OPPOSING THE PROPOSAL TO USE RECLAIMED WATER FOR REPLENISHING THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER McDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR that Resolution No. 94-08 be adopted. Before vote could result, Helen Socik, 3613 Marybeth Avenue, Rosemead and Tom Marino, 554 Barranca, Covina, spoke in opposition to returning reclaimed water to the groundwater basin and asked that Resolution No. 94-08 be adopted by the Council. Councilmember McDonald stated that evidence does not show this type of water is safe and suggested it be used only for golf courses or that type of facility, thereby saving the "pure" water for drinking purposes. Mayor Bruesch suggested that the major use for this type of water should be by the industrial and commercial entities at their expense, and for such things as the vegetation at the Legg Lake recreation area. Mr. Bruesch stated that there is enough polluted water and no chances should be taken. Councilmember Clark was in favor of the resolution, stating that any dangers from using reclaimed water mixed with an already polluted water basin are not yet known. Councilmember Taylor expressed skepticism at the government's opinion that use of this water would not cause ill affects based on past performances regarding such things as Agent orange and the recent decision to allow growth hormones in cows to enhance milk production. There being no further discussion, vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. A five-minute recess was called at 8:32 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened accordingly. B. RESOLUTION NO. 94-05 - ESTABLISHING VOTING PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES, APPOINTING PRECINCT BOARDMENBERS AND FIXING COMPENSATION FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1994, CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 93-60 OF THE CITY COUNCIL The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: CC 2-8-94 Page #2 • • RESOLUTION NO. 94-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING VOTING PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES, APPOINTING PRECINCT BOARDMEMBERS AND FIXING COMPENSATION FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1994, CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 93-60 OF THE CITY COUNCIL MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER McDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR that Resolution No. 94-05 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Staff was directed to assist the LA County Registrar/Recorder's office in locating polling places whenever possible. C. RESOLUTION NO. 94-06 - ALLOWING RED. FOR THE 1993-94 SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM AGENCY PAYMENT The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 94-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAYMENT FOR THE FY 1993-94 SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM ON VARIOUS STREETS MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER McDONALD, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that Resolution No. 94-06 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilmember Taylor stated he was in favor of the project but believed that more of the streets should be in the Redevelopment Agency project area. D. RESOLUTION NO. 94-07 - ALLOWING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAYMENT FOR THE 1993-94 CONCRETE REPAIRS ON VARIOUS STREETS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 94-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAYMENT FOR THE FY 1993-94 CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT ON VARIOUS STREETS MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER McDONALD, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that Resolution No. 94-07 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 2-8-94 Page 13 s Councilmember Taylor stated he was in favor of the project but believed that more of the streets should be in the Redevelopment Agency billing and noted that no map had been included showing the locations of these items. F. ORDINANCE NO. 741 - AMENDING THE REGULATIONS REGARDING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE, INC. - ADOPT There being no objection, this item was deferred to the next regular meeting. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC-G, CC-L, AND CC-M REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION) CC-A AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY BY ELIZABETH VALENZUELA CC-B AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIMS FILED AGAINST THE CITY BY JORGE AND MARTHA RURAL CC-C APPROVAL OF 1994-95 BUDGET CALENDAR CC-D AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY CLERK TO ATTEND CITY CLERKS ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE IN NAPA, APRIL 27-29, 1994 CC-E REQUEST FOR RED CURB AT 8062 GARVEY AVENUE CC-F REQUEST FOR "NO-U TURN° SIGNS ON GARVEY AVENUE AT STINGLE AVENUE CC-H COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND AGENCY FOR THE CONCRETE REPAIRS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS CC-I ENGINEERING PROPOSAL FOR CONCRETE REPAIRS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS CC-J ENGINEERING PROPOSAL FOR SLURRY SEAL AT VARIOUS STREETS CC-K COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND AGENCY FOR SLURRY SEAL AT VARIOUS STREETS CC-N AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES WORKSHOP ON STATE AND LOCAL CONTROL OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES IN OAKLAND, MARCH 18, 1994 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER McDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-G AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND INFORMATION DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE IN CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, MAY 2-4, 1994 This item was deferred to the next regular meeting to allow information to be presented regarding the necessity of travelling to South Carolina to receive computer software training. CC-L AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AN EMPOWERMENT ZONE APPLICATION Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, asked for the definition of an empowerment zone. CC 2-8-94 Page #4 w 0 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER McDONALD, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR that the City Council approve the application contract and authorize the expenditure of the necessary funds. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez, McDonald No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-M APPROVAL OF CDBG FUNDING FOR PUBLIC SERVICE WITH ROSEMEAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Councilmember Taylor stated the intention of voting no on this item. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER McDONALD, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the Council approve a waiver request to exceed the City's CDBG 25% public service allocation and to approve the CDBG funding request in the amount of $10,000 for a public services contract with the Rosemead Chamber of Commerce. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Bruesch, Vasquez, McDonald No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Staff was directed to ascertain the cost of having all businesses, regardless of Chamber membership, listed in the City business directory. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION A. TRACT MAP 51544, 8445-8463 MISSION DRIVE VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: BRUESCH: We do have quite a few people that want to talk about this so what I'm going to do is open it up to the comments from the audience first and then we'll have a discussion up here. Please keep your presentations brief and get to the point as we have a lot of people that want to speak. I will call up first Mr. Lawrence Speight. LAWRENCE SPEIGHT: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Lawrence W. Speight, 9101 E. Slauson Ave. in Pico Rivera. I've been asked by Dolly Leong, the owner of the subdivision, the property of the subdivision that is coming before you just to briefly outline the contents of her letter that I do believe you've all been presented with a copy of today in response to the staff report from the City Engineer and a recommendation of denial of our final tract map request. Briefly over the last 8-10 months now Mrs. Leong has diligently pursuing the completion of all of the final engineering and mapping for this particular tract and subsequent to the approval has also assisted in removal of the tenants that were occupying the several homes that were on this property and has succeeded in doing so to this date. What is important is that we are now down to the bottom line of getting our subdivision financed for a construction loan and it's become extremely important to us that we not enter into the property at this point in time because it's significant that a lender is concerned about prior lien rights. One of the most important components of course with going in and destroying the houses on this property is of course we are going to have material men and laborers performing work on the property and this is a possibility of holding back or causing severe difficulties in getting our financing in place. We have been diligently pursuing our financing and are now waiting final answers as to whether or not we're going to get our construction loan. To date Mrs. Leong has in fact expended substantial amounts of out of pocket dollars, a total of at least $60,400 has been paid to CC 2-8-94 Page #5 • SPEIGHT CONTINUES: the City of Rosemead not to mention the funds that she's expended on her architectural and engineering efforts as well as relocation assistance for the tenants that were on this property. So, what we are at now is basically I would perceive it as a difference of opinion as to what condition no. 6 states in the original Planning Commission approval basically revolving around do the structures need to be demolished prior to the recording of the final map or can they be accomplished through the construction process of the new project. The purpose of our request this evening would be that you would in fact deem condition no. 6 as allowing us post-recordation time to demolish the existing structures. They are in fact boarded up right now. There are no inhabitants, at least permissively, occupying the property and to the best of my knowledge that is going to be maintained of course until we do get to the point of actually going in and demolishing the structures. So, basically my appeal to you would be to liberally construe condition no. 6 although if you read the letter presented to you today by Mrs. Leong it sheds some light on or some argument to the position on whether or not condition no. 6 is absolute in saying that the structures should be demolished prior to recordation. I also would like to emphasize the issue of the City does in fact in this case have basically all the cards because there would be in fact the security agreement for the improvements on the assumption that the structures are not demolished there would be no development per se and there still would be a substantial cash deposit at a bank backing the certificate of deposit for the improvements that were going to be made if there was a project. So, it's sort of like pretty much of an assured situation that there will not be a project without the demolition of the structures. If there is no demolition of the structure there will not be any construction per se even if the map were recorded it would be the option of the City to initiate reversion to acreage under the Government Code so I believe that the City's interests are in fact protected in this case and we are asking that you give us one small liberal interpretation here of a condition to allow us to better negotiate our construction financing. Thank you very much. BRUESCH: Mr. Speight. I have a couple of questions. This is informational only. What is your relationship to the project? SPEIGHT: I am the project civil engineer. BRUESCH: I'd like you to stay up there. I'm going to direct a question to staff then back to you again. The question I direct to staff is on all of the tract maps in the City of Rosemead is this number 6 any different from any other tract map that has been approved? PETER LYONS, PLANNING DIRECTOR: To be short, no. This is a common condition we add to our maps since I've come on board and it was also very common prior to my arriving. BRUESCH: Okay. My second question to you is is this requirement common practice in most cities? LYONS: I can speak of my experience and I would say yes it is. You may want to ask the City Engineer or City Attorney. BRUESCH: Okay. City Attorney? Common practice? ROBERT L. KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: I know it's the common practice here. I can't recall one way or another in the other cities where there've been demolition issues that have been dealt with with this type of condition but I know that this condition is not unique to this tract. That's one of the questions you're asking. It has been uniformly imposed and interpreted as requiring demolition prior to approval of the final map for some time now. BRUESCH: One final question to staff then to Mr. Speight. Has there ever been a