Loading...
CC - 07-28-09Minutes of the REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 28, 2009 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ly INVOCATION: Mayor Clark PRESENT: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tern Taylor, Council Member Armenta, Council Member Low, and Council Member Ly. OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Manager Allred, Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth, City Attorney Montes, Community Development Director Saeki, Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott, Economic Development Administrator Ramirez, Deputy Public Works Director Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda. 1. PRESENTATION • National Night Out Proclamation Mayor Clark presented a proclamation to Chief of Police Murakami and stated she wanted to give a special thanks to the Sheriff's Department for providing the services they do to the City. Public Safety Coordinator Mandy Wong addressed Council and stated that there had been a drop of 50% in burglaries from June 2008 to June 2009. Ms. Wong also thanked everyone who was involved in the Neighborhood Watch and stated that the Block Captains would be recognized in the upcoming National Night Out ceremony. Ms. Wong also invited everyone to attend the National Night Out and 50th City Anniversary ceremony that was scheduled for August 4m from 6 p.m, to 9 p.m. Mayor Clark presented a proclamation to the Area Civil Defense Management for their 50th year Anniversary of providing public service. Brenda Hunemiller was present to receive the proclamation; Ms. Hunemiller thanked Council and city staff. She stated that the Area Civil Defense Management had been serving the City for officially 50 years but that the organization was created in the first weeks of War War II. She stated it has been such a privilege to work with all the cities and congratulated the City of Rosemead for its tremendous efforts to prepare the city, city staff, and the community at large to prepare in the event of catastrophe. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THE AUDIENCE Yolanda McKnight - representative of the American Cancer Society stated that on behalf of the organizations she wanted to thank the Mayor, Council and staff for participating in the Relay for Life event. She stated she has participated with several communities and that this was the first time that the Mayor and Council Members walked during the event. Ms. McKnight added that the city had raised $3,000 and thanked Mandy Wong, Sean Sullivan, and Aileen Flores for putting the event together. Rosemead City Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009 Page 1 of 15 Mayor Clark thanked Ms. McKnight for doing all she does in this organization. Fred Mascorro - stated that the city made it a great event; he added that last year the Rosemead community raised $6,000 and this year the city had raised $25,000. He thanked John Scott for having his daughter play the harp during the ceremony and thanked Mandy, Aileen, and Sean for all their help. Nancy Wilson - stated she wanted to informed Council regarding the Dial-A-Ride service or lack of service; she stated that when the services were changed there were a lot of promises made but they had not been met. Mrs. Wilson informed Council about a recent incident that occurred with the transportation services; her husband, who is 83 years old, called for service and was,left in the 95 degree heat for an hour and was never picked up. When Mrs. Wilson called Dial-A-Ride they informed her that her street was closed; however, Mrs.. Wilson stated it was not closed and that this was not the only occasion this had happened. Mayor Clark asked staff to look into this situation. Lillian Sacco - asked why the driver of the transportation services can't go and knock on the doors when there is a severely disabled person, raining, or it's too hot out; she hoped Council could do something about that. Mrs. Sacco stated she was there tonight to give Council an update on the request submitted to the Los Angeles Grand Jury on July 16th regarding the City of Rosemead's failure to provide adequate oversight of the building and operation of the Wal-Mart supercenter. Earlier in the year I reported in a Council meeting but the request had been filed too late for the 2008-2009 Grand Jury session but we were encouraged by the Chairperson to resubmit the report in July. Mrs. Sacco stated she had done so with revisions and had copies for the three Council Members who requested copies for their review. Gilbert Urbina - stated he was before Council to ask for some assistance; he stated he ran a baseball program named the "Monterey Angels" and that most of his participants were Rosemead residents. He stated that years ago he used the Garvey Park for his program but had left due to the politics with the baseball team; however, he asked Council to permit him to use Garvey Park again and the snack bar. Mayor Clark asked that Mr. Mirvina meet with the Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott and try and figure out a solution. Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott stated that this Council showed interest in the creation of an Ad Hoc Youth Committee for two reasons; one to ensure that the local youth was being represented and two for aide in the development of youth programs. Mr. Montgomery-Scott stated that Council had recently appointed 6 members to the committee and that there was still one vacancy for representation of Muscatel. Mr. Montgomery-Scott introduced the committee: Cynthia Amezcua, Rosemead High School Samantha Hallman, Garvey School David Chen, Temple Intermediate School Roxanne Tuang, San Gabriel High School Jonathan Loc, At-Large Member Bonnie Pao, At-Large Member Rosemead City Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009 Page 2 of 15 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes May 12, 2009 - Regular Meeting May 26, 2009 - Regular Meeting June 30, 2009 - Special Meeting B. Claims and Demands Resolution No. 2009 - 39 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2009-39, for payment of City expenditures in the amount of $899,974.55 numbered 66753 through 66830. Resolution No. 2009.40 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2009-40, for payment of City expenditures in the amount of $448,005.01 numbered 100435 through 100458 and 66831 through 66884. D. Approval of Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Proposals for Janitorial Services for City-Owned Buildings, Facilities and Parks The City of Rosemead currently uses outside contractual services to perform regular janitorial services at its facilities, buildings and parks. Services performed by contract include regular janitorial and maintenance services, carpet cleaning, dust removal, restroom cleaning and solid waste collection within City facilities. Currently, the City contracts with United Maintenance Systems company on a month-to-month basis. If approved, this proposal would enable the City to enter into a fixed cost maintenance contract for a period of three (3) years with and option to extend the contract for two years (2) additional years. Recommendation: That the City Council approve the specifications for janitorial and maintenance services and authorize staff to solicit proposals from the list of qualified janitorial maintenance firms. E. Memorandum of Agreement for the Administration and Cost Sharing of the Coordinated Implementation Plan for the Los Angeles River and Tributary Metals Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) The Los Angeles River (LAR) and Tributaries Metals Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), adopted by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, requires that watershed cities and agencies (regulated entities) fund a coordinated implementation program. This report outlines the requirement for these efforts, their foreseeable costs, the proposed implementation through a cost sharing agreement, and fiscal management through the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG). Rosemead City Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009 Page 3 of 15 Recommendation: That the City Council approve the implementation administration and cost sharing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the SGVCOG and authorize the City Manager to execute the MOA. Council Member Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exception of the June 23, 2009 and April 28, 2009 minutes and Items C and F. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None The minutes of April 28, 2009, were deferred to the following City Council Meeting. A. Minutes June 23, 2009 - Special Meeting Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Council Member Steven Ly, to approve the minutes of June 23, 2009 with the clarification that Council Member Low was not present during the Traffic Commission selection but had been present during closed session. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None C. Ordinance 876 - Second Reading: Municipal Code Amendment 09.01 Amending Density Requirements in the R-1 Zone and Conditional Use Permit Requirements in the R-1 and R-2 Zones On July 14, 2009, the City Council reviewed the proposed Municipal Code Amendment 09- 01, amending Density Requirements in the R-1 Zone and Conditional Use Permit requirements in the R-1 and R-2 zones at the first required public hearing, which resulted in a motion for approval. Ordinance No. 876 is now before Council at the required second reading for adoption. , Recommendation: That the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 876 at its second reading, thereby APPROVING Municipal Code Amendment 09-01. Rosemead City Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009 Page 4 of 15 A' Council Member Low stated that this had been brought to her attention during "Chat with Council"; she stated that a resident was remodeling his house and he was planning to build to 2700 square feet; however, the way this ordinance is written it will require him to have a CUP and to pay an additional fee. Mrs. Low stated she wanted to request from Council that the ordinance be approved without Section 6 and have staff bring back more information. Mayor Clark stated she felt that the city needed to keep the threshold at 2500 square feet for a home and asked that staff work on a schedule fee where if it's a homeowner just expanding his home, perhaps the fees can be waived. Mrs. Clark stated she wanted to keep the ordinance as is with the threshold being 2500 square feet. She added that the previous Council had amended the ordinance so that if a house was 3000 square feet or greater then it had to come to the Planning Commission for review and that for years it had been 2500 square feet. Mrs. Clark stated that the reason why she wanted to put it back to 2500 square feet was because they were large homes and that she had received lots of complaints regarding mansionization and she felt the Planning Commission should review those projects to ensure the proper guidelines were being followed. Mrs. Clark made a motion that the ordinance be approved as is with the option that Council will be looking at changing the schedule. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated he seconded the motion and include that staff could bring back anything at anytime for Council' review and added that there had to be consistence so that Council would not be accused of playing favoritism with any individual properties. : City Manager Allred stated that staff would be bringing to Council in the next few meetings a Master Fee Resolution for their review. Council Member Low stated she understood the intent of preventing mansionization but that had already been addressed by reducing the floor area ratio. Mrs. Low felt that by moving the threshold to 2500 square feet the process for residents and staff to get the projects approved would be longer. She added she was asking that this be brought back with information on what the impact if this goes back to 3000 versus 2500. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated staff provided a report to Council giving them a list of homes that were over 2500 and the average was 2700 square feet. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that was correct; staff had looked at the building records that had been issued for new home construction from present date back to May 2008 and out of the 36 new issued permits the average square feet of homes was 2575 square feet: Council Member Armenta stated she agreed with changing it back to 2500 square feet because even the report stated a concern that large homes are impacting residential neighborhoods and that is very important to take into account. Council Member Ly asked if this was changed back to 2500 square feet would it make any homes legal non- conforming. Rosemead City Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009 Page 5 of 15 Mrs. Bermejo replied that any home with a current permit that is over 2500 square feet threshold, if they wanted to make any type of addition to their home they would have to come to the Planning Commission for approval but they would not be considered legal non-conforming. Interim City Attorney Montes stated that any expansion of the use would require the CUP. If it was an interior remodel thatjust required a footprint then that would not require a CUP; however, if they were going to expand the use then they would need to comply with the CUP. Council Member Low asked what the process was to go through a CUP. Mrs. Bermejo stated that the applicant filled out an application and submitted it with 15 sets of their plans along with their color rendering, staff then sent out the application for review and comments, staff checked the plans against the municipal code to ensure they complied and then staff would schedule a public hearing. She added that the average time to process a CUP was about 3 months and the application fee is $925. Mayor Clark asked what the process was without the CUP. Mrs. Bermejo replied that the applicant submits an application and goes through the city's general site review process. The applicant submits two sets of their proposed plans and the application fee of $225; the turn around time is approximately two weeks. Council Member Low stated that then the difference was that with the CUP the applicant had to wait three months rather than two weeks. Mrs. Bermejo responded that the CUP process did require additional time for review Council Member Ly asked if an applicant came in and the 2500 square feet issue did not apply did they have to go through the Planning Commission. Mrs. Bermejo stated it no and that would be taken care of over the counter. Council Member Low stated that the existing city's FAR limit of 35%, which meant that the owner can only build one third of his lot size, addressed the mansionazafion and prevented the impact on the neighbors. Council Member Ly stated if it was okay he would like to make a slight amendment to the motion and ask that staff look into CUP process and bring back more information. He stated that in talking to staff earlier he had learnt that Rosemead is the only city that does a CUP on a residential area. Mayor Margaret Clark made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Gary Taylor, to adopt Ordinance No. 876 at its second reading, thereby approving Municipal Code Amendment 09.01. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Ly, Taylor No: Low Rosemead City Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009 Page 6 of 15 Abstain: None Absent: None Council Member Low stated that she fully supported. most of the ordinance; however didn't agree with limiting the threshold to 2500 and having the resident go through additional process when it is unnecessary. Council Member Ly stated that his concern with the whole process is the concept of the CUP for the residential area and added that when they are talking about property rights Council finds a good balance on what is good for the community and what the rights are of the individual to build on his own land. Interim Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) Plan Government Code 8607, the Emergency Services Act, requires each local agency, in order to be eligible for any reimbursement of response-related costs, to adopt and use the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) plan when responding to major emergencies that involve multi-agencies. In addition, a Homeland Security Presidential Directive has ordered the creation of the National Incident Management System (NIMS), which requires cities to adopt NIMS into their SEMS plans. In 2006, City Council adopted a resolution stating the City would implement NIMS into its SEMS plan. As Disaster Management Area D is still currently developing the SEMS plan to incorporate NIMS, the City has developed an interim plan to ensure that the requirements of the Emergency Services Act are met. As recommended by the City's Area D Coordinator, The Council will consider adoption of the interim SEMS plan to ensure that the City can meet the minimal requirements to be eligible for emergency response-related reimbursements. Recommendation: That the City Council approve and adopt the interim SEMS plan. Council Member Ly stated that overall the plan was a good one but had a few concerns. He stated that the plan listed some positions that no longer existed and it also included an old organization plan. He asked if staff would be updating it consistently. Public Information Manager Flores stated that was correct and that it was also one of the State's requirements. Council Member Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to approve and adopt the interim SEMS plan. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Rosemead City Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009 Page 7 of 15 4. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Park Monterey - Closure Impact Report Big Island Property, LLC (Hawaii Property, Inc.), the owner of the Park Monterey mobile home park located at 7433 Garvey Avenue, submitted a Closure Impact Report (the "Report") to the City of Rosemead on July 21, 2008 to change the use of mobile home spaces (1 A, 2A, and 3A) into a parking lot for a future mixed-use development. The Report was presented to the City Council for consideration at its June 23, 2009 meeting. At that time, the City Council directed staff to arrange for an independent appraiser to provide a valuation of Units 1A and 3A (2A is currently owned by the park owner). Once the appraisals were completed, staff was also directed to coordinate a meeting between all affected parties to discuss the results of the appraisals. This information was to be presented to the City Council at its July 14, 2009 meeting. However, at the request of the attorney representing Park Monterey and the attorney representing Spaces 1A and 3A this item was continued to the City Council's July 28, 2009 meeting to allow each party the time needed to review all the appraisals and to negotiate an acceptable agreement between all parties. The negotiations took place without the City's involvement and information will presented to the City Council verbally by the attorney representing Park Monterey on July 28th Regardless of this information, it remains imperative that the City Council review the Report and either accept it as complete or add additional mitigation measures pursuant to California Government Code Section 65863.7(e) provided those measures do not exceed the reasonable cost of relocation. It is legal counsel and staff's opinion that appropriate mitigation measures have been provided and that no further mitigation measures are recommended given the option of replacement within the same park and payment of moving costs as being reasonable options for relocation, as well as the fact that neither resident requested a hearing on the Report.- Recommendation: That the City Council review, accept and file the "Closure Impact Report". Mayor Clark recuses herself from the dais at 7:50 p.m. Interim City Attorney Montes reviewed the staff report. Elena Popp - stated she was the attorney representing the two tenants being displaced; she stated that the first point she wanted to make was that a legislative body can not take any action on an impact report without first determining that the action is consistent with the general plan and in particular with the housing element. State reports indicate that the city has failed to adopt a current housing element and due to this the required element of consistency can not be made; therefore, this action should not be taken. In addition, California Environmental Quality Act requires that the planning documents that lead to any approvals look at the impact Rosemead City Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009 Page 8 of 15 that the closure will have on residents. Mrs. Popp referred to California Section Code 65862.7 (e) and stated that it seemed the City Attorney had misinterpreted the code. She stated she saw two problems; one that the cost did not have to have a limit and that cost of relocation could also mean other type of cost for physically moving the unit and there wasn't any evidence of what the units actually cost; other cities have adopted relocation plans that include that the City of Rosemead is not including. Ms. Popp stated that they were requesting that the plan be changed to include that the required appraisal that was being utilized was a face value appraisal and that there not be a limit of $8,000 for relocation cost. The displacement of these tenants is going to cost them at least a rent differential of about $1,000 a month and that is a huge impact on a family. In addition the amount that they are going to be given to relocate isn't enough to buy another mobile home of the same age or size. Linda Lester - attorney representing the property owner of Park Monterey stated she wanted to respond to Ms. Popp's comments. At the beginning Ms. Popp stated that the city was without any jurisdiction to make this ruling. Ms. Lester stated that her client had complied with all the jurisdiction requirements regarding notices. Ms. Lester stated she believed that Council or staff member had remarked that the city really didn't have power to order the park owner to pay a certain amount. She reiterated that they had complied with the statute and believed the city did not have the authority to make a decision tonight. Ms. Lester added that in place value was not appropriate because what that came down to was to force the park owner to purchase his own property back. Council Member Ly stated that at the last meeting he had asked staff to conduct an appraisal and asked how that was inline with the appraisals that were conducted by the park owners and the tenants. Economic Development Administrator Ramirez responded that neither of the parties had shared that information with the city. Ms. Popp