Loading...
CC - 10-12-93y 0 APPROVED CITY OF ROSEMEAD MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING DATF Z~~ ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 12, 1993 BY The Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Bruesch at 8:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilmember Clark. The Invocation was delivered by City Treasurer Foutz. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers Clark, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Vasquez, and Mayor Bruesch Absent: Councilmember McDonald - Excused APPROVAL OF MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 28, 1993 - REGULAR MEETING Approval of these minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. PRESENTATIONS: - None I. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None II. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None III.LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 93-51 - CLAIMS & DEMANDS The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $437,514.95 NUMBERED 7351 THROUGH 7515 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that Resolution No. 93-51 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Mayor Bruesch asked for an explanation of Check No. 7399 in the amount of $78.44 and Check No. 7456 in the amount of $7552.63. B. RESOLUTION NO. 93-50 - APPROVING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $35,000,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 TAX ALLOCATION BONDS, SERIES 1993A AND NOT TO EXCEED $3,200,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 TAXABLE TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1993B MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ, SECOND BY MAYOR BRUESCH that Resolution No. 93-50 be adopted. Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, questioned the bond procedures. VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: BRUESCH: We just had a rather lengthy meeting in the Redevelopment Agency meeting concerning that very same question and we have been CC 10-12-93 Page #1 BRUESCH CONTINUES: talking to bond counsel and getting documents over the past five to six months. It's a rather lengthy, technical, banker's type of a thing. I would like to explain that these are two different sets of bonds. One that will be used to pay off past bonding and one that is going to be used for paying off some past bonding but mainly to provide funds for the next 40 years. NUNEZ: The past bond hasn't been sold? BRUESCH: No, they have been sold and we're going to put it in an escrow account and pay off those bonds. It's not like a loan that you and I have. We can't say okay here's the money, we'll pay you off right away. We have to continue paying it over the maturity life of the bonds. I asked that very question. I said can't we have an early payoff and you can't. NUNEZ: No I understand that. Not an early payoff but I mean it has been paying off continually since the bonds were sold? So now you're telling me that you on this bonds is to pay the bonds...? BRUESCH: Some of it will be used for that purpose. The reason why there's two is because one set of bonds is tax exempt and the other is taxable. And that's why you have to have two. NUNEZ: Well, maybe that's where I don't understand but I was wondering whether the borrowing of the money and the principal that we have to pay on it does it justify the borrowing of the money for the $35 million let's say you know the interest on that amounts to what? FRANK TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: If I might, Mr. Chairman, what we're talking about, Juan is a $35 million issue; $18 million of those proceeds will go into an escrow fund to satisfy the debt service of previous bond sales; $17 million will come to the Agency as net proceeds to be used throughout the community and the project area. The total interest costs and principal for those years will be $93 million over forty years; $57 million of that will be interest for those bonds over 40 years. NUNEZ: That's triple. TRIPEPI: At least, sure. It's exactly the same Mr. Nunez as if you financed your house for 30 years. If it's a $100,000 home over 30 years, you'll pay $300,000 for it or more. NUNEZ: And the bonds cannot be sold for a shorter time period? TRIPEPI: Sure they can. The problem with that is that under a new law, AB 1290 which the Governor signed just this week, the RRA if they do not take advantage of this particular window of time of opportunity and sell these bonds the Agency will cease to exist ten years sooner that it would if we go out on a 40-year issue. So, the bottom line is you can do short term sales but as we explained in the RRA meeting if it's the philosophy of the Agency to keep the Agency going for the maximum period of time allowed under existing law, that would be 40 years, okay? If you do five 8-year issues or you do one 40-year issue your interest costs are the same, there's no difference. And the only way you can get the money from the County is if you have debt. They won't give it to you if you don't have any debt. BRUESCH: And if we don't incur that debt within the Agency