July 23, Dear Supervisors:

Transcription

1 July 23, 2002 Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California Dear Supervisors: ADOPT A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT ADOPTED PROCEDURES WERE FOLLOWED IN THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE ELECTION FOR THE WEST ALTADENA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND CERTIFYING AND APPROVING THE ELECTION RESULTS (5) (3 Vote) IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR BOARD: Adopt and instruct the Chairman to sign the attached Resolution finding that adopted procedures were followed in the election of the Project Area Committee for the West Altadena Community Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area Committee), conducted on June 24, 2002, and certifying and approving the results of the election. PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION: On June 24, 2002, an election was held to elect representatives to serve on the Project Area Committee. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code, Section 33385(d)(2), the Board of Supervisors must adopt a finding that the election procedures approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 22, 2000, were followed in the June 24, 2002, election. FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING: There is no fiscal impact.

2 Honorable Board of Supervisors July 23, 2002 Page 2 FACTS AND PROVISIONS/LEGAL REQUIREMENTS: On February 22, 2000, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, after a duly noticed public hearing, adopted Procedures for Formation of the Project Area Committee and Procedures for Election of Members for the West Altadena Community Redevelopment Project Area (collectively called the Project Area Committee Procedures). On June 24, 2002, an election for the Project Area Committee was held and votes were cast in each voting category to elect representatives. Exhibit A to the attached Resolution indicates the names of the persons and organizations elected by their representative groups. The candidates meet all eligibility requirements to serve on the Project Area Committee, as set forth in the adopted procedures. The Community Development Commission publicized the opportunity to serve on the Project Area Committee by providing written notice via first class mail to all residents, businesses and community organizations within the Project Area at least 30 days prior to the election. The Commission also provided published notice of all meetings conducted by or on behalf of the Commission and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles relative to the election of the Project Area Committee in the manner specified in subdivision [a] of Section of the Government Code. Four challenges to the election results were filed within 15 days of June 24, The Commission, in consultation with County Counsel, has determined that these challenges are without merit and that the election results are valid. A Summary of Challenges and Responses to the West Altadena Project Area Committee Election is provided as Exhibit B to the attached Resolution. The attached Resolution finds that the challenges to the Project Area Committee election are without merit, and certifies and approves the election results. County Counsel has approved the Resolution as to form. IMPACT ON CURRENT PROJECTS: Finding that the Project Area Committee Procedures were followed in the June 24, 2002, election will allow for the Project Area Committee to continue to provide advice to the Commission on redevelopment matters in West Altadena.

3 Honorable Board of Supervisors July 23, 2002 Page 3 Respectfully submitted, CARLOS JACKSON Executive Director

4 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FINDING THAT ADOPTED PROCEDURES WERE FOLLOWED FOR THE JUNE 24, 2002, ELECTION OF THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE FOR THE WEST ALTADENA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND CERTIFYING AND APPROVING THE ELECTION RESULTS WHEREAS, on February 22, 2000, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles, after a duly noticed public hearing, did adopt Procedures for Formation of the Project Area Committee and Procedures for Election of Members thereof for the West Altadena Community Redevelopment Project Area (collectively called Project Area Committee Procedures ); and WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission of the County of Los Angeles (Commission) did publicize the opportunity to serve on the West Altadena Project Area Committee (Project Area Committee) by providing written notice via first class mail to all residents, businesses and community organizations within the West Altadena Community Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area) at least 30 days prior to the election of the Project Area Committee; and WHEREAS, the Commission did provide published notice of all meetings conducted by or on behalf of the Commission and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles relative to the election of the Project Area Committee in the manner specified in subdivision [a] of Section of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the election for the Project Area Committee was held on June 24, 2002, and votes were cast in each voting category to elect representatives to serve on the Project Area Committee; and WHEREAS, the candidates shown in the attached Exhibit A were elected by their representative groups to serve on the Project Area Committee; and WHEREAS, the candidates elected in each representative category meet all eligibility requirements to serve on the Project Area Committee as set forth in the Project Area Committee Procedures; and WHEREAS, four challenges were filed within 15 days of June 24, 2002, opposing the election results; and WHEREAS, the challenges to the election have been found to be invalid, as summarized in the attached Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the Commission has met all legal notice requirements for the June 24, 2002, election and all associated meetings.

