Loading...
CC - 01-08-02MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 08, 2002 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Imperial 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 Mayor Imperial The Invocation was delivered by Reverend Jonathan Wu of Evergreen Baptist Church ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Councilmembers Clark, Taylor,Vasquez, Mayor Pro Tern Bruesch, and Mayor Imperial Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: - NOVEMBER 27. 2001 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 27, 2001, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DECEMBER 11, 2001 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 11, 2001, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. CCnnN:01-08-02 Page N I C PRESENTATIONS: None 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None H. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None III. LEGISLATIVE A. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-01 - CLAIMS AND DEMANDS The following Resolution was presented to the Council for adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $569,393.30 NUMBERED 36211 THROUGH 36420 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2002-01. Before vote could result, more discussion ensued. Councilman Taylor requested a memorandum or update on the Credit Card Recap for the City Business Meeting held on November 20, 2001 that was attended by Mayor Imperial, staff and three members of the Garvey School Board. Mr. Taylor stated that he does not have a problem with the meeting itself, but would like to know what the outcome was. Frank Tripepi, City Manager, replied that the meeting with the Garvey School Board consisted of discussions about parking control, crossing guards; safe routes to school and, the chainlink fencing over the pedestrian bridge. Councilman Taylor stated that he is not questioning anyone attending the meeting, but would like written documentation to back up what transpires at those meetings. Mr. Taylor stated the Council should be aware of what is on the School Board's mind. Councilman Taylor requested a breakdown of total costs from the National League of Cities Conference in the amount of $6,798.02. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Imperial, Clark, Vasquez No: None Abstain: Taylor Abstain: None CCMIN:01-08-02 Page #2 The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor stated that he abstained pending further information on the two items he discussed. B. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-02 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SAN GABRIEL AND LOS ANGELES RIVER WATERSHED AND OPEN SPACE PLAN The following resolution was presented to the Council: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING THE SAN GABRIEL AND LOS ANGELES RIVERS WATERSHED AND OPEN SPACE PLAN MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK that the Council adopt Resolution No. 2002-02. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, Vasquez No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. C. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-03 - AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A PETITION TO THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD CONTESTING ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD IN CONNECTION WITH THE STORM WATERIURBAN RUNOFF PERMIT FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES The following resolution was presented to the Council for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A PETITION TO THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD CONTESTING ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, LOS ANGELES REGION, IN CONNECTION WITH THE STORM WATER/URBAN RUNOFF PERMIT FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE INCORPORATED CITIES THEREIN (NPDES NO. CA2004001) CCMIN:01-08-02 Page #3 • TRIPEPI: We have been and we still will have to file all the documents and comply with all the redevelopment laws as they exist. TAYLOR: Any reason why we cannot continue as a Redevelopment Agency if we're doing the same thing? TRIPEPI: It's up to the Council. If the Council wants to continue as a Redevelopment Agency they can do so. If they want to form the Community Development Commission of Rosemead, they may do so. Again, in this immediate area there is probably 16 to 18 cities that have elected to form a separate Commission and do it the other way. TAYLOR: 18 cities out of how many or what? TRIPEPI: 16. MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH: 59 TRIPEPI: I don't know how many have Redevelopment Agencies. But, I'm just talking about in the general area, Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino Counties, Mr. Mayor. BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. What has happened with the changes in the Redevelopment law and basically, what they're doing is putting a lot of restrictions on what individual cities can do in redevelopment. Mainly because they look at business and housing development and all the other issues that are involved as regional or subregional type of a problem instead of an individual city problem. Time and again, there's special legislation being passed in Sacramento where a city has to go to Sacramento to get a law passed so they can share redevelopment proceeds, or share tax proceeds, or share housing opportunities. What has happened is that the old concept of redevelopment as being a city prerogative almost operating in a vacuum is becoming more and more difficult to continue. It has become a kind of collegial approach to a lot of these issues. Over the last six, seven years, more and more cities have viewed the old concept of redevelopment as combining lots and bringing in businesses in the broader perspective that of joining together with neighbors surrounding them and really coming up with a concept that we're bringing business in, not only to the city, but to the region. That's why a lot of cities are going to this sort of Commission with the idea that it provides a little bit more outward looking than inward looking. We're still looking for the best for our constituents, but after years and years, for instance, of trying to get a market in the northern part of our City and we've all fought that battle over the last 25-years. We still don't have a new market. We realize that we need to have little bit broader concept of what we're doing in terms of bringing businesses and jobs to our community. And, this is the purpose for this. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'd like an opinion from the City Attorneys, what other legal ability we have with the Community Development Commission that we do not have with the Redevelopment Agency? And, are we not governed by the exact same codes? CCMIN:0I-08-02 Page #5 • 0 WALLIN: Yes. You're governed by the same codes. The Housing Authority... if you were to form a Housing Authority, the Housing Authority would also come under the power of the Commission, so it has broader powers if you have a Housing Authority. TAYLOR: You say if we had... don't we have the Housing Authority... TRIPEPI: No Sir. We have a Housing Corporation. TAYLOR: Housing Corporation. What's the difference between the two? WALLIN: The Housing Corporation is not a Housing Authority. The Housing Authority law is contained in State law and says you can form a Housing Authority and have public housing. We do not have a Housing Authority in the City of Rosemead. The L.A. County Housing Authority operates some housing programs in the City, but the City itself does not have a Housing Authority. Our Housing Development Corporation, in many ways, serves the same functions, but is not a Housing Authority under State law. It's merely a Corporation. TAYLOR: So basically we have a Redevelopment Agency that has the same authority as the Community Development Commission, governed by the same codes and regulations. WALLIN: That's correct. TAYLOR: So, the only difference that I can see on this particular thing is that we now go from $30 a meeting or $60 for two meetings per month that we have as a Redevelopment Agency and by changing the name, we now go to $1200 a month, or $14,400 a year additional per Councilmember. WALLIN: Under the Redevelopment law, the Legislature in 1958, I believe, enacted the salary for Redevelopment Agency members at $30. It has not been changed since then. It's been in existence for almost 50 years. The Community Development Commission, the salary or the compensation for Community Development Commissioners is established by the City Council and can be whatever the City Council deems. TAYLOR: In all fairness to the Council, I thought all these years that we've participated as a Redevelopment Agency and we've done the best we can for the community whether they're for something or against something. I think we've operated according to all the State laws and differences in policies or votes is not the issue. But in all fairness to the residents of Rosemead, we're telling them that now we're going from $700 a year for the Redevelopment Agency, and now we're going to say to the residents that they're now going to pay us $14,400 a year or roughly an accumulation of $75,000 additional salary for the five Councilmembers. After all these years, every one of us have been here and I in all fairness, cannot and will not vote for that. I'm not...I think the Council and Agencymember have done their best and have done it for the community. But, I cannot vote for this. IMPERIAL: We have a Motion and a Second. Vote please. CCMIN:0I-08-02 Page a6 0 Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Imperial, Clark, Vasquez No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None C: The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. I'd like my comments in the minutes. ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: You want it to reflect that you're voting against the measure but you don't want it read in full. TAYLOR: I want my comments in the minutes. KRESS: But you don't want the Ordinance to be read in full. TAYLOR: No. You're correct Mr. Kress. VERBATIM DIALOGUE ENDS. ORDINANCE NO. 822 - AMENDING PART 6 OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROTECT AREAS NUMBER I BY ELIMINATING THE RESTRICTION ON THE ABILITY OF THE AGENCY TO INCUR DEBT IN PROJECT AREA NO. I - INTRODUCE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER VASQUEZ, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH that the Council waive further reading and introduce Ordinance No. 822. Before vote could occur- more discussion ensued. VERBATIM DIALOGUE STARTS: COUNCILMAN TAYLOR: This law that they're referring to and the pre-1993 legislation that was enacted... one of the things that we run into with the term limits, there were State Legislators, the Senate and Assembly that were well aware of the problems that were created with the Redevelopment Agencies and how the funding took place for a lot of the project areas. Almost all of those Assemblymembers and Senate members have been replaced by people who have no knowledge of that background that went into these laws or why they were put into place. The way it goes now that... it's the best county in the world that we live in, but it's becoming such a bureaucratic condition that those that were involved with the struggles that went on to get those laws, they're no longer in the Legislature. I couldn't say if there is even one... with the six year terms that are put on for the Assembly, and the eight or so years for two terms for the Senate. Because of all the abuses that went on prior to 1993, I can't vote for this one because it's taking away the purpose of the law which was to make the cities and agencies say put your plan CCMIN:01-09-02 i Page n7 0 0 out for five years and whatever it takes to get your loans, the debt, whatever it takes, but now by wiping out the time limit, it's just wide open again. I have to vote no on this one. MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH: Mr. Mayor. As the Ordinance clearly states, the law that was passed maintains two of the time limits. The only time limit that is changed is adding a few years to the ability of the Agency to incur debt. The other two time limits about getting the program started, the Redevelopment program started and giving the time limit on how long they have to finish that, is still intact. In other words, you cannot keep a Redevelopment Agency going to 150 years. It's still that 20-year time limit. The only thing that has changed is to add a few years to incur debt. The reason why that was added was because they realize that, again, Redevelopment is becoming more of a long-term regional approach. To try to incur all your debts within the first 5 or 6 years of your program was just too much a quick time frame for these programs to fully utilize the powers given to them. That's the only reason that we're changing. It's a minor change in the law that was passed. Limiting the length that the Redevelopment Agencies can exist has not changed. MAYOR IMPERIAL: Call for the question. ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: Once again, the minutes on this item reflect that Mr. Taylor is voting against the measure, but doesn't want it read in full. TAYLOR: That's correct. I've stated my objections against it. VERBATIM DIALOGUE ENDS. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Imperial, Clark, Vasquez No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. At this time, Mayor Imperial introduced Dan Scott, Assistant Fire Chief, Lt. Wayne Wallace, and Henry Lo from Senator Gloria Romero's office. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-A' REQUEST FROM MEXICAN AMERICAN STUDENT ORGANIZATION CC-B AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY FROM JOSE A. CORADO CCMIN:01-08-02 Page n8 0 0 CC-C AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE - APRIL 13-14,2002, CHICAGO CC-D AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CITY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENT MEETING, FEBRUARY 13-15,2002, CORONADO CC-E AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND THE LEAGUE OF CITIES EMPLOYEE , RELATIONS INSTITUTE, JANUARY 24-25,2002, NEWPORT BEACH CC-F APPROVAL OF CONCESSION STAND LICENSE AGREEMENT - ROSEMEAD YOUTH ASSOCIATION MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN VASQUEZ that the Council approve the aforementioned items on the Consent Calendar. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Taylor, Imperial, Clark, Vasquez 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 VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE -None IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. The next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 22, 2002, at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: City Clerk APPROVED: AA CCMIN:0I-08-02 Page s9