that money will go to the County for whatever purposes they see fit throughout the County. NUNEZ: I realize that but I was just wondering why they would justify the paying of the 2/3 interest, that's what I'm asking. CLARK: Mr. Mayor. TRIPEPI: You're going to pay the interest whether it's 40 years or whether it's five 8-year issues. CC 10-12-93 Page #2 1 . CLARK: Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to make the comment, Juan. It's sort of like ...the question...the person in the RRA project area is going to be paying the same amount of taxes. The question is whether we have control of that money or whether it's going to go to the County that all of a sudden comes up with oh I have $125 million I didn't know I had. You know that just infuriated me. We want to be able to do what we want with it. NUNEZ: What Frank is saying now is that there's been legislation passed that our redevelopment agency will cease in 40 years. TRIPEPI: 30 years. CLARK: And if we don't get in this window of opportunity we've lost it. We suddenly come under new regulations. NUNEZ: But after 30 years it will probably the same thing then you'll lost it unless another legislation comes in. VASQUEZ: If we're still around. TRIPEPI: The thing is that's why you do basically what's called grandfather yourself in so that any new legislation doesn't affect you because if the housing as an example if they change the housing set aside requirement and they go to 40%, they can't come back and take 40% of our money because all of our money with the exception of 20% is pledged to debt service and they can't do anything to impair our ability to pay back those bonds. They being the County. BRUESCH: Many of the comments that Mr. Nunez made were made in our RRA meeting today and over the past three or four months as we struggled with this issue and it has been a lot of soul searching and a lot of discussion and a lot of learning because when you're dealing with facts and figures over 40 years and you look at the amortization schedules and what we're projecting and projection of how much we're going to make in our...the money that we're going to get up front and how much we're going to have surplus to spend on the project area down there, all these figures are page after page after page and it does take a lot of study but those questions were already asked and to my feeling they were well answered by staff. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'd like a comment on this particular that this is the biggest bond sale that the City and the Agency has ever undertaken and it is a 40-year obligation and as you know I voted no in the Agency meeting. The fact that we will get $17 million net proceeds to spend out of this debt for 40 years and we're going to set $18 million aside to pay the two existing bond or note issues and $57 million in interest and I don't believe that this was in the best interest of the citizens of...residents of Rosemead, the residents of the County, or the residents of the State in the sense that the State needs the money, the County needs the money, the City needs the money. We have a resolution later on tonight supporting the 1/2 cent sales tax for the safety needs of the City and such. We're going to vote on that because they're short funds and they need it. So, we're taking the equivalent, this $57 million and giving it to investors roughly in the neighborhood of 5.85% to 6% tax free where I mentioned that the residents, the tax, if you have a savings account, you get 2%, 2 1/2%, 2 3/4% taxable. So, the advantage of this is not for the taxpayers or the residents so to speak, $17 million and have to pay back $93 million is a poor tradeoff and I'd like your comments and the explanations to Mr. Nunez in the.minutes verbatim to supplement the verbatim minutes that we have from the Agency. I think that something as important as this is, the biggest issue ever in the City, should either have a yes or a no vote. Either we understand it or we don't understand it. We're in favor of it or we're not in favor of it. So, I think on something as big as this we're accountable to vote. If we don't understand it then it shouldn't be voted on. If you have questions about it then defer it. But as to... it's either yes or no as far as you're in favor of this. I think it's important that we go on record as that. But again I voted no against it in the Agency and I intend to vote no on it at this time. CC 10-12-93 Page #3 • NUNEZ: This is exactly what I was talking about. I don't see the tradeoff. You people are the ones that are voting on it. You have most of the information that I haven't. Those investment bond bankers are just out to get you to sell more bonds in order for them to have more money. BRUESCH: If you permit the Council to at least give their feelings about the way they're going to vote, it might answer some of your questions. So, I'd like to have at least on the rest of the Council an opportunity to state what their feelings are. Mr. Vasquez. VASQUEZ: Well, first of all it's 40 years. The way I look at it is like when you get a loan out for your house or you