5 NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct. 2. The Board of Supervisors finds that the adopted procedures, as set forth in the Project Area Committee Procedures, were followed in the election of the Project Area Committee for the West Altadena Community Redevelopment Project Area, conducted on June 24, The Board of Supervisors hereby finds that all challenges to the Project Area Committee election that were received within 15 days of June 24, 2002, are invalid. 4. The Board of Supervisors hereby certifies and approves the results of the Project Area Committee election of June 24, 2002, for the West Altadena Community Redevelopment Project Area, as contained in Exhibit A. The foregoing Resolution was on this day of July, 2002, adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles and ex officio the governing body of all other special assessment and taxing districts, agencies and authorities for which said Board so acts. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES By Chairman, Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM: LLOYD W. PELLMAN County Counsel ATTEST: Violet Varona-Lukens, Executive Officer- Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles By Deputy By Deputy

6 EXHIBIT A WEST ALTADENA PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE ELECTION WINNERS JUNE 24, 2002 Residential Owner 1. Clayton Reed 2. Peggy L. J. Taylor 3. James V. Di Sano 4. Monroe Huel Residential Tenant 1. Felicia Lee 2. Tony Graham 3. Bernardean Broadous 4. Elizabeth Savage Business Owner 1. Grant Follis 2. Randall Jones 3. Adolfo Miralles Community Organization 1. Windsor Arroyo Neighborhood Association (WANA)- Sherry Martin 2. Altadena Town Council Bobby Thompson

7 EXHIBIT B July 23, 2002 SUMMARY OF CHALLENGES AND RESPONSES TO THE WEST ALTADENA PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE ELECTION ON JUNE 24, 2002 On June 24, 2002, the Community Development Commission conducted an election for the Project Area Committee (PAC) in the West Altadena Community Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area). Four separate challenges to the election results were received by the Executive Office of the Board of Supervisors within 15 days of the election, the statutory period allowed for PAC election challenges. One challenge was filed by Ms. Judy Wheeler, one by Ms. Elizabeth Francis, and two by Reverend C.R. Tillman. The following information addresses each challenge and provides responses to support the accompanying Board letter and Resolution which recommend that all challenges to the June 24, 2002, election be found to be invalid. I. Challenge Document Filed by Judy Wheeler (Attachment A): Challenge: Ms. Wheeler states that the election of Mr. Grant Follis to the PAC is a violation of California Government Code, Section 1090, because Mr. Follis has a pending development proposal within the Project Area. Response: County Counsel has determined that this challenge is without merit, because the California Attorney General has opined that participating in a pending development within the Project Area does not preclude an interested Project Area Committee member from serving. County Counsel s opinion on this matter is included as Attachment E. II. Challenge Document Filed by Elizabeth Francis (Attachment B): Challenge: Ms. Francis challenge has the same basis as Ms. Wheeler s challenge, which is that Mr. Follis should be excluded from participating on the PAC because of his development proposal for the Project Area. Response: The concerns raised in this challenge are addressed above, and in Attachment E.

8 III. Challenge Document Filed by Rev. Tillman on July 8, 2002 (Attachment C) Rev. Tillman filed challenge documents on July 8, 2002 and July 9, The following information responds to the first challenge document. His challenges are restated verbatim where possible. Challenge: Rev. Tillman filed a copy of Ms. Wheeler s challenge, removed Ms. Wheeler s name, and substituted his own. This challenge is based on an alleged violation of Section 1090 of the California Government Code. Response: County Counsel s response dismissing this challenge is included as Attachment E. Challenge: Violation of Brown Act see exhibit A posted agenda giving the time for voters and candidates to appear to become eligible. Posted time was 7:00 PM actual time was 6:30 PM. Any candidate not arriving by 6:45 PM was taken off the ballot and slandered before the voting poll! Response: Rev. Tillman refers to the agenda for the West Altadena PAC meeting which states that candidate confirmations would occur between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. The agenda also states that All times are subject to change. All notices published indicated that the election would start at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the regularly scheduled PAC meeting for that date. All candidates, including Rev. Tillman, were personally advised by telephone to arrive at 6:00 p.m., and no later than 6:30 p.m., or risk having his organization s name removed from the ballot. A series of letters, collectively referred to as Attachment F, confirms that all candidates were personally notified. Rev. Tillman arrived approximately forty-five minutes late to the election, although he was aware that arriving on time was necessary in order to keep his organization s name from being removed from the ballot. Rev. Tillman was the only candidate who was late to the meeting. Furthermore, Rev. Tillman missed the entire regularly scheduled PAC meeting that occurred just prior to the election, which as a PAC member, he was also required to attend. Because no representative from Rev. Tillman s organization, the People s Church, was present at the meeting, the People s Church was removed from the ballot. Voting had been in progress for approximately 10 minutes prior to Rev. Tillman s arrival, but was halted in order to accommodate him, despite the fact that he was late and that his paperwork was not completed. Specifically, Rev. Tillman needed to prepare documents