question of financing hinging on the fact that buildings have not been or have been demolished in your knowledge in this city? CC 2-8-94 Page #6 0 0 TRIPEPI: Well, we couldn't respond to that. BRUESCH: Back to Mr. Speight. You obviously deal with similar projects in other cities. SPEIGHT: I certainly do. BRUESCH: In your recollection is item no. 6, requirement no. 6, pretty well accepted across the board as a requirement for recordation? SPEIGHT: Well, it's hard to make an opinion without being self serving on that but quite frankly no. I've encountered a great number of subdivisions in the past and if there are existing improvements, buildings and what have you on the property, the maps are recorded. It's certainly clear that there is substantial investments in projects by the time they get to that point and I've never encountered a condition where the jurisdiction has a great concern that once they've recorded this map all of a sudden the existing improvements and this can be in either buildings or it can be any kind of improvements on the property that are not in alignment with existing or proposed subdivision alignments, streets, what have you that that's all considered as part of the building process upon recordation. Now, I understand in this case that there may be other reasons for asking for this and perhaps in the city it may be something that I have seen imposed on at least one other subdivision in this City. I can't say that every one of the ones that I've been involved with in Rosemead has had this kind of condition. BRUESCH: So you are saying that requirement no. 6 is unique to Rosemead. SPEIGHT: Yes. As stated in this it is unique. BRUESCH: There seems to be a difference of opinion. SPEIGHT: I'd certainly be willing to provide you with documentation as to that if you'd like. As to this if it's imposed exactly as this condition states I have to say in my opinion it is unique but I have been involved in subdivisions where there has been existing improvements which would upon recordation encroach upon side yards over lot lines but it was the understanding as it was shown on the map to be demolished and the local jurisdiction holds very strong to that statement. It is the intent that the existing improvements be demolished. The worst case scenario would be if the tract was recorded and all of a sudden the existing improvements were re-utilized. Now it's my understanding and perhaps the City Attorney can answer this question are there not public resources or sections of the Public Resources and Health and Safety Codes that you could not impose upon this existing development, basically condemning it because it is in such poor shape? I do understand that there are violations on file and what have you on it. KRESS: Yes, there is a separate outstanding Board Order from the Rosemead Board of Rehabilitation Appeals requiring that these structures be boarded up and then demolished. Mrs. Leong to my understanding is in violation of that Board Order. Our office as City Prosecutor has received a request to prosecute that case. We have thus far decided not to do so because it appeared that there was some progress toward the development. May I ask him some questions? BRUESCH: Oh, definitely. What I'm trying to do is get information because I want to know if this particular requirement no. 6 is common practice, how it's applied elsewhere because we seem to have a vast difference of opinion on what is required and what is not required on tract maps throughout this area. Go ahead please. KRESS: Okay. Have you reviewed the structures that need to be demolished? CC 2-8-94 Page #7 0 SPEIGHT: No, I'm afraid I do not have intimate knowledge of it. I do have knowledge of some of the correction notices or complaints filed by the City Inspectors but that's the extent of my knowledge apart from just seeing the site. KRESS: Okay. So, you don't know the nature of the demolition. I understand today that there is an indication of asbestos as part of the demolition. So, you don't have any information as to what the cost might be? SPEIGHT: No, I don't. KRESS: Just so I understand your answer to the Mayor's question. Has any other jurisdiction in all the tract maps that you've been involved with has any other jurisdiction ever required demolition prior to approval of a final map? SPEIGHT: I think I would be stupid to say that there was none. I'm sure that if I went back over the several hundred subdivisions that I've accomplished in the last ten years that I would find a jurisdiction or so would have required in certain circumstances for demolition but it's certainly not something that stands out in my mind that this is a boilerplate requirement that these structures or any structure on the property be demolished prior to recordation of a map. As a matter of fact I do recall one in the County of Los Angeles where the structure was dedicated for the local community use and the County permitted it to be the map recorded and the subsequent movement of the structure accomplished afterwards and that's one that does stand out in my mind where it was a need to preserve as a matter of fact in this case, it wasn't a requirement to demolish. That's one that comes to mind. I'm sure if I had an opportunity to go over the various subdivisions I could give you other numbers. KRESS: I think I'll leave it at that for right now. BRUESCH: Okay. I'd like to call on Miss Rose Hager. ROSE HAGER: Mayor Bruesch and Councilmembers. My name is Rose Hager and I reside at 4716 N. Willard in Rosemead, directly across from this project that we're discussing. It is definitely become a blight area. I've lived there 45 years. It's been a beautiful neighborhood. My children grew up and now I have grandchildren and it's just something that's unsightly to see and I'd just kindly have you consider this and that this will be approved by the City Council so that this project will be started as planned and I not only speak for myself but I speak for all the neighbors surrounding this project. Thank you. BRUESCH: Thank you. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. I'd like to address Mrs. Hager. May I ask you a question? Your concern is that the project is blighted and you would like to see the homes gone and construction begun of new homes? HAGER: Yes. CLARK: And you understand that the request tonight is to allow the homes to stand awhile longer. HAGER: Yes, I understand that. But we in the neighborhood, all of us, we'd like to see this approved that she can and... CLARK: But in my opinion this would delay it. We would have no guarantee that the houses would be demolished. Mrs. Leong was supposed to demolish within 90 days of approval and that's been several months. We've just been nice letting her have extra time. They should have been demolished 90 days after approval. We've already let her go. So, your wishes I think are to see things moving and the request that she is asking tonight is a delay. So, I want you to understand that; that we are not delaying the project, she is delaying it by asking this. CC 2-8-94 Page #8 • 0 HAGER: I don't know what guarantee she has either. CLARK: And the other thing that I noticed in some of the petitions that were submitted the residents that asked, that made comments on the petitions, were that we not have required a block wall because you would have graffiti on it and we are not requiring a block wall at this time. We are merely requiring a chain link fence to keep vandalism out so that is not an issue. So, I just wanted you to understand that we want the project to go ahead and in my opinion this is delaying it. HAGER: I was just expressing my views. CLARK: Yes, and we appreciate that. BRUESCH: Thank you. Mrs. Leong. DOLLY LEONG: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Dolly Leong. I reside at 9554 Ralph Street, in Rosemead. I think my engineer, Mr. Larry Speight, has presented to you and requested to you. All I want to add is just two incidents that the City of Rosemead has allowed the recording of the final map that was approved on Tentative Tract Map No. 45785 for the property at 7507-33 Melrose and 2461 Jackson. The final map was approved on October 25, 1988 and the final map was recorded on October 31, 1988 and those homes were not demolished until January 23, 1989, according to the record that I obtained from the Building Department as well as the information I got from the County of Los Angeles. Another project is Tentative Tract 45668 for the property of 4303 Muscatel. The final map was recorded on February 29, 1988, and the demolishing of the homes and existing structures was not final until April 5, 1988. This is just I'd like to present this as parts of the Minutes and I also checked with other cities like City of South El Monte I believe they do not have a requirement to have the building to be demolished prior to approval or recording of the final map. I'd like to thank the staff of the Engineering Department, the Planning Department and the Building Department for their time to help me to pull the records so I could present to you what I have just presented to you. I'd like to incorporate this as part of the Minutes. TRIPEPI: Al can respond to those. Mr. Rodriguez? BRUESCH: Mr. Rodriguez, those two maps that she mentioned. AL RODRIGUEZ, CITY ENGINEER: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As Dolly did suggest we did spend a good amount with her, both myself and Peter both together and separate instances. When we were researching files that were recorded we did come across certain tract maps that apparently demolition occurred after final map approval. Those that I personally worked with Dolly on we found that those were not conditions of the map approval, however. So, it wasn't surprising to find that demo occurred shortly after recordation of the map but in those cases that I personally saw and provided Mrs. Leong, they were not conditions of map approval. That's why the map was forwarded to the City Council. BRUESCH: Mr. Rodriguez, why in certain cases are, in most cases are demolition requirements put in most tract map approvals? RODRIGUEZ: As a few people have stated, in the City of Rosemead it has been the practice to include this condition on tract maps. However, before 1989 and earlier we didn't see that as a condition. So, something happened, the policy was set and tract maps, it became common practice for tract maps after and I would say about 1989, I don't have those notes in front of me, where it became the practice of the Commission to require demolition. BRUESCH: It was, I can mention that because I was on the Council at that time, a couple of times we had gotten tract maps where they weren't demolished and they remained boarded up for many, many months becoming eyesores to the community, becoming collectors of vagrants CC 2-8-94 Page #9 0 BRUESCH CONTINUES: and all sorts of police problems, so that was why the policy was changed at that time to become that if you want a tract map approved get rid of the substandard properties so that we're assured that this is not going to happen again. Once stung, you know the first time I make mistake it's my fault. The second is somebody else's fault. The second time is my fault. And I want to make sure that Mrs. Leong understands why the policy was there even though I have told you this over the phone two times. We want to make sure, we're not saying that YOU will do this but we have had instances in the past exactly the same cases back in the middle 80s where we've gone through the whole process of approving things and once they get it approved the properties stand there for months, months. We have to move and move and move on them and then they sell the property. We put this policy in there to assure us that the development property will continue at a pace and make sure that those buildings come down and the new buildings go up. That's the reason for it. TRIPEPI: Mr. Mayor. Let me add. If I might we need, I think we need to remember that this property, I think the way it got to this point and the City Attorney has explained as his office is looking at prosecuting it for substandard buildings under Section 99 of the Building Code. It came to you as a Rehabilitation project substandard property. You've heard from a neighbor this evening who is representing some neighbors in that area. It is an eyesore and I think what the Council is basically is saying is demolish the buildings as a condition. If the map is then recorded and the bottom falls out, the development doesn't take place, at least the neighbors don't have to look at the buildings that are there. They merely will look at a piece of vacant ground that is fenced by a six-foot chain link fence to keep folks from dumping on it and then the worse thing we will have to do then is deal with whoever the owner of that property is at some later date for dumping and/or for weeds that are growing on the property and that's a lot different than trying to take down structures that are occupied and/or bootlegged and it's questionable as to whether or not they were built with proper permits. So, I think that's all been discussed and the City Attorney has said that that property has been before the Rehab Appeals Board and I think Dolly that's what makes it unique. These are substandard buildings and they've been declared basically to be