buy a home, the loan is for 30 years. And a lot of that payment goes into the interest and it gets us all sick to see all that payment go into the interest. This is somewhat like it. Not exactly because it's redevelopment money. I voted for it because I want to see some of that money come into the City of Rosemead for programs, whatever we might need. And that's why I voted for it. BRUESCH: Mrs. Clark. CLARK: In the Agency meeting I abstained not because I disagree with the concept but because I wanted more time for Mr. Taylor to have clarification and I don't have a problem with the...I don't like paying the interest but I have been in Sacramento enough to see some of the indecision up there on issues that I think there should be stands taken on and the use of the money that I do not agree with and the more local control that we can have of that money, the better off we are and I get very angry when I see some of the things that are done with the money. The State is trying to grab money away from local government because they're afraid to face some of the major, sticky issues and they're dipping into our pockets. This bill that just passed that we were talking about is an effort to revamp the redevelopment agencies so the State can have more of the money and we are doing this ...this is a window of opportunity by the end of the year to lock ourselves into the regulations that we had before. It's to put it very simplistically, it's like your Prop. 13, you're locked into a good rate. If you sell your house and buy a new one you're under the new regulations and I don't want to be under those new regulations. Since Mr. Taylor has basically challenged me, I intend to vote yes on this because of what I've seen in Sacramento and because this is for the reasons I just stated. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. If I may. I appreciate Mrs. Clark's comment but it's again I don't want to be confrontational with you but to not...to abstain on a $35 million bond issue because you wanted me to get more information... that disappoints me. Vote your conscience and such. I'm glad you're going to vote yes on it this time. I have no objections with that. But this is the biggest issue that has ever come before this City or the Agency and you didn't make any comment in there about why you abstained on it but because I wanted some more information should never affect a vote of this nature for something as big as this so I appreciate you're going to at least vote for it in the...vote your conscience on this agenda. BRUESCH: My feeling and I have to relate it to personal experience. I waited 25 years to get into the housing,market because of just what Juan was mentioning. Every time I sat down with a mortgage loan person I was looking at not three but four times, four times the price of the house and I said I'll be damned if I'm going to pay four times the price of the house and everybody said but in the long run...We're looking at a market now, if I can get in the market with my feelings because the interest is way low, the interest on the bonds is very low also. Yes, it could go a tick lower but there's greater chance in my eyes that it could go higher and it could go much higher in the next 40 years. We could get back up to where we're paying 12%-14% for bonds. And if that does happen, if we go to short term bonds like 7-14 years, we may be winding up paying more for this money for a shorter time. Our Agency would have to go out of existence in 30 years instead of 40 years. All the way they would have to be paying CC 10-12-93 Page #4 BRUESCH CONTINUES: higher interest rates plus each time that you go to sell bonds you'd be paying the upfront costs which would add to the costs. And I'm not willing to take that chance. I'm not a gambling person to think that the bond rates, the interest rates on bonds are going to stay this low and I look at what Garvey Avenue, the reconstruction of Garvey Avenue which was paid for by our RRA has done for the economy down on that stretch of the City. Looking at our sales tax reviews which we get quarterly, inch by inch, tenth of percent by quarter percent, the amount of sales tax dollars down in that area is inching up because of the improvement on that street and that is what redevelopment is all about. It's not going out and getting a major commercial venture in our City. We have never done that. We have improved the roads, we have improved the sidewalks, we have improved the approaches to businesses, we have redeveloped that area so that it can provide more tax dollars to the City because that's our major income factor. And I for one want that type of redevelopment going on. I don't believe, I don't think anybody on this Council, believes that this City should go out and wheel and deal with a major retailer to uproot hundreds of homes so that we can have a major retail outlet coming into the City but I think everybody on this Council does realize that we would like to have that type of redevelopment activity which has brought about the rebirth of Garvey Avenue continue in our City and I'm not willing to gamble that maybe seven years down the line we might have the same players in the game, we might have the same rules. I think they're going to change and it's going to be much more restrictive and I don't want to see that revenue flow into that improvement of that area staunched. So, I'm in favor of it. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Comment on what you're making about the interest rates and such. The last two bond notes or the note sales that we have had the same argument was there that we had to do it, the interest rates were bound to go up, we had no way if we didn't act on it and do it right away, we would pay more. Well, here it is two and four years or five years later whatever, the interest rates are definitely down and I'd like to reiterate as far as you're talking about 14% being charged or whatever it may be and the housing market prices what they are, they're still substantially high. The interesting factor is that people that can afford to buy these bonds and such they will be getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 6% tax free. BRUESCH: A little bit less. TAYLOR: A little bit less, 5.85%. We don't know. What is the exact figure? BRUESCH: We won't know until the bids come in. TAYLOR: Until Thursday night. They're scheduled to be opened Thursday night so we'll find out then whatever it may be but as I stated in the Agency meeting, the average John Q. Public or Jane Q. Public, if they were to put the money,in their savings, they're going to get 2 1/2% taxable, if they get 2 1/2%, they're going to pay taxes on that. Again, this is a tremendous investment for those that have the money to make the profits on it and that's the political game as Mr. Nunez said. People make money by selling these so they're guaranteed this interest rate for decades to come and over the next 40 years if you average it out we're getting $17 million out of this particular sale, spendable cash for projects. Over 40 years that is the equivalent of $400,000 per year for that 40-year period, dividing the $17 million by 40 years. Where in fact that the tax increment / YEA K- coming in for the project area is roughly... it's over $4 million So, net result is we get 10% of the $4 million over the next 40 years and we end up, paying the equivalent of $57 mi io NIN r add the $18 million SNrEREST to.that to pay off our other two bonds, e're tting a net $17 million for the 40-year note. -pcN YEAR 1'NTr12EST BRUESCH: But we also get ten years extension on our Agency at $2.5 million. CC 10-12-93 Page #5 TAYLOR: That's like giving us all in this room 10-years extension on our life. We talked about it. We're all going to be dead before this thing is paid off so... BRUESCH: But the City isn't. TAYLOR: Hypothetically, as far as what the State has been changing the redevelopment law continuously. They're getting back the money that some agencies have absconded with so to speak. Whether it be City of Industry or City of Irwindale, I think they've made the majority of their cities project areas even though they only have 1,000 residents. BRUESCH: Mr. Taylor. Rosemead is not Irwindale. We've heard that litany before about Irwindale and City of Commerce. We all know that they've misused their powers. I commend our staff over the ten years I've been on this Council because they realize that our philosophy is not that of Irwindale and City of Industry. We are a very prudent, careful City when it comes to redevelopment powers. TAYLOR: Hogwash. BRUESCH: I'm sorry you don't have faith in our staff and our City. TAYLOR: Staff is fine. We're being sold a bill of goods here for someone else to make the profit off of at the expense of all the taxpayers of this State and the fact that the other cities, Mr. Wallin, I would like you to research...I know it's in the redevelopment law that there is an abuse and other cities have been challenged and have been ruled against for taking tax increment money and using it throughout the City for general purpose funds. I know for a fact that that's in the law and there has been ...I have to find the case. I can't give it to you but if we're going to be paying this kind of interest and wasting it I would just as soon that the residents of this City, County and State get the money. So, if you would check into that and we'll find out what's been going on with abuses and again, this isn't staff's fault at all. This is the Council's policy. Staff only does what the Council directs it to do. BRUESCH: I'm ready for a vote if you are... NUNEZ: Speaking from his seat and unintelligible. TRIPEPI: Mr. Nunez. I think we need to clarify a couple of things here. As Mr. Taylor stated, we have a $4 million increment flow per year. That's gross increment. It does not include the 20% set aside nor the 18% pass through agreement that we have with the County for the Consolidated Fire Protection District. Okay? As Mr. Taylor stated, $400,000 a year is what the $17 million works out to over a 40-year period. That's true. But we need to remember that's 10% of the increment flow. We need to remember if we don't sell these bonds we don't get $4 million a year in