Loading...
CC - 08-12-03E 0 APPROVED CITY OF ROSEMEAD DATE BY MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 12, 2003 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Vasquez at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman Taylor The Invocation was delivered by Chaplain Judy Bever of the California Christian Home ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers Alarcon, Imperial, Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Clark, and Mayor Vasquez Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JULY 22, 2003 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Rosemead City Council held on July 22, 2003, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: Alarcon, Clark, Imperial, Taylor, Vasquez No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. PRESENTATIONS: Mosquito Abatement District Boardmember Robert Bruesch introduced Kelly Middleton who presented an overview of the District and updated the Council on the West Nile Virus. Ms. Middleton explained that the District is funded and operates from a benefit assessment tax. Therefore, a resident can call for service without charge. Ms. Middleton stated that technicians are in the field daily looking for and monitoring known breeding sources of mosquitoes and other vectors in an effort to keep their population down. The West Nile Virus is a mosquito virus primarily from birds and can be transmitted to humans. Ms. Middleton stressed that the time is now for residents to become diligent about standing water on their properties, as mosquitoes live and breed in standing water. 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None H. PUBLIC HEARINGS CCMIN:8-12-03 Page M I • An explanation of the procedures for the conduct of the public hearing was presented by the City Attorney. A. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 826 - AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE ASSEMBLY BILL 1866 The staff report was presented by Brad Johnson, Planning Director. The Mayor opened the public hearing for those in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item. Scott Allison, 4209 N. Claudia Avenue, Rosemead, stated that he favors the Ordinance in order to have minimum requirements for second dwellings. Kevin Donnelly, 4208 Claudia Avenue, Rosemead, stated that he also supports the Ordinance as do the majority of his neighbors. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Mayor closed.the public hearing. Councilman Taylor stated that this is a case once again of a state law being forced upon the City. Councilman Taylor asked if a 6000 square foot home can have a two bedroom addition built on the property if it meets the setback requirements. Mr. Johnson replied that that is correct. Councilman Taylor continued that the staff report summary states that this law will provide housing for family members, students, the elderly, disabled and others, in other words, everybody. Mr. Taylor stated property owners might build second units as supplemental income, and while he does not question that, it destroys a conventional R-1 family residential neighborhood and results in overcrowding. Councilman Taylor stated that this State law allows anyone, without discrimination, to build second units. This will be a revenue producing business for some property owners while destroying the R-I neighborhoods. Councilman Taylor concluded that while this is a State mandate, he intends to vote No. Mayor Pro Tem Clark stated that the State pre-empted the City's local controls over second unit dwellings. Mrs. Clark continued that the Ordinance will allow the City to put standards or provisions in place by adopting the ordinance tonight. If the ordinance is not passed or the City does nothing, that will allow anyone to get a permit over the counter to build anything they want on their lot. Mayor Pro Tern Clark said that the State has mandated that a second unit has to be allowed, but with the Ordinance, the City will have some control over the structure. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM CLARK, that the Council waive reading in full and introduce Ordinance No. 826, before a Second could result, more discussion ensued. CCMIN:8-12-03 Page #2 0 • Councilman Imperial cited an example of how overcrowding will affect the City's infrastructure and school systems. Mr. Imperial stated this results in neighborhoods that are overrun with cars because the property owners or landlords will rent out their second dwellings. Cars will be parked all over the streets and yards. Councilman Taylor stated that there are areas in the City with large lots where residents have been complaining about not being able to park on the streets because tenants from the rentals are taking up all the parking. Mr. Taylor stated that this problem will be compounded by State law. uncilman Imperial stated that the City should adopt tonight's Ordinance and that a letter be the Governor's office protesting the State law. Imperial SECONDED the MOTION. Vote resulted: es: Alarcon, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial o: Taylor bsent: None bstain: None Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING REALLOCATION OF CDBG FUNDS, AMENDMENT TO ANNUAL PLAN AND APPROVAL OF OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR C.H. AUTO FOR ACQUISITION OF 8351 GARVEY AVENUE Lisa Baker, Grants Coordinator, presented the staff report. The Mayor opened the public hearing for those in the audience wishing to speak for or against this project. i Robert Bruesch, 7500 Wilmar, Rosemead, stated that he favors this item because it retains a business in Rosemead that has been in operation for many years. Mr. Bruesch asked about the disposition of the two trailers on that property. Brad Johnson, Planning Director, replied that C.H. Auto has requested use of the two trailers to house a security guard on the premises at night. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Taylor requested that his comments made in opposition to this item during the pment Commission meeting just concluded be included in the Minutes: Page #3 • DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION VERBATIM DIALOGUE FOLLOWS: I COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: In reading though this, the Turner Trust gives the implication or implies that they've got a project that they're working on. PETER WALLIN, COMMISSION ATTORNEY: That is correct. They are working on one. It's an unbaked pie at this time. TAYLOR: All right. Why are we stepping in for an $800,000 purchase? What's causing a problem that it canIt!be done between those private owners? WALLIN: At this time... when we started working on this transaction five or six months ago, the Turner Trust thought they were all ready to go with and had actually agreed to the terms of this transaction. They would buy the property from Jimmy Wang for $775,000. TAYLOR: What happened? WALLIN: They did not get the drug store commitment at that time. They are presently trying to get a new drug store... I TAYLOR: They are trying to do...to get a drugstore to come in. So they haven't got one in otherwords. I WALLIN: They do not have one as far as I know. TAYLOR: So why are we still putting ourselves in a position... I WALLIN: Understand, we are not buying this property. We're acquiring an option. We're not obligated to buy this property. The only time we'd ever come back to you and say buy this property is if the Turner Trust stepped in and took it over. All we're doing is buying the opportunity to buy this property. TAYLOR: Well, still, it's $25,000 that... we have the option and if they can't get tenants in, why do we need the option for one piece of property. WALLIN: We don't need the option. We could add that to the forgivable loan. But the thing is, we would like to have the opportunity to pick up that parcel if the Turner Trust can get this together. i i TAYLOR: For what? We've got...I'd like my comments about this in the minutes. We have approximately 990 businesses in the City. I find it hard to justify, even though it said ...I'm not questioning the business itself, I'm questioning the policy of $125,000 to one business. We've done it before. We went down the City, none of these Councilmembers were here at the time, and that's when you were hired, when the condemnation went on down at Garvey and San Gabriel for the K-Mart. We bought the property and K-Mart, of all companies, and that goes back 30 years, they folded, they couldn't make a go of it. And it had nothing to do with their business now, 30 years later. We basically subsidized that. Bought the property, condemned homes, moved people out and it fell through or didn't succeed once they built it. We did the same thing for the Nissan Motor Corporation up at the Montebello CCMIN:8-12-03 Page a4 Shopping Center E 0 We gave them $225,000 for their auto sales promotion and within 3 years it collapsed. It's easy come, easy go. No reflection on the businesses, but something ...I can t do that with taxpayers money.j WALLIN: I understand that. At least on the Nissan deal, they collapsed. We didn't take back secured by a Deedlof Trust. In this transaction, if he stops business, we have a note secured by a Deed of Trust to protect the money that we put into it. TAYLOR: And how do we get that money? i WALLIN: Foreclose on the property. I TAYLOR: Which one. On Garvey... the opposite property I guess you would call it. WALLIN: The Deed of Trust at this time is either on the Laidlaw property or some other property that has sufficient equity. i TAYLOR: That's another fly in the ointment. What is some other property? Is it of equal value or where is it at?I WALLIN: It could be a personal residence in Beverly Hills. It has to be property that has sufficient equity to insure that if they breach the agreement that we have the ability to get re-paid. Nobody is going to give up their home. I VICE-CHAIRMAN CLARK: Who is "they"? I WALLIN: "They" meaning Pro Sharp Co. I TAYLOR: The other thing is and this is another sticky situation. We lost Laidlaw as far as they been directlylunknowingly to us, up and moved out of the City. What is happening to the lawsuit that we are to get haliof that sales tax from Laidlaw. WALLI i N: The matter has been entirely briefed. The hearing is set for September 15°i, and I like our chances: I will distribute to Council all of the Pleadings that were filed. i Councilman Imperial arrives at this time (7:20 p.m.). TAYLOR: Well I mentioned to Mr. Crowe as far as any of this land