stated she had just received the appraisal and would be happy to share them with Council. She stated that one appraisal from the city came in at $12,050 and what their appraisal came in at was $30,000. Council Member Ly asked the Interim City Attorney what the Council had in terms of authority on this issue because he was hearing conflicting arguments. Interim City Attorney Montes replied this was a very odd statute in the law because we have a private mobile home owner that has decided that some or all of the mobile home park they want to use for something other than a mobile park and because of this the legislature had determined that the mobile home residents are in a particularly vulnerable situation because they do not share the same living conditions that say normal renters do. They have adopted this statute and basically what it means is that they put some relocation type requirements onto private mobile home owners somewhat similar to relocation obligations the city would have if it was acquiring property and had to relocate residents: This is a slightly modified situation because we are dealing with a private property owner and only dealing with a certain property owner, which is mobile home property owner. The statute indicates that if the mobile home owner is contemplating changing the use of their property they must generate this report and the report is supposed to indicate who is going to be impacted by the closure and how the property owner will address those impacts. That report is to be presented to the City Council and Council is to determine whether or not that report meets the requirements of State law. Additionally that statute gives Council authority to do two things; one is to adopt its own Rosemead City Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009 Page 9 of 15 ordinance to add additional procedures requirements, which the city has not done and second it allows you to impose conditions on the closure to mitigate impacts on the residents provided that the conditions do not exceed reasonable cost of relocation; however, reasonable cost has not been defined by legislature. Mr. Montes stated that the scope of authority for Council tonight was to determine whether or not that report meets the requirements of the law. Mayor Pro Tern Taylor stated that as far as the report he did not see anything that the city had done wrong and asked the City Attorney if he saw anything that needed to be corrected. He addressed the comment that Ms. Popp had made about the environmental impact that this relocation might have. Mr. Montes stated she raised CEQA as an objection but he did not believe that the review of the relocation impact report constituted as a project under CEQA. Mr. Montes added that the action of Council tonight was not a project and this review is not subject to CEQA. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated it was a dilemma when you are talking about someone's home for many years but there are conditions, contracts, and leases and they are not made to go into perpetuity. Mr. Taylor stated it was a dilemma that the owner wanted to use the property, which he has a right to do so but needs to meet the requirements set by State law, which says there ,are relocations assistance that is required. He added he did not know how to arbitrarily set appraisals of the value;because that was a market issue. Mr. Taylor stated he was very discouraged because Council had postponed this item for a month to get the appraisals and the tenant's attorney comes up tonight and says they have the appraisals now; he didn't think they were acting in good faith. He stated his reaction to this was that Council needed to adopt the plan and then see what the next step was. Council Member Low stated she agreed that the responsibility of the city was to review the report to make sure it addressed all the different things that were mandated by the State. Mrs. Low stated she felt it did meet State requirements and the report should be approved. Council MemberArmenta stated it was very unfortunate because Council may not agree with everything but did have to follow State law and suggested that maybe in the future Council can look at other ordinances so that this does not occur in the future. She added that Council's hands were tied in this situation and reiterated that other ordinances needed to be looked at so that residents could be protected in the future. Cynthia Melendrez - stated her dilemma was the inability to take the money the property owner was offering her and move to another place because the amount was not enough. She stated that all she wanted was somewhere to move that was just like her place. Jay Kiartanson - stated that when the zoning first came into play there was a meeting scheduled for the tenants to come to the city and at that time the tenants were told that the zone change would not affect any of the residents until the project was in phase 2; this project is only in phase 1. He stated that based on the amount the property owners were offering them they could not go and buy another mobile home that was exactly the same. Elizabeth Ramirez - stated she was a single mother of two and asked Council how she was going to take $12,500, take her 2 year old and 12 year old, purchase a mobile home with this amount of money. She Rosemead City Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009 Page 10 of 15 stated that maybe not tomorrow but eventually this would put them on the street. Council Member Armenta asked Interim City Attorney Montes what the ramifications were if she motioned to include in place value and relocation fees comparable to that of the mobile home. Mr. Montes replied that the issue is between the two parties, somebody was