tax increment because without debt you can't get the money. Okay. $400,000, 10% of something is better than 100$ of no increment flow at all. Now, the increment flow continues to grow each year and it has consistently for the history of this RRA. Some years more than others. It's effect on the residents of this City? As I stated to you, over the life of this issue, 40 years, $93 million will be paid out in principal and interest. Okay? You pay exactly the same tax rate that you would pay if we didn't do the issue. The difference is the $93 million would not be used by this Agency to pay debt but the $93 million would go to LA County to be used in whatever way it sees fit. Mr. Taylor is correct when he says that it is not a good deal for the residents of this County nor the residents of the State. That's true. But not to be confrontational, the State certainly didn't take Rosemead's best interest to heart when in 1979 they gave back $5 billion that they were sitting on in their reserve to the taxpayers. Rosemead residents got not one penny of that money yet you contributed to the State coffers as Rosemead residents. You folks helped build that reserve but when it came time to give it back to the residents of this State, we didn't get any of that money back because we didn't have a property CC 10-12-93 Page #6 • TRIPEPI CONTINUES: tax at that time. Now, that's a different issue but what I'm saying is that I for one I'm not obligated to look out for the best interest of the State. I certainly am looking out more for the interest of the City and again, that $93 million is going to be paid by everyone in the City. It's a matter of who it gets paid to. Is it going to get paid to the RRA or is it going to get paid to LA County and the School District. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Point of clarification on what Mr. Tripepi just said. The statement was that there's $93 million that and this isn't a question of creating debt or keeping debt or dissolving the Agency, the Agency's here for.what another 10 years, Frank? Is that what our...? TRIPEPI: 2012. TAYLOR: Okay. Nine years, we're still in existence for another nine years. So, it's not that we're going out of business so to speak or that we don't have an opportunity to have another short term sale which as I stated in the Agency meeting due to the past record of the financial practices of the City of Rosemead and the Agency we have an excellent rating so to speak but we had been doing it all of these past years on short term notes and this is the first time that it's gone into a 40-year note contradictory to what we had been doing in the past but anyway getting back to the comment, either we get our $17 million to spend or the County and again you have to keep this in mind, the County's not going to get back the $93 million because we still have debt to pay over the next 9 years so it's not that the County gets the money or the City of Rosemead loses the money or the School District gets the money, it's the fact that $57 million goes into the wealthy investors that buy it. It's not that the County's going ...I would much rather have it if the money's there it goes back to the public agencies, whoever,.all the agencies but another interesting point when you stop and think the taxes the State and the County as I mentioned in the Agency meeting, there's a surcharge that the County is passing on back to the City and correct me if I'm wrong, Frank, it's 6.3% or something? TRIPEPI: It's a little over 6%. TAYLOR: So, where they come up short of funds we're going to double pay. We're going to pay the interest out on these bonds plus if the County comes up short they're going to raise their rates and that's just the fact of life. It's not because of cost of living or anything else it's just they're short money and they're going to raise it. Again, staff has done a good job in presenting the information, how we want to handle this, if the Council and the Agency's going to do a sale of this nature then that's the way it will happen but the taxpayers I honestly feel end up.losing the majority of this taxes and the majority of the bond sale goes to the investors. BRUESCH: I'm ready for a call of the question, if someone has it. TAYLOR: Well, that's it. BRUESCH: The question has been called for. The motion is that we approve this bond issuance for 40 years. Will you please vote. Taken from voting slip. Yes: Clark, Bruesch, Vasquez No: Taylor Absent: McDonald Abstain: None TAYLOR: And again Mr. Mayor, if we have this verbatim, it will go together with the Agency minutes. BRUESCH: Okay. END VERBATIM DIALOGUE. CC 10-12-93 Page #7 0 C. RESOLUTION NO. 93-52 - GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NAP 51586 AND ZONE VARIANCE 93-250 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7629-37 GRAVES AVENUE, ROSEMEAD The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93-52 A RESOLUTION OF THE.CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51586 AND ZONE VARIANCE 93-250 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7629-37 GRAVES AVENUE VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Question