trading business or selling it back and forth, whatever is done there, I feel it's more important to get that sales tax. What is it, a ten year period. WALLIN: Yes. We're supposed to get 50% of what they getup to a maximum of $100,000 (per year) for a period of ten years. TAYLOR: There's a potential $1 million, and you feel good about that. CCM1N:8-12-03 Page #5 • • WALLIN: We have pursued that lawsuit. We filed it, we've got a hearing date, and we've fully briefed it and our pleadings are about that thick. TAYLOR: I'd like to be kept up to date on that. That's a $1 million that we stand to acquire because of them just up and leaving and the Redevelopment Agency (Baldwin Park) helping them out there. We didn't even know about it. It's kind of disheartening on our point. We didn't know what one of our good businesises was doing. That's all I have for now. I CLARK: I want to ask about the Turner Trust. We need this to happen... WALLIN: They own substantially all the property around Pro Sharp's property. They also own one of the parcels they lease to Pro Sharp, that Pro Sharp is using to do business at present. They're trying to put together a real estate development anchored by the CVS Drugstore. I think they are going to real estate committee for CVS within the next few weeks. If they get approval from CVS, then they will be interested in assembling the rest of the block. Right now they are in the same position they were four monthsiago when they first started negotiating this. They said Yes, we want to buy that property. They were negotiating directly with Jimmy Wang. Then they said No, we're backing off, we didn't get the drugstore. So now they are back to where they are almost ready to start talking about buying it. Again, all we're doing is giving them the opportunity to buy it. We're not buying it for them. All we're doing is taking the same portion of the money we're providing for a down payment. Essentially is applicable to an option. That option will enable them to come in a take it over from us and that facilitate their development if that development goes through. If not, the option will be dropped. CLARK: If it doesn't go forward, if CVS turns them down and we didn't do this tonight, what would happen. i WALLIN: If CVS didn't go forward? CLARK: Yes. What we do tonight is contingent... is CVS contingent upon that? WALLIN: It would be very difficult for them to put together a development with Pro Sharp's property right in the middle. They would have to acquire it from Pro Sharp. i TAYLOR: Excuse me, Maggie. But, there seems to be... they're doing a pretty good job trying to get something going - between the two owners, Turner Trust and whomever the shopping center might be. That's another cautious situation. We had two good sized developments that were proposed down on Templebty Boulevard and Valley. They came in with pretty glorious plans, you might say, whether it be theatre, ice cream store, and they couldn't put it together. I hate to see the hinging of the drugstore on this. I don't know what else they've got proposed in there. It's between the two owners right now. The Turner Trust is trying to get, evidently, a key party being the drugstore. That's the only thing we've heard about going in there is the drugstore. So, the basis is that everything is on that drugstore. Mrs. Clark's comment about what happens if they don't go through... there's not a whole lot we can do if somebody is not going to go through with the project other than all of a sudden we're tempted to buy an $800,000 property under the Option. i CCMIN:8-12-03 Page P6 • • WALLIN: We're not tempted to. I don't think that we would. I TAYLOR: I sure hope we wouldn't. All we're doing is providing the option to buy IMPERIAL: Can I be brought up to date so 1 can understand what's happening. WALLIN: All I've done is explain what the essentials of the Agreement are. The Commission gets an option to acquire Pro Sharps existing facility for $800,000. The only purpose of that is to be able to provide that option to the Turner Trust if they wish to use it. The Agreement provides that if it's not exercised within 4 months, then Jimmy Wang can give us the $25,000 back. CLARK: If what isn't "exercised"? WALLIN: If the option isn't. Essentially we are giving Turner Trust a 4 month window in which to exercise the option. We have the option, but the reason we have the option is to assist the assembly by the Turner Trust, if they're going to go forward with the development. If not, the option would be relinquished. We have no intention, the Commission has no intention of buying Pro Sharp's property. The only reason we would do that is to turn it over to the Turner Trust. CLARK: Then why can't Turner Trust buy it directly? I WALLIN: They could. But what we do here is we guarantee that they could buy it. 1 TAYLOR: For $25,000 to give them the guarantee to buy it. i WALLIN: I have no idea what the end negotiations might be. Pro Sharp may sell it to somebody else tomorrow if we didn't have the option. i IMPERIAL: We're talking about that property that he's going to move into and make it a much nicer place down there and get rid of some of the junk. That's what it's all about. I don't understand this, but if it costs ,$25,000 to