uninhabitable. LEONG: Yeah, Mr. Frank Tripepi. You remember only one property, 8463 that was ordered by the Board and I came to you in April of 1993, regarding to the water heater that the information was not furnished to us and we cannot take care of that problem. The rest of the other was already taken care of and those 8463 Mission Drive was built in 1926 and County did not require a permit to build anything until 1933 and we bought the property in 1987. Where do we get to find the permit for one of the patio that was quoted as no permits was found and that was we have came before you, we cannot find the permit. BRUESCH: Mrs. Leong. The bottom line is we'd like to have those houses removed as quickly as possible. Your neighbors want those houses removed as quickly as possible. LEONG: Yes. BRUESCH: Question to you. If we recorded this how long would it be before those houses are removed? LEONG: We hope to get them, if we get the approval of the Council today we can remove it after within fifteen days. BRUESCH: Within fifteen days. LEONG: Yes, if council approve it. TAYLOR: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Point of information.. You can remove it within fifteen days? What's the status of your loan? LEONG: We will still demolish it after the Council record it, after the Council approve it even the loan was not approved. CC 2-8-94 Page #10 • • TAYLOR: Even though the loan is not approved... LEONG: If as soon as the City Council approve our final map and permit us to record it we will start with demolition. TAYLOR: Then why can't... BRUESCH: In other words it's a requirement of your loan to have the recordation. Are you saying that in order to get your loan you need recordation? LEONG: No, it's our security. If we do not... BRUESCH: You're not answering my question. Do you have the loan in hand? LEONG: No. BRUESCH: Is it a... KRESS: Is there a loan on the property, existing? LEONG: It's not on the property. We get it on other property. It's not recorded on this one. KRESS: So, there is no loan on the property. LEONG: Not on the existing property. BRUESCH: So, it has nothing to do with recordation? Your loan, the money you're going to put into the development has nothing to do with whether you get the recordation or not? Right? LEONG: Pardon me. BRUESCH: What I mean is will you get the loan or not get the loan according to whether we record this or we do not record this? McDONALD: Mr. Mayor. AUDIENCE: My name is H-I-N-H, my last name is X-A. I be the general contractor for her so I kind of know her situation so maybe I can help her to answer some question. BRUESCH: I'll repeat my question. Do you understand what my question is? XA: Yes. I think what she meant is that she because she doesn't have a loan right now on her property so she's willing to put up her money. TAYLOR: Excuse me. BRUESCH: That isn't my question. I'm saying, you're saying the viability of the project depends on whether we give the approval of the tract map. My question to you is is there money available in a loan now to progress with the project? Yes or no. XA: She has her own money to request to demolish the home but she's still waiting for the loan to construct the nine homes. BRUESCH: Okay. That loan to construct, does it depend on whether the tract map is approved? Does she get it if it's approved? She doesn't get it if it's not approved? Is that the condition? XA: Yes. That is also part of the condition. BRUESCH: That is a condition of the loan. In other words, before they will give the loan she must get a tract map approval. XA: She want a guarantee, the bank want a guarantee that the map should be valid. If it's not valid then they will not be qualified because they look at it as a nine-unit home, it's not a... CC 2-8-94 Page #11 • • BRUESCH: So, we'll go back to the original question. She has money for demolition right now. She could do it right now. XA: Yes. She has the money for demolition. BRUESCH: Okay. So, why doesn't she do it? XA: Because she want a security that if she demolish the home that the City Council will not deny her final map. TAYLOR: Mr. Xa, what do you think would happen with all of the problems that we've been having with this particular property, what is the one remaining condition that needs to be fulfilled? BRUESCH: The one final thing to get the project going. XA: The loan. TAYLOR: No. No. What is the one condition that must be done as far as the City is concerned? XA: Yes, we understand that... TAYLOR: Excuse me. What is that one condition? XA: That's the demolishing of the homes. TAYLOR: Can you imagine what's going to happen if you demolish those, homes and the City of Rosemead does not give you the permits or the final approval? Can you imagine that happening? XA: Well, I... TAYLOR: Excuse me. Just real simple, can you imagine all of the hassle that's gone on with this property and the City is saying one thing, one thing, remove the blight and that's all that has to be done and then you can proceed with it. Can you imagine the City not giving you the approval? XA: No. May I answer... TAYLOR: Wouldn't it be very embarrassing, would you not have legal rights to haul us right into court for that? Could you do that? Could you do that? AUDIENCE: We certainly could. TAYLOR: All right. Now I want that clear. Simple question, simple answers. We're not going to do something like that and say well we've changed our mind. Being jackasses is one thing and haul those guys into court for it. We'd be really embarrassed to do that so I want to give you this approval tonight. I'm ready to just go ahead and do it but I can't in the sense because I know what's been going on for years up there. You don't even have a construction loan for it. This is in the words of some a pipe dream that we're going to extend it. You're not going to guarantee what you're going to do. You have the money available and Mrs. Leong I want the record to state that you do have the money available to demolish those homes.... you're saying yes. One of the stipulations in the letter that you gave us tonight it's dated received City of Rosemead, February 8, 1994 and you wrote it February 7, 1994. It's talking about compounding the loan situation as far as lien rights go. Somebody comes on that property and demolishes those homes the letter implies that they have prior lien rights before a bank will loan money on that. Do you follow what I'm saying? SPEIGHT: Councilman Taylor, may I address that? TAYLOR: Do you follow what I'm saying, Mrs. Leong? The point being that if you have the money to pay those people and you get a release from that company that does the demolition they have no lien rights. You take