on Page 6 of this particular item, Page 6 and 7, the last paragraph. It states the applicant subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Rosemead, its employees, etc. Item 15 on Page 7, the applicant subdivider shall file with the Planning Department a notarized acceptance of these conditions within 10 days. Has this been standard form in all of the other P.D. projects of this nature? TRIPEPI: You mean the indemnification, Mr. Taylor? TAYLOR: Yes. WALLIN: The indemnification clause is authorized by State law. TAYLOR: No, my question Peter has it been in all of the others that we've approved? TRIPEPI: Mr. Taylor, I don't think so, no. TAYLOR: I'm sure it hasn't been but I want it in the record that it hasn't been. TRIPEPI: It's in the record. This was done as you recall, this was put in here by the attorney at the direction of the Council from the last meeting where they wanted the applicant and the subdivider to hold us harmless in case there the lawsuit proceeds. TAYLOR: Okay and the biggest objection, the reason this was put in here was for what reason? TRIPEPI: To keep the City from expending legal fees to defend its action. TAYLOR: But why would it have been challenged? What was the main issue that it would have legal problems? TRIPEPI: I'd have to go back and re-read the 8 or 10 page letter from Mr. Barbosa's office. BRUESCH: There were about 14 points. You got the memo? TRIPEPI: There were a number of items. Landlocking a piece of property. TAYLOR: No but during the meeting ...at this time but the item I was referring to, I'd asked that my comment be in the minutes verbatim. Would the Council be agreeable to putting that item in the minutes verbatim so there's no misunderstanding on what was discussed? BRUESCH: You mean the memo that was received? TAYLOR: No, the last Council meeting that we discussed this item because this is very pertinent to that item. TRIPEPI: Mr. Taylor's referring to the minutes that he asked to be deferred so that his comments on this particular item could be in verbatim. CC 10-12-93 Page #8 TAYLOR: My comments would not be from what Mr. Bruesch is saying, it was very specific at that meeting what the attorneys were challenging. They didn't bring up the 14 points. They were talking about a couple of facts that... TRIPEPI: Landlocking. TAYLOR: ...landlocking and such, it was very specific because he was I'm going to use the word, Mrs. Leong is in the audience, but he was backpedaling from the 14 items that were in the letter. Those didn't come up. But what was discussed at that meeting, I feel that this is arbitrary and capricious in the sense that we are now penalizing this owner where we have not done it in the last seven or eight years and I think that's an injustice. BRUESCH: What do you mean penalizing? How are we...you mean the owner of this property? TAYLOR: The owner of this property, I want to know if all those others ...did Mrs. Leong's agreement... Mrs. Leong, did your agreement have this hold harmless indemnity in it? MRS. LEONG: Speaking from her seat and hard to understand. Mr. Taylor, my attorney is not here and I... TAYLOR: Okay. Fine. I can appreciate that. BRUESCH: What I'm asking, Gary, are you saying that this is an additional requirement on this particular piece of property? TRIPEPI: Yes. TAYLOR: That was my original question. Is it? TRIPEPI: Yes, in response Mr. Taylor, it is and that was at the direction of the City Council at the last meeting. TAYLOR: I understand that but I think that it's an arbitrary decision because of somebody questioning... TRIPEPI: I understand. TAYLOR: ...and it's extremely important for fairness to every applicant that comes before this Council. We have now been intimidated and backed into a corner because somebody doesn't agree with what one resident or property owner doesn't agree with what the other property owner's doing and I don't think that it's right that we will now penalize these people and say you got to hold us harmless. We didn't tell Mrs. Leong that she had to hold us harmless and yet she got the same approval. So, in any case there I can't agree with this subject and in all fairness we've got to treat all the residents the same way. Not penalize one because another neighbor challenges it but that same neighbor got the benefit of the doubt and got the very same approval. That just isn't right. So, you answered my question. This is something that's been added to this one property. BRUESCH: We asked for it to be... TAYLOR: I know you asked for it and that's what I want clarified. That this Council has now changed a policy that we're going to penalize one resident out of 15,000 properties or one resident out of the last eight years, all of a sudden somebody comes up and blows smoke and says we're going to make a fire here. Oh, there's going to be a fire? Well, then we better treat this person differently. I can't accept that to penalize one resident it's almost like let's crucify Jesus Christ because he's one man, what difference does it make. Let's crucify this one owner, what difference does it make. BRUESCH: Mr. Nunez, you