going to end up either paying more than they wanted or receiving less than they wanted. In terms of determining what constitutes reasonable cost of relocation that is being debated in front of Council now. As you have heard from both parties there are dramatic impacts on both parts depending on what Council decides to do. In the report what is indicated as reasonable cost is $8,000 for relocation plus the value of the mobile home not in place. If Council believes the report satisfies the requirements of the law and indicates that the impacts of the residents will be mitigated then Council approves it. If Council believes additional mitigation is required, as long as it does not exceed the reasonable cost, of relocation then Council can impose additional mitigation. Council Member Armenta motioned that the appraisals should be based on place value and the relocation fees should be comparable to those of the mobile park. Mr. Montes stated that the logical extension of that was that if they were closing the entire park they would essentially have to buy another mobile park to build in their own property. Council Member Armenta stated that in light of the new information that was brought up about staff not knowing these mobile homes were in phase 1; she wanted this looked into because this was affecting residents' lives. Mayor Pro Tern Taylor stated he did not have a doubt that these people knew these three mobile homes existed the issue is that they sat on phase 1. Council Member Ly asked if there was a second to Ms. Armenta's motion and asked if she could please clarify her motion. Council Member Armenta reiterated that her motion was that the appraisals should be based on place value and the relocation fees should be comparable in another the mobile park. Mayor Pro Tern Taylor stated that she was now setting precedent and when those other 40 units came up you are going to face the expense of whatever it is. Motioned was not seconded and the motion died on the floor. Mayor Pro Tern Gary Taylor made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low, to accept and file the "Closure Report". Vote resulted in: Yes: Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: Armenta Absent: None Recuse: Clark Rosemead City Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009 Page 11 of 15 Council Member Sandra Armenta stated for the record that she had abstained because she still believes the appraisals should be based on place value and if she had voted no it would state she didn't agree with State law. B. California Mission Inn Pet Fair on August 29, 2009 On May 5, 2009, staff was informed of an event planned by the California Mission Inn, on behalf of the San Gabriel Valley Humane Society, to be held on August 29, 2009. The event will consist of a 3 mile dog walk, a dog show, and a pet fair that will take place partially on the grounds of the California Mission Inn, 8417 Mission Drive, with a majority of the event taking place within the public rights-of-way and a City park (Sally Tanner Park). All proceeds from the event will benefit the San Gabriel Valley Humane Society, a 501 (c) Non-profit organization, which is in danger of closing its doors due to a lack of funding. The event will feature celebrity judge Cesar Milan, of National Geographic Channel notoriety, and is expected to draw crowds in excess of 1,000 people. The event will also include live music and food vendors as a part of the pet fair. Based on details provided from California Mission Inn, staff determined that this event will significantly impact the neighborhoods around the facility, especially to residents on adjacent streets. The City has been working with California Mission Inn to help mitigate any potential problems at that may arise from the magnitude of this event. The California Mission Inn has also requested that the City reduce or waive the fees associated with personnel costs and/or overtime associated with providing City services. It is estimated that City and Los Angeles County Sheriff staff time will cost approximately $8,321. Recommendation: That the City Council: Authorize temporary street.closures around the perimeter of the Mission Inn to accommodate the dog walk and show. 2. Provide direction regarding the requested waiver or reduction of fees for City staff support related to this special event. Mayor Clark returned to the dais at 8:38 p.m. Community Development Director Saeki reviewed the staff report. Mayor Clark asked if the city used shuttles vs. utilizing the Boys Scotts parking lot what would the difference in cost be and would it have some financial incentives for the Boys Scotts. Mr. Saeki responded that the city had not proposed; that to them but wanted to use that parking lot because it was rarely used. He also added that the city could shuttle people from Rosemead High School and City Hall Rosemead City Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009 Page 12 of 15 utilizing the Dial-A-Ride and the Super Shuttle. Council Member Ly asked if it was possible to negotiate with the Sheriff's Department on lowering the cost a bit more. Mr. Saeki responded that ultimately what could be done was that the city's special assignment officers could adjust their work schedule, so that instead of working on Monday they could work on Saturday, and that would offset the cost. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated that the report discussed the overtime and reducing the earnings, he thought it was a good idea but stated it had to be done with everybody and not just the Sheriff's Department. Second, he asked Mr. Saeki if he recalled that in the past people of the eastside of California Mission came to Council and complained about the parking. And added that this was the first time he heard the Humane Society was closing down. Mr. Saeki stated they are not going to close down but that they are going through tough financial times. C.C. DeGraff - stated she was currently in the board of directors for the Humane Society and also the Executive Director for California Mission Inn. She added that back in February of this year they had terminated some board members for misappropriation of funds and for the past months they had been trying to keep their doors opened due to the misappropriation of funds. When the idea of the fundraiser was brought up she thought of having the event at the California Mission Inn because her residents had been volunteering and helping her with the shelter. A previous fundraiser has already been done in this location but the difference with this one is that a celebrity will be attending. She stated that the previous issues with the neighbors who had complained about California Mission Inn had been resolved and that she was sure they would be fine with this event as long as they were notified in advance. Mayor Pro Tern Taylor stated that as long as she had taken care of the issues with the surrounding neighbors that took away from his concern regarding this item. Mr. Taylor asked how they intended to notify the residents. C.C. DeGraff replied that they had drafted flyers and that as soon as Council approved this item the flyers would be distributed. Council Member Ly stated he had no problem with the street closure but had reservations with waiving or reducing the city's fees; simply because there would be impacts to the surrounding areas. Council Member Low stated she agreed with Mr. Ly and based on the current budget asked if the city council pay half and the organization pay the other half of the fees. Mayor Clark asked that since the city was thinking of negotiating for animal services was there a way that any money spent by the city could credited to the city's animal service. C.C. DeGraff - stated that was possible and would have to sit with her board to discuss. Rosemead City Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009 Page 13 of 15 Council Member Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly to approve the street closure and direct staff to go back and renegotiate the cost of the event with the Humane Society . Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None C. State Budget Crisis Impact - Update The Governor and legislative leaders announced late in the evening on July 20th that a deal had been reached to balance the State's $26 billion deficit. Unfortunately, despite lobbying efforts, the proposal includes significant hits to local government. While details are still being finalized, staff has been able to determine that the budget proposal include the following: 1. Utilization of Proposition 1A to borrow Property Tax from local government. The State will borrow 8% of each city's property tax revenue based on actual receipts for the 2008-09 fiscal year. For,Rosemead, this equates to a loss of approximately $600,000 from the General Fund. The State is obligated to repay these funds within three years with interest. 2. The seizure of $1.7 billion in Highway Users Tax (Gas Tax) from local government. This is a proposed two year seizure with $986.6 million in fiscal year 2009-10 and $750 million in fiscal year 2010-11. Staff believes that this equates to a complete taking of all of our 2009-10 Gas Tax of approximately $900,000 and 75% of our 2010-11 Gas Tax. 3. The seizure of $1.35 billion in redevelopment tax increment funds through a straight taking of $350 million and an ERAF shift of $1 billion. Rosemead's portion of the $350 million seizure is approximately $300,000 and approximately $850,000 for the $1 billion ERAF shift. Efforts to gain opposition to the proposed State budget by Legislators in the Assembly and Senate are continuing. Additional details regarding the State budget and its impacts on Rosemead will be communicated to the City Council as they are received. In order to deal with these potential losses work has commenced on contingency plans for additional budget expenditure reductions and new revenue options, particularly along the lines of needed updates to the City's development related fees and business license programs. Recommendation: No City Council action is required at this time. Assistant City Manager reviewed the staff report and gave Council an update on the report. Rosemead City Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009 Page 14 of 15 Mayor Clark stated Council Member Ly and herself had attended the League of California Cities conference in Sacramento and that they had gotten together with Counties, Cities, and School Boards and the idea was that the State is broken and there is not confidence in the State's legislature. Council Member Ly stated that everyone agreed to protect local funding. Juan Nunez - suggested that Council write them a note with the word "no". 5. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL Mayor Clark congratulated Brian Saeki on his new baby boy Nate. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned in memory of David Montgomery-Scott's mother-in-law at 9:21 p.m. The meeting was also being adjourned to August 5, 2009 at 5:00 p.m.; ATTEST: c a1~ot Gloria Molleda City Clerk Margaret rk Mayor Rosemead City Council Meeting Minutes of July 28, 2009 Page 15 of 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Gloria Molleda, City Clerk for the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the minutes of July 28, 2009 was duly and regularly approved by the Rosemead City Council on the 13th of October 2009, by the following vote to wit: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Gloria Molleda City Clerk