help somebody get into a piece of property that's going to work and it's a dump right now and you're not going to clean it up unless something like that goes in, I don't know what the problem is. TAYLOR: He's already got a deal with the owner for $1,700,000 to buy it. Why are we there? IMPERIAL: He needed some help to get it apparently. I look at this like the First Time Home Buyers Program. You want to clean up an area and you want some people to come in, you do something about it. TAYLOR: This is $125,000, not $25,000. IWERIAL: I'm aware of that. As for what is happening all over, it's a clean deal. What's the problem. TAYLOR: It's happening with the state government, it's happening with the federal government. IMPERIAL: Also, Hawaii Supermarket went in there and tried to offset this. What they wanted to do.... CCMIN:8-12-03 Page #7 1. i TAYLOR: Hawaii market went in where? I I IMPERIAL: Into that piece of property and wanted to go in there. You know what they wanted to do with that. TAYLOR: Which property? IMPERIAL: The property we're talking about, the one he wants to move into (Laidlaw Property). If they would have gone in there, it would be a storage place. If you've ever gone down Del Mar Avenue and seen what their storage places looks like, you'd be happy to have something like this. TAYLOR: Another item I need to know about. What is inverse eminent domain clause? That this property is being acquired under the threat of eminent domain. That is not in a project area. For us to use eminent domain to condemn a private businesses and a car shop... when did the law change that we have the authority to condemn private businesses that are not in a project area. WALLIN: The City has the power to implement its economic element of its General Plan. The Redevelopment Agency doesn't have the power of eminent domain on that property, the City does. TAYLOR: How does the City have the authority to go in and condemn a commercial business that is independent on its own because... and is it true in here that it's under the threat of eminent domain. WALLIN: The City has the power to acquire property under the threat of eminent domain. TAYLOR: I'd like the clarification, my understanding is they could do it for highways, schools, fire departments, libraries, for a public purpose. WALLIN: How about this case? The City of Oakland condemned the Oakland Raiders as a business. TAYLOR: They did it in Lake Elsinore. They condemned property and build a baseball stadium down there and now it's gone bankrupt. $250 million and nobody comes to it. Just because they did it doesn't make it right. WALLIN: The Supreme Court ruled they could do it. IMPERIAL: Isn't that for a higher use, Peter. If we decide that we don't want to do anything for the next 25 years, we're not going to do anything, for instance, for 10 furniture shops in one block on Valley Boulevard. If we would have sat there and done nothing, they never would have widened Rosemead and Valley Boulevard. TAYLOR: What happened to the Nissan dealer at the Montebello Mall. You were on the Council then. IMPERIAL: Absolutely. He went up there and he did not properly take care of business. CCMIN:8-12-03 Page #8 • • TAYLOR: How much did we give him? $250,000. What did we give K-Mart? You weren't on that two years when we condemned that property, kicked people out of their homes. What happened to that multi- million dollar project. IMPERIAL: What happened? TAYLOR: We gave them money to build it by acquisition of the land and subsidizing it when we sold it at a loss. I'm trying to tell you it's easy come, easy go when we're using taxpayers money and... WALLIN: We're not spending general fund money here, we're not spending Redevelopment Agency money. We're spending Community Development Block Grant Money, which is intended for the purpose of providing assistance to businesses to provide jobs and to revitalize target areas. This is both a target area and we're gettingjobs out of it. That's what CDBG money is there for. DON WAGNER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Part of the agreement is that Mr. Wang has to create four additional jobs, correct Lisa? LISA BAKER, CDBG COORDINATOR: He has to create four jobs over and above his current number. Community Development Block Grant funds are also able to be used for business retention activity and with a loss of the lease on C.H. Auto, he could not operate his business at the current level so it could also be an employment reduction. We see this as an opportunity for both business retention as well as business augmentation in this difficult business time. WAGNER: I was here for the Freeway Nissan... it was business retention because the dealer, if everyone recalls, Nissan Corporation told Barry Daniels that if he didn't move on a freeway site, he would lose his franchise. IMPERIAL: We moved him in to a freeway site that the City had. If this guy decides to go over and play games over in England when he is supposed to be taking care of business, we can't help that. CLARK: I don't have any problem with doing this. The only thing that makes me wonder - if the drugstore doesn't want to come in and I hate to say it, but we have a lot of drugstores coming in it seems like. That's the only thing that worries