that to the bank, the lending institution, and say the CC 2-8-94 Page #12 11 0 TAYLOR CONTINUES: property is free and clear. There are no lien rights. So, if you have the money to do it and it's taken the years that we've gotten to now I'm really at a loss why it's not getting done. SPEIGHT: May I address that concern? Mr. Mayor, councilmembers. It's not quite as simple as it's being portrayed in that summary and there's a reason for it. Yes, if the finances are available and the money is paid to the demolition contractor no lender will write a loan without an insurance policy. No title insurer will write a policy of title insurance when there has been work done on the property. This is a well known fact in the financial business that it is highly unrecommended to commence any construction on any project anywhere prior to the recordation of the construction loan. And the reason... BRUESCH: Sir, you'll have that in fifteen days. Fifteen days, you'll have that. SPEIGHT: No. We will not have a loan in fifteen days. That's the problem. BRUESCH: You'll have recordation in fifteen days if the demolition is taken care of. SPEIGHT: It's 90 days before lien rights expire on a piece of property. It would effectively put Mrs. Leong in a position of having to post the potential claims against the property. What this could do is compound her condition. I'm advising her that by demolishing the buildings it is going to jeopardize a timely recordation of her construction loan. BRUESCH: How can that be? TRIPEPI: Let me ask you a question. May I Mr. Mayor, councilmembers? BRUESCH: Yes, go ahead. TRIPEPI: Who boarded those properties up? SPEIGHT: Mrs. Leong. TRIPEPI: She didn't pay someone to do it? SPEIGHT: I believe TRIPEPI: Does that property? SPEIGHT: Certainly TRIPEPI: When was SPEIGHT: That is a she had assistance of course, yes. person have lien rights for doing that on the does. that done? problem already. TRIPEPI: When was it done? Last week? SPEIGHT: No. TRIPEPI: Less than a week ago. So, you're already got 90 days running anyway. Do you not? SPEIGHT: But the damages are much less. If somebody's worrying about a few dollars in a laborer boarding up buildings it's different than demolishing an entire site. The estimated cost by the City Engineer is $20,000. If that value was in fact what it would cost potentially a $20,000 lien against this property as opposed to a few hundred dollars and if you use the Code Enforcement Officer's estimate of what the City would have charged to have done it, it's no where near that. It is those dollar amounts that we're concerned about right now. Now, she can demolish the structure but it's going to potentially cause her difficulties on her construction loan time. Anybody who has ever gone through the tenuous difficulty of getting construction loan in today's financial markets and that is the purpose of her request to allow until after the loan records to do the demolition. CC 2-8-94 Page #13 0 . 0 TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. KRESS: Don't you think that... TAYLOR: Go ahead, Bob. KRESS: Don't you think the presence of substandard structures, a City declaration of substandard property going back four or five years, don't you think that would jeopardize the construction loan just a little bit more? SPEIGHT: They're not concerned about the issues that you are in this case and it is planning issues, I understand that. But it's the issue of rights, of money, position in title and I'm sure it's not a position that I educate the process of obtaining construction loans. The reason why I speak to this is because I've obtained several construction loans myself for projects in various sizes, assisted many developers in obtaining construction loans and we even as engineers have to sign away rights prior to the recordation of the construction loan and we may not have done anything on the property. They're very concerned and today's financial markets are more sensitive. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Question as far as the actual application for the loan. That hasn't even been done yet? SPEIGHT: It certainly has. There are two loans in fact in progress. TAYLOR: What are their requirements as far as what the City has to do? SPEIGHT: Recordation of the final tract map prior to recordation of the construction loan. TAYLOR: Okay. Has a letter ever been given to these two lending institutions, what the city's requirement is? SPEIGHT: I can't attest to that. I'm sure they received a copy of the letter of conditions. TAYLOR: A letter of conditions is different than a letter of clarification and a letter of intent of what the City will do as far as the final approval of this. SPEIGHT: Again, it's up to a loan committee of the bank or a lender before I could even address that issue. TAYLOR: But I don't think they've been informed of what the City will do just as soon as the buildings are demolished. In other words this will be filed as soon as they're demolished and again, it goes back to the intent of if the City commits themselves to this type of an issue and we give that to a lending institution, there again we've stuck our neck out where we could be sued if we don't fulfill our obligations. SPEIGHT: I don't believe anybody would doubt the fact that the city would permit the map to record. TAYLOR: Okay. All I'm saying is we're willing to do this and bend over backwards but we've already seen the problems going on for a couple of years now. It becomes a good faith effort. We're going to put it in writing, put our necks on the line that we will do this and I can assure you, I don't believe there's a councilmember here that's going to be that embarrassed not to do it. SPEIGHT: I can't agree with you more and I think the City has worked very diligently with us, the staff level as well as the Planning Commission and your own body, in approving the zone change and the general plan amendment. TAYLOR: Do you think that would be a feasible thing to do? To give a letter of intent to the lending institutions? Clarifying what our problem is? CC 2-8-94 Page #14 SPEIGHT: I think that would certainly be of help. Again, I can't speak for what a lender would require. I must say in defense of Mrs. Leong and her good faith is that in fact she has all of her properties now vacant. She's assisted the tenants that were in there. She did pursue that diligently upon approval, which was last March. It did take some time to get these people relocated and she now has over $70,000 of hard money in it. So, her intention is also very genuine. McDONALD: Mr. Mayor. BRUESCH: I'll get to you. Mr. Kress had a comment, Mr. Tripepi had a comment. TRIPEPI: It's just a