Loading...
CDC - 08-25-09Minutes of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING August 25, 2009 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Community Development Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Clark at 6:05 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The pledge allegiance and the invocation were waived given that there were conducted during the Rosemead Housing Development Corporation held at 6.00 p.m., the same day. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: Chairwoman Margaret Clark, Vice-Chairman Gary Taylor, Commissioner Sandra Armenta, Commissioner Polly Low, and Commissioner Steven Ly. ABSENT: NONE 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. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes August 11, 2009 - Regular Meeting B. Claims and Demands Resolution No. 2009-28 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2009-28 for payment of Commission expenditures in the amount of $102,223.67 demand nos. 10051 through 10053 and demand nos. 11145 through 11149. Resolution No. 2009-29 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2009-29 for payment of Commission expenditures in the amount of $3,536.25demand no. 11150. Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes of August 25, 2009 Page 1 of 5 Commissioner Ly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Low to approve the Consent Calendar. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vice-Chairman Taylor stated; the >ited Unified Report was approved by the Commission in February 2009 and he had not been present at that meeting. Also, Mr. Taylor stated that nothing appeared to have change on the report and asked staff to clarify. Executive Director Allred stated there were very minor word changes on the report. Community Development Director Saeki replied that the term adult business was misleading and it was removed from the implementation plan. Chairwoman Clark asked for substantial changes to be highlighted and/or crossed out on future documents. Vice-Chairman Tay/or reiterated he did not agree with the report 3. MATTERS FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & STAFF A. Community Development Commission Five-Year Implementation Plan State law requires all redevelopment agencies to adopt an Implementation Plan (IP) every five years. An IP is designed to address activities within redevelopment project areas including goals, projects, and programs to eliminate blight and to encourage economic vitality and the development of affordable housing. At the August 11, 2009 meeting, the Commission was presented with the FY 2009-2013 Five-Year Implementation Plan for consideration. During that discussion, the Commission requested that staff provide additional background information regarding the blight findings included in the IP. The Unified Report, approved by the Commission in February 2009, among other things, identified significant economic and physical blight in both project areas. This is supported in Section 5 of the Report and in Appendix D which is a parcel by parcel blight threshold matrix. The types of "blight indicators" are defined by Redevelopment Law and include building deterioration, bars on windows/security fencing, code violations, poor site layout, graffiti, lack of paint and weatherization protections, inoperable vehicles, etc. Each parcel was assessed in a blight indicator test and given a weighted point value. While the findings indicate that significant blight remains in the project areas, the varying degrees of the existence of blight is not necessarily an indication of severely run-down or "slum-like" conditions. Rather, such findings provide justification for redevelopment activities in the area. Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes of August 25, 2009 Page 2 of 5 Recommendation: That the Rosemead Community Development Commission adopt Resolution No. 2009-20 approving the FY 2009-2013 Five-Year Implementation Plan. Vice Chairman Taylor stated that on appendix F-14, he did not think it was fair how Rosemead was represented. The statistics were listed for other cities such as Norco, Redlands, McFarland, Calexico, Gridley, Murrieta, Hanford, Moorpark, Galt, Soledad, Manteca, Upland and Costa Mesa, which he felt were not fair comparisons. Mr. Taylor asked where Rosemead fit with the rest of the San Gabriel Valley and its adjoining cities and reiterated that he could not support the report as it was being presented. Community Development Director Saeki replied that the percentages presented were a broad example of existing police departments. Adding that, appendix F-14 is only one aspect of blight as it relates to the whole report. Vice-Chairman Taylor mentioned that the report stated it was based on high crime; however, the cities represented are rural communities. Chairwoman Clark asked why the consultant would compare those cities with Rosemead and stated it was not an accurate comparison. Agency Attorney Montes responded that the cities presented may have been cities the consultant works for. Chairwoman Clark stated the City's report stated it is blighted because we have more crime and asked when the Implementation Plan needed to be approved. Community Development Director Saeki replied that the Implementation Plan should have been approved at the beginning of July and was past due. Also, if the plan was not approved soon it would jeopardize future redevelopment activity. Agency Attorney Montes explained that any time there is a new redevelopment project it had to be consistent with the redevelopment plan and the Five Year Implementation Plan; the Commission had to get the plan adopted before staff engaged in any redevelopment plans. Commissioner Low stated the five year plan was adequate for the City to follow; although it did sound a bit harsh. The plan should encourage the city to do better and agreed that there are some places that have blight. Vice-Chairman Taylor felt that the percentages were not fair and would not adopt a report that did not give a fair representation of what is going on in the San Gabriel Valley nor compared with any local areas. Commissioner Low stated that the Commission would be approving a five year plan not the report. Executive Director Allred explained that if the Commission approved the Implementation Plan, the report which was done in February of 2009, would just be the backup support data for the plan. Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes of August 25, 2009 Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Ly agreed that there are some areas that are in blight conditions which were shown on pages 65 through 69. Also, stated that it gave a frame work as to how to address blight in our redevelopment areas. Executive Director Allred explained that the report stated 86 percent of parcels had at least one condition of physical blight and 24 percent were found to have significant blight. To be considered blighted is a higher threshold and 24 percent has a higher threshold. The good news is that 75 percent of the parcels are not blighted. They might have a condition of blight but are not in the threshold where they are blighted. Commissioner Armenta stated she did agree with Mr. Taylor's statement about document 114 no being comparable to Rosemead but added that pages F1-F5 of the report did state Los Angeles Metro Area vs. San Gabriel Valley West and that did illustrate a small picture of the surrounding communities Juan Nunez - inquired about the adult businesses and asked for clarification on what it really meant. Commissioner Ly stated that on appendix B it defined adult businesses that included pornography, liquors or bars. The City does not have adult businesses but the report is referring to liquor stores and bars that are in the city. Vice-Chairman Taytorasked Community Development Director Saeki about his previous request; how many massage parlors are in the city. Community Development Saeki replied he did not have figures but recalled that there had only been three full body massages that have opened since he became employed by the City. Juan Nunez - asked if the consultant would redo the survey again. Community Development Director Saeki replied that the consultant would not redo the survey because the report is too new and it's time intensive to go out and survey parcel by parcel again. Commissioner Ly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Low to adopt the 2009-2013 Five Year Implementation Plan. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Low, Ly No: Taylor Abstain: Clark Absent: None 4. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS None Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes of August 25, 2009 Page 4 of 5 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:31 p.m. The next Community Development Commission meeting will take place on September 8, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. ATTEST: ~L l` 0. Q Gloria Molleda Commission Secretary GCa.~az Margaret C(afk Chairwoman Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes of August 25, 2009 Page 5 of 5 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 Minutes of August 25, 2009 was duly and regularly approved by the Rosemead Community Development Commission on the 81h of September 2009, by the following vote to wit: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None at Gloria Molleda Commission Secretary