9 providing evidence of the People s Church s operation in the Project Area, and provide a letter designating him as the representative of the People s Church. Rev. Tillman was able to complete this paperwork to verify his candidacy after 7:00 p.m. Once his paperwork was completed, the People s Church was allowed back on the ballot and voting resumed. Those who had voted prior to the People s Church s name being returned to the ballot were permitted to cast advisory votes if they wished to change their vote. None chose to cast advisory votes for the People s Church. Neither Rev. Tillman nor the People s Church was slandered before the voting poll. Challenge: A police officer in uniform for the second time in a poll was allowed to be at the polling location without proper need or authority. Response: An officer of the Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department attends every meeting of the PAC. Rev. Tillman provided no evidence that the officer s presence was improper or had any affect on the election. Challenge: Two residential potential tenants [sic] were not allowed to be candidates because CDC staff deliberately misread the rules (i.e. they were not lawful tenants because residents were being evicted they had not received eviction papers from the Court). Response: The two residential subtenants in question are illegally occupying a Commission-owned property in the Project Area. The only paperwork received from the subtenants were incomplete candidate registration forms. The subtenants never attempted to provide the necessary documentation to be candidates for the PAC, nor were they present at the election, nor have they filed a challenge to the results of the election. Challenge: A Business Owner was told he did not qualify to run for same reason stated above (i.e. was not lawfully conducting liquor business in PAC area because he was being evicted from property). Response: The liquor store owner did not attempt to register as a candidate for the PAC. In addition, he was informed by mail on May 7, 2002, that he was in illegal possession of Commission-owned property (Attachment G). This individual did not file a challenge to the election.

10 Challenge: The Chair [of the PAC] Ms. Broadous, Esq., was not placed into the correct category on information and belief that she is not a residential tenant but an owner via living trust document. Response: A search of the County Assessor s database indicates that Ms. Broadous is not the owner of her residence in the Project Area and therefore qualifies as a residential tenant. Challenge: CDC failed to give notice to all potential voters and candidates. Response: The Commission met or exceeded the legal requirements for public notice. Ads were placed in local papers, notices were sent to every address in the Project Area, and notices were publicly posted in accordance with the Project Area Committee Procedures adopted by the Board and Community Redevelopment Law. Challenge: Corporations can t be elected officials Response: The corporation in question is not specified in this challenge. Under California Redevelopment Law and the Project Area Committee Procedures adopted by the Board, non-profit community organizations may serve on the PAC regardless of their corporate status. IV. Challenge Document filed by Rev. Tillman on July 9, 2002 (Attachment D) The following information responds to the second challenge by Rev. Tillman. This challenge from Rev. Tillman is apparently his alone, despite use of the word we in the text, and the inclusion of a signature page with the blank signature blocks for the other PAC members. The narrative of the letter largely repeats the previous challenges. New issues raised in the letter are addressed below. Challenge: The letter alleges that the Altadena Town Council is a quasi-legislative body that receives taxpayer funds and, therefore, should not be allowed to serve on the PAC as a community organization. Response: A 1997 letter from County Counsel examining whether the Brown Act applied to the Altadena Town Council concluded that it is not a legislative body or government entity.

11 A copy of this letter is included as Attachment H. Receipt of taxpayer funds does not disqualify an organization from serving on the PAC. Challenge: Elected community organizations should reside inside the project area. Response: Consistent with the Board approved PAC Procedures, community organizations need not have their principal offices within the Project Area in order to be eligible to run in the community organization category. Challenge: Lastly, the P.A.C. by-laws as amended require the entire membership to vote for the elected candidate three organizations failed to do so. Response: The PAC election is governed by California Community Redevelopment Law and the PAC Procedures adopted by the Board, not by the bylaws of the PAC. ATTACHMENTS: A. Challenge from Ms. Wheeler B. Challenge from Ms. Francis C. Challenge from Rev. Tillman, July 8, 2002 D. Challenge from Rev. Tillman, July 9, 2002 E. County Counsel Opinion regarding eligibility of Grant Follis to serve on the PAC F. Letters from PAC candidates confirming they received notice as to the time of the election G. Letter from Commission to Mr. Kamboj informing him that he is in illegal possession of Commission owned property H County Counsel opinion on applicability of the Brown Act/Legal Status to the Altadena Town Council

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40