question. KRESS: Just maybe I can summarize so I understand. You stated that the two lenders that you're pursuing would require the recordation of a final tract map prior to the recordation of a construction loan. SPEIGHT: And funding, yes. KRESS: Okay. So, we don't have a problem with that. We're certainly on that time schedule. You don't have a loan commitment, you're not ready, Mrs. Leong can fund the demolition. The final map will be placed on the next regular agenda after completion of the demolition. That shouldn't impede you at all. It seems to be based on what I've heard this evening, the only issue we're talking about is a possible problem with releases from the demolition contractor. SPEIGHT: That is extremely important in putting a loan in place. KRESS: Okay. It's $20,000 and Mrs. Leong if she's going to deal with Mr. Xa or one of his subcontractors, the testimony this evening indicates that she has the cash available to pay that contractor at the time of the work. So, she can obtain a release from that contractor and she can submit that to the lender. If the lender refuses to accept that, the most that a lender under those circumstances could require, is Mrs. Leong to put up a sum of money for 90 days if we can agree on that period of time and she would have to put that up as a deposit and she'd get it back because she's paid her contractor, she has a release, the money isn't in jeopardy. SPEIGHT: Well, so far I haven't heard any testimony that would lead me to believe that she does have a potential $40,000 plus available to back this scenario. It's a possibility I agree but if you have pay $20,000 for the demo and $20,000 for the guarantee... KRESS: She wouldn't have to pay it twice. She might have to commit those funds for a period not to exceed 90 days. TRIPEPI: Can I ask you one question? Because I really want to understand more of the lien law that you're talking about. When you dealt with the developer in the past or on a piece of property, did you say you signed any rights to a lien as the engineer for that project? SPEIGHT: Correct. TRIPEPI: So, is there a vehicle available for say the demolition contractor, if he's paid on the spot, can he waive those rights? I don't know. SPEIGHT: No. The problem with that is that I don't materially enter upon the property and make improvements. As an engineer I have rights against documentations, paperwork, you might say. TRIPEPI: Okay. That's fine. SPEIGHT: But a contractor can't. He must physically go onto the property and you must look at it as a lien release. A lien release may effectuate to the company that does it and supposedly to the CC 2-8-94 Page #15 • 0 SPEIGHT CONTINUES: employees that actually did the work but if they didn't get paid, if somebody alleges that they weren't paid it still is a bona fide lien potential on that property and it quite literally can force the waiting of another 90 days or more because of the different types of rights that can be protected under liens. Now, this is a very sophisticated area of consideration but it happens to be critical in today's marketplace and critical with this property. I'm just concerned with Mrs. Leong having as much investment as the property. She's got this huge investment in the land which she is still making payments on and if it's constantly delayed we are jeopardizing that issue and the appeal with this whole issue this evening was to allow us a greater degree of assurance while still providing the ultimate result and that is a project being constructed on this property. I guess that's it in a nutshell. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. BRUESCH: Mr. McDonald. McDONALD: Well, I was going to make the provision I think Al just explained it to me. I would go ahead and approve it tonight and just not sign it to record it. At least it shows our intent to that we are in favor of it. Is there any rule or regulation in City ordinance or County ordinance or State ordinance that gives us a minimum amount of time that we have to record it? KRESS: Well, it's not ours to record. TRIPEPI: They'll take it down and record it once you approve it. KRESS: I really don't think that... McDONALD: Well, what I would like to see is stop the pissing match here and get the things done. We've been spending months on this. You guys have been spending hours. BRUESCH: Years, years. MCDONALD: And it's just unbelievable. We need to bring this to a conclusion and get it over with and for my sake I don't want to see it again here before the City Council because we're going to go through this same kind of crud and I don't care what kind of agreement we have to come up with, let's just get the solution on and move on. I know we're kind of in a tough spot but there's got to be some sort of...put two side agreements together. Just get it done. It's a pain in the butt. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. BRUESCH: Yes, I agree. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I agree with the expediency of getting it done but that's not what the law and the regulations are. McDONALD: But God, Gary, you're the one that always wants to watch how much penny here, penny here we spend and we're spending so many damn pennies on this thing it's just unbelievable and it's something that should come to a conclusion and we're not that far away. TAYLOR: The point being that when you set a precedent and... McDONALD: We don't set a precedent. TAYLOR: We would be setting a precedent. McDONALD: We take anything that comes before us we take it individually. We look back at what we've done before,'we look forward to what we might do in the future. We can take everything that comes before this Council under consideration and if its circumstances prevail that give you the ability to change, you do it. CC 2-8-94 Page #16. E • TAYLOR: And sometimes you can make a condition that needs to be fulfilled. But you don't do it on a willy nilly, which side of the bed did you fall out of this morning to say how do I feel today. McDONALD: Oh, five years is willy nilly? TAYLOR: That's the whole point. It's been five years and they haven't fulfilled their commitment. McDONALD: Well, let's have a little consideration for the people that have to live next to it, Gary. TAYLOR: I am trying to do that. CLARK: Whose fault is that? TAYLOR: As Maggie just said, whose fault is that? Is that ours? Or the owner of the property? McDONALD: Come up with some side agreements. Get something done here. TAYLOR: My recommendation was a letter of intent which opens this Council up for the responsibility of it. If that was drafted and goes to the lending institution and if that doesn't fulfill the obligation that we have committed ourself to approve it then there's something deeper and wrong that we don't know about. McDONALD: In the system. Bob? Do you agree with the letter? KRESS,: I think that's fine. We have told Mrs. Leong, I believe verbally and in writing, that just as soon as this demolition is completed this item will go on the Council's next available agenda with the City Engineer recommendation to approve, consent calendar. There are no hidden agendas. This matter has been fully discussed this evening. There are no new requirements. There is only one requirement that has to be satisfied and the Council may confirm that by minute motion and authorize staff to write that letter. I stick to my recommendation along with staff that this item not be approved as formally as a final tract map until that condition is satisfied. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I would like to have this Council's consensus to authorize that letter to be given to the two lending institutions that Mrs. Leong has and get their response. We all want to get it done, get something taken care of but every time it's fallen through, it hasn't been our issue, it's been with the owner. McDONALD: I second the consensus. TAYLOR: And if that gets approved, gets to the lending institution, it can be back here in two weeks. BRUESCH: Joe, you've been pretty quiet down there. What do you think? VASQUEZ: I'll go along with the consensus but Dolly,-July 15, 1993, you understood the conditions. You signed it. That's what puzzles me. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. I agree with Joe. The 90 days, that clock started and it's not our fault that if they were concerned about the 90-day lien period, all this thing that he's talking about, that could have started back then. It is not our fault and I find reprehensible that the City has been represented to upstanding citizens in the community that surround that property as though we're making the delay when it has been five years that Mrs. Leong has had substandard property there and when it would repeatedly come before the Appeals Board I would drive by the property and not even the weeds were pulled or the trash picked up. And that's something that a child can do and doesn't even have to get paid. I go out there. I live down the street from McDonald's Restaurant and I get their trash every day. We live about CC 2-8-94 Page #17 CLARK CONTINUES: as long as it takes them to eat their hamburger and they throw it down and I go out there and pick it up. I'm not too big to do that and I find it reprehensible that this was basically saying to those neighbors, I won't use street language but I'd like to, it was basically saying forget you, we're going to let you look at this trash and we don't care and that's the kind of credibility that we have here tonight and so I'm not going to vote for any kind of a letter. I'm sorry. (Applause from audience... unintelligible comments) McDONALD: Some of them live next to the property. AUDIENCE: I'd rather see it sit there the way it stands than to give in to any more concessions. TAYLOR: What concessions would we be giving in to? BRUESCH: Nothing. That's what she's saying. TAYLOR: We're trying to expedite it to get the loan approved, get it demolished and I was confused there when you say give in to any more concession, Jonnie. BRUESCH: We're not giving a concession, all we're doing is... TAYLOR: We're not giving in to the condition of getting it done. She has to take the next step to get the lenders to agree to it and then she's got her loan. I can understand her need to get that loan approved. So, there's a certain amount of validity that the lending institutions don't want the property in a non-secure first lien rights. There's a little bit of give and take here and as Dennis said, let's get it done but I think this letter is a positive commitment to get the lending approval and it also puts us on the line that if she does that then we will approve it. BRUESCH: Gary, again let's put your ideas in the form of a motion. You want a letter written that states... TAYLOR: That the City's intent is to approve this map as soon as those properties are demolished and we can fine tune it however you like and the lending institution knows that that is stated that that is the final condition that we have. BRUESCH: That was a condition of the original agreement. TAYLOR: All right. We're down to one item now. We can tell them this is the final condition that must be fulfilled and we want the lending institution to know that. McDONALD: I'll second the consensus. All those in favor of consensus raise your hand. BRUESCH: You have had a motion and a second to direct staff to write a letter to be used with the lending institutions to state what Gary stated. Any further discussion? Yes: Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez, McDonald No: Clark TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'd like this back on the agenda, next meeting, for discussion to see that it's being pushed along. BRUESCH: Okay. I want to have closure on this as much as everybody else in the audience does. I spent a lot of my time reading material and hearing both sides of the issue. The bottom line is this City and Mrs. Leong together owe it to the neighbors of that property the right to enjoy their property without substandard conditions surrounding them and I agree with the people that have been here today that have mentioned the fact that it's been a long time since this has been up to snuff, up to standards. I too am very frustrated. I too want to see this development go in there. But right is right. Every time we go to a turn around the corner there's another thing that has to be CC 2-8-94 Page #18 I BRUESCH CONTINUES: done or we're expected to do and if an agreement is made and the person signs on it and there's 18 different things that have to be done, then 18 things have to be done. That's the i" bottom line. Thank you. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I feel it appropriate that we've done our best to try to keep this moving and I'd like it in the Minutes verbatim only in the sense that there are some legal issues here. I don't want anybody suggesting well I thought they said this or that. END VERBATIM DIALOGUE VI. STATUS REPORTS - None VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. MAYOR BRUESCH 1. Asked for a status report on the U-turn sign on Falling Leaf Avenue. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE A. Brian Chen, 115 S. Granada, Alhambra, spoke about title insurance. CC 2-8-94 Page #19 There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for February 22, 1994, at 8:00 p.m.