me. What kind of liability are we taking on if that falls through? WALLIN: None. We have no obligation to purchase the property. We have an option to purchase. In other words, what we are doing is taking CDBG money and providing assistance to get the Laidlaw building purchased and get that business relocated. That's our primary goal. Kind of as a bonus, we getting an option on that property which we can or won't use. I could have called the $25,000 instead of an option on the property, I could have called it additional assistance to the business to move into the Laidlaw property. That would be a legitimate use of CDBG money. Why just do that? Why don't we take an option so that we will have an opportunity to do something. We don't have to seize that opportunity, but we will have that opportunity. CLARK: Would that option give us any kind of leverage as far as... if we thought there were too many drugstores. That we could encourage something else. CCMIN:8-12-03 1 Page #9 • • WALLIN: We don't have to exercise the option, we could just say... CLARK: I know. But, does it buy us any leverage? IMPERIAL: They've got a Walgreen going in across the street. Have you been down to that corner, they've got a sandwich shop going in, they've got the Baskin Robbins Ice Cream.... CLARK: That's down on Garvey... RvIPERIAL: We're talking about clearing that area ...you go through right now, I'm afraid of having my family go down there by the bus stop. That's what I'm saying. We're trying to do something about it. WAGNER: I think Jay's point is that we're trying to rehabilitate that corner on Del Mar and Garvey. I've worked for the City for 20 years and it doesn't look any better now than it did 20 years ago. TAYLOR: Nobody's against the improvement... WAGNER: I understand that Gary, I just think this is a good opportunity, both staff and the City Manager have been working on this for quite a while. It's a good opportunity. CLARK: What I'm asking is does this actually help us with what goes into that block. WALLIN: Yes. Because we have control over the property, our relinquishing control over the property and giving it to Turner Trust gives us some say in what Turner Trust does. Although frankly, our zoning powers are probably greater. TAYLOR: Maggie, as far as giving us a win, win situation, it only comes with the $800,000 price tag. We don't have control over that property until we pay the $800,000. We have an option to buy it. WALLIN: We can assign that to the Turner Trust. TAYLOR: Well, yes, if they want to take it. But, if we don't really control what is going in, the Turner Trust is the one trying to put this project together. CLARK: We're not obligated to $800,000. WALLIN: That is correct. TAYLOR: No, we're not obligated, but then we have no control over it. WALLIN: We just have the option to buy it for.... TAYLOR: This is one of the worst things I've seen happen with redevelopment project areas. We go in and buy the property, the other agencies have done this, and they're embarrassed that they can't sell the project. Then how do they get out of the hole? They sell it at a loss. CCMIN:8-12-03 Page #10 J • CLARK: Right. But, we're not obligating anything. We're merely assisting the move... TAYLOR: I'm not disputing that. The $800,000... to have control of that property... VASQUEZ: Peter, can you fill in Jay about the drugstore, CVS. IMPERIAL: I had a doctors appointment, that's the reason I'm late. You'll have to excuse me but I want to know what's happening. WALLIN: The last time I talked to the representatives of Turner Trust, about a week and a half ago, they indicated that CVS was going to committee this month. They would have an answer then. They were very hopeful that it was going to be approved. We have not heard from them since. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION VERBATIM DIALOGUE ENDS. Councilman Taylor requested clarification from the City Attorney on eminent domain proceedings regarding the C.H. Auto property. Peter Wallin, CDC Attorney replied that the City would have the power to acquire the property under the threat of eminent domain. Mayor Pro Tem Clark clarified that the City has no intention of exercising that option at present. Mr. Wallin explained that from a tax standpoint, property acquired under the threat of eminent domain allows the property owner to defer any gain recognition and to turn that gain over into the next property purchased, in other words, a tax deferred exchange. Councilman Imperial stated that the move by C.H. Auto would benefit that area. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM CLARK that after public testimony, review and any amendments, that the City Council: Approve the City's proposed reallocation of CDBG funds for FY 2003-2004; Authorize this as an amendment to the City's Annual Funding Plan; Approve assistance in the amount of $125,000 in CDBG funds for C.H. Auto; and Authorize the the Mayor to execute the Owner Participation and Option Agreement and authorize the City Manager to take steps to implement the Agreement, including the execution of documents and agreements. Vote resulted: Yes: Alarcon, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CCMIN:8-12.03 Page #I I • M. LEGISLATIVE 0 A. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-29 CLAIMS AND DEMANDS (FY 2002-03) The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $687,411.15 NUMBERED 42464 THROUGH 42530 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM CLARK, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN ALARCON that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2003-29. Vote resulted: Yes: Alarc6n, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial, Taylor No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-31 CLAIMS AND DEMANDS (FY 2003-04) The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $785,843.85 NUMBERED 42323 THROUGH 42456 MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN ALARCON that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2003-31. Vote resulted: Yes: Alarc6n, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial, Taylor No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. C. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-26 - AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF GRANT FUNDING REQUEST UNDER LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT (LLEBG) PROGRAM CCMIN:8-12-03 Page #12 • • The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2003-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF GRANT FUNDING REQUEST UNDER LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2003-26 authorizing application for funding in the amount of $67,895, and approve matching funds of $6790 from unappropriated reserves. Vote resulted: Yes: Alarcon, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial, Taylor No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly and so ordered. D. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-27 -AUTHORIZE AND APPROVE SELF-INSURANCE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION THROUGH CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2003-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD TO AUTHORIZE AND APPROVE SELF-INSURANCE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION FOR ITS EMPLOYEES THROUGH THE SELF-INSURANCE AND LOSS POOL PROGRAM OF CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY D.2. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-28 -PROVIDING WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN CITY VOLUNTEERS The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2003-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD PROVIDING WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE FOR CERTAIN CITY VOLUNTEERS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3363.5 OF THE LABOR CODE CCMIN:8-12-03 Page #13 f C MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN ALARCON that the Council adopt Resolutions No. 2003-27 and 2003-28. Vote resulted: Yes: Alarcon, Clark, Vasquez, Taylor, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. E. RESOLUTION NO. 2003-30 - APPROVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PAYMENT FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PARK ADA AND BALLFIELD LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2003-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PAYMENT FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PARK ADA (AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT) AND BALLFIELD LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS MOTION BY COUNCILMAN IMPERIAL, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2003-28. Vote resulted: Yes: Alarcon, Clark, Vasquez, Taylor, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-A AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY FROM JULIO RODRIGUEZ CC-B AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY FROM NICK D. VAZQUEZ CC-C AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AND THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO PROVIDE A GANG ALTERNATIVE PREVENTION PROGRAM (GAPP) CCMIN:8-12-03 Page #14 0 CC-D APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR A PARK ADA (AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT) AND BALLFIELD LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS CC-E APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK BIDS FOR PARK ADA (AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT) AND BALLFIELD LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM CLARK, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN ALARCON that the Council approve the aforementioned items on the Consent Calendar. Vote resulted: Yes: Alarcon, Clark, Vasquez, Taylor, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. V. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION - None VI. STATUS REPORTS - None VII. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS Councilman Taylor requested a copy of the State Budget and the wages and salaries. VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Robert Bruesch, 7500 Wilmar Place, Rosemead, stated that he just discovered that the school districts are being charged $400 to place their articles in the Chamber Newsletter. Councilman Imperial confirmed that the school districts have to pay for their articles as does the City. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 26, 2003, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: City Clerk CCMIN:8-12-03 Page # 15 APPROVED: "co YM YOR 'arT'-