had a comment on this? NUNEZ: Now, that you're talking about the flood control? CC 10-12-93 Page #9 TAYLOR: No, it had nothing to do with that. NUNEZ: What I wanted to ask on this, does the private street conform to the city's standards in case the people there want to dedicate it to the City at a later date? AL RODRIGUEZ, CITY ENGINEER: The private street as outlined on the tentative map would conform only with the Fire Department's requirements for access and turn around. It would not comply with the City's policy on public street width and cul de sacs. TAYLOR: And that's typical for a private street. TRIPEPI: Very typical. NUNEZ: Should they ever want to dedicate it they are going to maintain that street and everything, eventually they figure we don't want to maintain it, we don't want.to sweep it and the sweeper won't be going in there, will it? TRIPEPI: No. TAYLOR: That's down the road. They could have modify it, make certain conditions but it's not unusual for a street to be like that. A private street. We do many of them every year. NUNEZ: What I was asking is that the property owners should be notified that if the street wants to be modified or to conform to the City it would have to be wider... TAYLOR: If they wanted to do it but it's not practical because there's many little four or six houses where they have just a narrow driveway called a private driveway or private street. It's not unusual at all. BRUESCH: It has to meet safety standards. TRIPEPI: Fire only. TAYLOR: A private street can do that. There a little bit different than a public street. BRUESCH: Is there a motion? TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I voted against this item and it's totally against what I would normally do but under the circumstances, for this particular person, I'm going to make the motion that we approve this item with the deletion of Condition No. 14, thereby treating this property owner as every other one has been treated over the past 8 years and not making this person, the single exception. So, I'd make the motion that we approve this. BRUESCH: With the exception of No. 14. TAYLOR: Deleting No. 14. BRUESCH: Is there a second? Hearing no second it dies for the lack of second. Do I hear a subsequent motion? VASQUEZ: I move that this be approved with No. 14. BRUESCH: Is there a second? For the purpose of voting, I will second that one. Would you please vote. TAYLOR: Excuse me. Clarify your motion, with the...you're keeping it as it. BRUESCH: As is. TAYLOR: Okay. CC 10-12-93 Page #10 Taken from voting slip. Yes: Clark, Bruesch, Vasquez No: Taylor Absent: McDonald Abstain: None TAYLOR: Again, may I have this section in verbatim. This is so important to these individual people. D. RESOLUTION NO. 93-51- ALLOWING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR 1993-94 ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAY PROJECT The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93-53 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 ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAY ON EARLE AVENUE AND SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that Resolution No. 93-53 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. E. RESOLUTION NO. 93-54 - DECLARING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 23-31, 1993 AS °RED RIBBON WEER" The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93-54 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD NAMING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 23-31, 1993 AS "RED RIBBON WEEK" MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR BRUESCH that Resolution No. 93-54 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. F. RESOLUTION NO. 93-55 - SUPPORTING PROPOSITION NO. 172 EXTENDING THE HALF-CENT SALES TAX FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93-55 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD SUPPORTING PROPOSITION NO. 172 AND EXTENDING THE HALF-CENT SALES TAX FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES Councilmember Clark asked that the seventh paragraph be amended to read "WHEREAS, Proposition 172 is not a tax increase but merely an extension of existing sales tax and is the least painful means of attempting to prevent future taxes; CC 10-12-93 Page #11 0 Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar Avenue, asked that the Council not support this Resolution because it is not for safety purposes and Mr. Nunez pointed out that if this passes by a majority of the state voters but does not pass in LA County we would still pay the tax but none of the revenues would come to LA County. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that Resolution No. 93-55 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. G. ORDINANCE NO. 738 - ALLOWING A CHANGE IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING DESIGNATION FROM P (PARKING) TO C-3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2737, 2737 1/2, AND 2739 DeQUINE AVENUE, ROSEMEAD (ZC 93-196) - ADOPT The following ordinance was presented to the Council for adoption: ORDINANCE NO. 738 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM P (PARKING) TO C-3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2737-39 DeQUINE AVENUE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that Ordinance No. 738 be adopted. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Vasquez No: Bruesch Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Mayor Bruesch stated that his vote was a reflection of his desire to keep residential areas sacrosanct from the expansion of commercial. Councilmember Taylor noted that the property is zoned P for parking and that this is being done according to the General Plan; that this isn't taking a residential zone, it's a parking zone. H. ORDINANCE NO. 739 - ALLOWING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-2 TO P.D. (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) TO ALLOW A PROJECT CONSISTING OF SEVEN (7) SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS TO BE CONSTRUCTEI AT 7629 AND 7637 GRAVES AVENUE, ROSEMEAD - INTRODUCE The following ordinance was presented to the Council for introduction: ORDINANCE NO. 739 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-2 TO P.D. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7629-7637 GRAVES AVENUE MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK that Ordinance No. 739 be introduced on its first reading and that reading in full be waived. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC 10-12-93 Page #12 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR (CC-G REMOVED FOR CC-A AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY BY BERTRAND LI HUA RING CC-B CITY CLERK VACATION REQUEST CC-C APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEER BIDS FOR 1993-94 ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAY ON VARIOUS CITY STREETS (With the correction of Exhibits A and B) CC-D APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND AGENCY FOR 1993-94 ASPHALT CONCRETE OVERLAY PROJECT CC-E APPROVAL OF CDBG CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES WITH WEST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY FAMILY COUNSELING SERVICES; ASIAN-PACIFIC FAMILY CENTER; AND ROSEMEAD BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB CC-F RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CATERING SERVICES FOR SENIOR CITIZEN NUTRITION PROGRAM (With the inclusion of the existing rates being charged) MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR that the foregoing items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None item. The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CC-G APPROVAL OF GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AND THE ROSE MAD HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (ANGELUS AVENUE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT) Councilmember Taylor stated his intention to vote no on this MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK that the Council approve the Ground Lease. Before vote could result, Councilmember Taylor stated his desire to discuss this item. Mr. Taylor cited several inconsistencies in the wording and definitions in this document and asked that this item be deferred for correction. After some discussion, it was MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the motion be tabled and the agreement be sent back for correction and revision and returned to the next regular meeting. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion tabled and so ordered. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION & ACTION A. CITY HALL HOURS DURING ELECTION FILING PERIOD After discussion by the Council, it was decided that the City Hall hours would remain Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and closed on Friday, as posted. The Candidate's Handbook will include City Hall's regular posted hours and all candidates will be so informed. VI. STATUS REPORTS - None CC 10-12-93 Page #13 VII MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS A. REQUEST FROM COMMISSIONER TIRRE FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION B. REQUEST FROM COMMISSIONER YOUNG FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION C. REQUEST FROM TRAFFIC CONK KNAPP FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER TAYLOR, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM VASQUEZ that the foregoing requests be approved. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Taylor, Bruesch, Vasquez No: None Absent: McDonald Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE A. Helen Archer, Area Representative for Southern California Edison, invited all to the open house at upcoming League of California cities meeting in San Francisco. B. TAYLOR 1. Stated that he meant no reflection on staff when he questioned the contents of certain documents and the time they are delivered to Council. C. MAYOR BRUESCH 1. Noted that November 17, 1993, will be Family Recognition Day and that 11 families have been nominated. There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. The next regular meeting is scheduled for October 26, 1993, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: ty Clerk CC 10-12-93 Page #14