Loading...
CC - Minutes 07-27-10Community Development Commission, Housing Development Corporation, and City Council Regular Meeting July 27, 2010 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Community Development Commission, Housing Development Corporation and City Council was called to order by Mayor Taylor at 6:10 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner /Council Member Sandra Armenta INVOCATION: Commissioner /Council Member Margaret Clark PRESENT: Chair/ President/ Mayor Taylor, Vice - Chair/ Vice - President/ Mayor Pro Tern Ly, Commissioner/ Directors/ Council Members Armenta, Clark and Low STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Montes, Community Development Director Wong, Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery- Scott, Economic Development Administrator Ramirez, Public Information Officer Flores, Deputy Public Works Director Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda 1. ORDINANCES READ BY TITLE ONLY By motion, unanimously adopted, the City Attorney shall be instructed to read by title only all resolutions and ordinances appearing on this agenda which are required by law to be read in their entirety. Council Member Sandra Armenta made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low, to approve ordinances read by title only. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None 3. COMMISSION /CORPORATION CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Demands Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 1 of 29 Resolution No. 2010 — 26 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2010 — 26, entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2010 — 26 FOR PAYMENT OF COMMISSION EXPENDITURES IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,274.84 DEMAND NOS. 11304 THROUGH 11310. Resolution No. 2010 — 27 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2010 — 27, entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2010 — 27 FOR PAYMENT OF COMMISSION EXPENDITURES IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,817.28 DEMAND NOS. 11311 THROUGH 11315. B. Update on Status of Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) for the Sale of the Glendon Hotel On May 25, 2010, the Commission approved an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with the Qiao Garden Group Real Estate Company, Ltd. for the development of a Purchase and Sale Agreement of 8832 Glendon Way. The term of the ENA provided an initial negotiation period of 90 calendar days, subject to one (1) 90 calendar days extension, within which the Commission and the Qiao Garden Group would work to develop a Purchase and Sale Agreement setting forth the specific terms related to the sale of the Glendon Hotel. The ENA is set to expire on August 22, 2010. Recommendation: That the Community Development Commission extend the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Qiao Garden Group Real Estate Company, Ltd. for the development of a Purchase and Sale Agreement of the Glendon Hotel for ninety (90) calendar days beginning from August 23, 2010. C. Community Development Commission Treasurer's Report for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2010 In accordance with Government Code Section 53646 the Rosemead Community Development Commission Treasurer's Report for the fourth quarter of FY 2009 -10 is before the Commission for review. Recommendation: That the Community Development Commission receive and file the "Rosemead Community Development Commission Treasurer's Report" for the month ending June 30, 2010. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 2 of 29 D. Housing Development Corporation Treasurer's Report for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2010 In accordance with Government Code Section 53646 the Rosemead Housing Development Corporation Treasurer's Report for the fourth quarter of FY 2009 -10 is before the board for review. Recommendation: That the Housing Development Corporation receive and file the "Rosemead Housing Development Corporation Treasurer's Report" for the month ending June 30, 2010. Mayor Pro Tern Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to approve Commission /Corporation Consent Calendar. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor None: None Abstain: None Absent: None 4. MATTERS FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR A. Solar Power System for Angelus and Garvey Senior Housing Levine Management Group (LMG), the management company of the two senior complexes owned by the Rosemead Housing Development Corporation recently contacted staff inquiring about the possibility of installing solar panels at the Angelus Senior Complex and the Garvey Senior Complex. This issue has come to the forefront due to the availability of significant rebates offered by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE is a participant in the Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing (MASH) Program that provides up to 60% of the cost of solar systems. The MASH Program has been designed specifically to facilitate the acceleration of solar power in the affordable housing sector in California. Recommendation: That the Housing Development Corporation Board take the following actions: 1. Authorize the Executive Director to negotiate a Power Purchase Agreement with Solar City for the installation of solar panels at Angelus Senior Complex and Garvey Senior Complex. 2. Allocate an amount not to exceed $5,000 for the inspection of the roofs at each complex to ensure that they are in proper condition to accept the solar panels. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 3 of 29 President Taylor asked that item 4A be deferred to the next meeting and requested the electric bills for the past two years for each of the facilities. Community Development Manager Michelle Ramirez reviewed the staff report. Tom Folan — representative of Solar City gave a PowerPoint presentation. President Taylor inquired about some figures that are not in the staff report. Mr. Taylor asked to look at page 48 of the booklet. Mrs. Ramirez clarified that the program on page 48 is not in Solar City's program; that is an example of what it would be if the City would buy the system. His presentation begins on page 64 stating Power Purchase Agreement, Mr. Folan - continued with his presentation President Taylor stated that he did not see any letters from Edison to Solar City and asked in regards to the competitor Absolute Solar Electric. Mr. Folan replied that they are a competitor and they were not able to fund the P.P.A, which is one of the reasons why Levine contacted Solar City. We are in a position to fund these projects and they reserve the rebate; Solar City is able to get authorization from Edison and switch service providers with the rebate. President Taylor asked why they would send out a letter, referred on page 37; they give a break down of what more or less is going to be in the program. Mr. Folan replied that Absolute Solar applied for a rebate and basically it gives the details of that rebate that is in place for the Angelus Facility. President Taylor asked why they couldn't do the project. Mr. Folan stated that they can do the project on a purchase basis; the reasons why Levine, the City, and Solar City are talking, is because we are able to fund it a little bit different and are able to offer this Power Purchase Agreement which Absolute Solar Electric is not able to do. Mrs. Ramirez clarified that the City would be getting the rebate not Solar City if we purchase the system through them and we would get the rebate directly from SCE (Southern California Edison). They would only be providing the system to the RHDC; and we would be responsible for operating and maintaining the system. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 4 of 29 Mr. Folan explained that with the existing rebate under the power purchase agreement Solar City is going to take that rebate and that is how we are able to give you that five -cent fixed kilowatt hour price and no up front investment. President Taylor referred to the cost that was not correct in the staff report Mrs. Ramirez stated the figures on the staff report needed corrections; the figure $174,866 should have been $117,423 and under fiscal analysis, where it states $251,100 it should be $193,658. President Taylor asked about the fiscal analysis under the system purchase options; he asked what the two systems cost and what they add up to. Mrs. Ramirez replied they are for Garvey and Angelus and they add up to $188,657 instead of $246,100 as listed on the staff report. President Taylor inquired that on a previous page the purchase system for Angelus Senior Complex would be around $150,000. Mrs. Ramirez replied that with the rebate the cost would be brought down to $71,234. President Taylor asked if the same thing would be done with the Garvey facility at $117,000. Mrs. Ramirez replied it starts at $246,100 and take away the rebate of $128, 677 and it leaves the $117,423. President Taylor asked what the total fiscal analysis is now Mrs. Ramirez replied both systems cost is $188,657. President Taylor stated that instead of $246,100 the original cost was $401,000 before the rebates; that cuts the cost down to less than half. Executive Director Allred stated that it's under the purchase option that is not being recommended because under option 1, it would require the city to make a significant cash outlay to install the solar. Staff believes option 2 is better under the power purchase agreement because it requires no outlay of cash other than the inspection of the roof which will be around $5,000. Mrs. Ramirez stated that it would be the total for both roofs and under the power purchase agreement Solar City has said they would waive that fee and will not charge the city. Executive Director Allred stated that staff's recommendation is option 2 because it requires no up front capital investment and the City would be free from maintaining that system over the years and would be the responsibility of the vendor. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 5 of 29 President Taylor asked what happens at the end of the 18 years. Mr. Folan stated that the city has several options; you can extend the PPA, upgrade to the latest technology, or have the system removed or purchase the system for fair market value. The expected life span of the panels is about 30 years. President Taylor stated the rate being charged would be starting at a higher rate for the balance of the time that the City would have the panels. Mr. Folan responded it was hard to predict 18 years, its five -cents and the system will be little value to Solar City after the 18 years. There are specific terms written in the agreement on what happens at the end of the PPA and one of them is to offer fair market value. President Taylor inquired about the time sequence shown of May 24th and the extension to June 24th. Mr. Folan stated there have been several extensions filed so now the City has until the middle of November with Southern California Edison. Levine Management has filed for several extensions and now SoCal Edison is asking for a proof of project milestone; meaning that the project is going forward and the way of meeting that is by having a signed contract. Executive Director Allred stated there was some time before making the final decision. President Taylor stated he just wanted reassurance and wanted to see the utility bills of both facilities. City Attorney Montes stated he had not had a chance to verify with staff but in order to approve the contract. Council will have to have a public hearing, per section 4610 of the government code, which allows for a power purchase agreements with sole source vendors. He stated that the most you can do is authorize staff to move forward with the vendor to make sure the contract terms are acceptable and then bring it back for a public hearing. At that time Council can consider the contract if you want to have the project move forward. President Taylor asked the City Attorney Montes to explain "sole source vendor". City Attorney Monies explained that you have a building that is owned by the Housing Development Corporation and we are talking about installing a solar system in a publicly owned building. We are not talking about bidding the project; we are talking about awarding a contract for a power purchase with Solar City. That is specifically authorize under the government code, it's because of all of these alternative energy sources that are proliferating that the California legislature wants to encourage, use of those in public building. They have this section 4610 in the government code that says before you award that contract you have to hold a public hearing. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 6 of 29 President Taylor asked why we did not put this out for competitive bid to get various bidders. Executive Director Allred stated that atone point there was urgency, given the fact that there was some deadlines which were then extended. The reason why the legislator has allows for sole sourcing for high -tech projects like this is because of the height of technical expertise that is required. City Attorney Montes stated part of the issue is when you are going to have these PPA's usually, whoever-is the proposing vendor, has to spend a fair amount of resources to do the energy audit and come up with the information in terms of cost savings and design such as the preliminary design. There is a significant outlay on these companies before they can even submit a proposal worth looking at and that is why the legislature contemplates that you are going to be working with only one company. Once you talked to a number of companies and it sounds that the company that manages these buildings for you has worked with a couple of companies and has ultimately selected Solar City as the preferred vendor based upon their experience and also their ability to fund the PPA Solar City is carrying the financing on these for the city. This is specifically what sections of the government code contemplates; the vendor is going to finance this installation and power generator and the city is going to go with that vendor after a public hearing. President Taylor expressed concerned whether its $400 thousand of $200 thousand; and asked if there are several companies out there. Mr. Folan replied yes there are but we are in a position where we can fund systems this size. Most companies won't look at systems that are less than 100 kilowatts, 200 or 300 kilowatts; we are very aggressive in targeting this MASH rebate fund that we were one of the first one's to offer the five - cent fixed PPA. President Taylor stated Solar City's proposal was very good from the five -cent kilowatt. Mr. Taylor asked what the procedure was if the City decided not to continue with the solar system after the 18 years. Mr. Folan replied that the city, as mentioned in the agreement, can have the system removed at no cost. President Taylor reiterated so we'll have an option at that time to keep the system and maintain it through you or another company or remove the system. Mr. Folan stated there would be an extension of a five year increment, removal of the system, or a fair market value offer to Solar City, but you would be responsible for maintenance after that. President Taylor stated he knew there were some systems installed and then removed; he didn't understand why they were removed. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 7 of 29 Director Clark asked him what panels he was referring to. President Taylor explained the solar systems in the Huntington Library that had a large water tank area with solar panels and about 200 were removed. Director Clark asked how long ago that was because technology has come along way. President Taylor stated it was several years ago about 8 to 10 years. He asked what the average output on a 2 foot by 4 foot panel was. Mr. Folan stated that now they're about 3 by 5; you are looking at about 190 wafts up to 240 watts. President Taylorstated that it's a big difference from 75 wafts; but then again it's four each square feet compared to; it's almost double the size if you are saying 3 by 5 would put it in 15 feet square feet. That was the program when they were first putting them out, it was a good deal, and there were some other schools that had them put on and later taken out. These were 22 by 48 panels and you are talking about doubling in size from 75 to 150 wafts. Economic Development Administrator Ramirez stated that Mr. Jeffrey Levine of Levine Management can speak on how Solar City was selected. Jeffrey Levine —of Levine Management stated that there were two different approaches; one being purchasing a system and it was discovered that no one else other than Solar City that had the ability to do the power purchase agreement model. That was the reason why Solar City was selected to propose this model and Absolutely Solar was the vendor that was proposing the purchase model. Executive Director Allred explained that the State Legislature allows for sole sourcing only in recognition of the fact that in this case there are a few entities that are able to do the financing. In addition, there is a unique understanding of the industry and also the investment they have made in the City's facilities; those three items allow s for a sole source arrangement per State law. President Taylor asked what hours of operation the panel would be generating energy. Mr. Folan stated it would typically be from 9 o'clock to sundown depending on the orientation where one building is going to have a west side. President Taylor inquired about the panels facing west; is 9 o'clock appropriate for the full generation. Mr. Folan replied that it would be a bit later on the west side but it would get all the afternoon sun. He added that the good thing about solar was that when the summer bills were at its highest, solar production was also at its highest. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 8 of 29 President Taylor asked where the other building was facing. Mr. Folan replied that the other building was facing southwest about 240 degreed which is fantastic for solar production. The City Council recesses to closed session at 6:48 p.m. 5. CLOSED SESSION A. Conference with Legal Counsel 1. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT Title: City Attorney and Assistant City Attorney B. Public Employee Performance Evaluation Government Code Section 54957; Council Appointed Official (City Manager) City Council Meeting Agenda The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Taylor at 7:07 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Sandra Armenta INVOCATION: Council Member Margaret Clark PRESENT: Mayor Taylor, Mayor Pro Tern Ly, Council Members Armenta, Clark and Low STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman, Community Development Director Wong, Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott, Economic Development Administrator Ramirez, Public Affairs Manager Flores, Deputy Public Works Director Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda City Council reconvened back from closed session at 7:07 p.m. City Attorney Montes reported that Rachel Richman was unanimously appointed as the new City Attorney and he had been appointed Assistant City Attorney for the City. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 9 of 29 6. PRESENTATION National Night Out Proclamation Chief of Police Murakami read the proclamation for the 27th Annual National Night Out. • Nick Nevarez: The Rosemead Public Safety CONNECTIONS forum has arranged for this young Rosemead resident to present information about his traffic accident in an effort to make young people, parents and other caregivers aware of the destructive impacts of alcohol and drug abuse. Also, the CONNECTIONS forum is preparing to host a community -wide meeting on the dangers of alcohol and drug abuse on October 21 at the Rosemead High School Auditorium featuring Nick Nevarez as a speaker. Nick Nevarez — presented a PowerPoint presentation on his vehicle accident and stated he hoped to raise awareness to young people and parents of the consequences of alcohol and drug abuse. Mayor Taylor asked if he was going to speak to the Rosemead High School students because his story was relatable— Ms. Navarez — (Nick's mother) spoke on the experience their family went through and the recuperation of her son's accident. Council Member Armenta stated that it was an honor to have Nick Navarez speak at the Rosemead Public Safety Connections meeting. Council Member Low thanked Nick for sharing his story and speaking to other young students. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Juan Nunez asked if the back payments were made on the Glendon Way Hotel. Mayor Taylor responded no. City Manager Allred stated that the demands for the funds had been made to the party; however, they have not paid their obligations. Mayor Pro Tern Ly explained that sending the party to litigation would cost more than collecting the amount they actually owe. Mr. Nunez asked who was in charge of overseeing and checking that the hotel was paying their bills. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 10 of 29 Mayor Taylor stated that there was negligence on the city side and now staff is working on recouping what is owed. City Manager Allred stated that the Commission is owed about $55,000. Sharon Esquiviel — asked why Council Members are not aware of what type of businesses are coming in the city. City Manager Allred explained that the Planning Department is in charge of processing new businesses in the city; also it's included on a green sheet publication that is distributed to Staff, Commissioners, and Council Members. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that since not every business is required to obtain the same permits, such as, a business license, occupancy permits and /or conditions of approval permits which would require a different type of procedure depending on the type of business applying. Sometimes, some businesses are processed at the staff level and others that are bigger may need to be presented to the Commissions and Council Members for approval. Mayor Taylorcommented that there were two marijuana businesses operating illegally and one staff took notice the city got involved; Mr. Taylor also stated that many businesses like new developments such as the Glendon Hotel and UFC Gym do require a hearing and most of the businesses applying go through an administrative procedure. Marlene Shinen — stated that she had submitted a public records request on January 13, 2010 and had received a response the same day. Ms. Shinen quoted from the response letter, "it does not require answers to questions or documents to be generated", and she added her question was not answered. Mayor Taylor asked Ms. Shinen to read her request. Ms. Shinen stated that she did receive documents to her request but did not receive an answer to a question she had and therefore, issued another request on January 13th, City Attorney Richman explained that under the Public Records Act it is a records response statute; under the records act they are not required to answer a question. Staff is required to provide documents that are responsive to the request for information. Under the California Public Records Act that would be a correct statement. Mayor Taylor asked what was the question Ms. Shinen asked on the letter. Ms. Shinen replied that it had to do with Oliver Chi receiving unemployment benefits. She stated the question was if it was with or without city council's knowledge and or approval and when. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 11 of 29 Mayor Taylor replied that it was a direct question with a simple answer and Ms. Shinen did not get a response back. Ms. Shinen stated that she received a letter back from the city stating that "it did not require answers to questions or for documents to be generated'. Ms. Shinen stated that she did receive documents before but the questions asked did not have anything to do with the documents. Mayor Taylor stated he was concern about the question not being answered. Ms. Shinen asked for clarification because she is left with the impression that is not good. Council Member Clark asked for clarification on Ms. Shinen's response letter. City Attorney Richman clarified Ms. Shinen's response letter, in which staff stated that it did not required answering questions under the pubic records request or creating documents that don't already exist. But documents would have to be provided that are responsive to her request. Mayor Pro Tern Ly asked Ms. Shinen if there were any records received that would have reference to that question. Ms. Shinen replied no. Assistant City Manager Matt Hawkesworth stated that staff provided council with copies of Ms. Shinen's response letter and documents that were provided to her. One of the questions was a time line of typically on what happen date and what took place; that time line would identify what took place including when the council found out about it. During this time we were in and out of closed session with the city attorney on how to pursue it and when the request was received, staff conferred with the City Attorney and was directed to provide what legally staff could because this was a legal issue; staff could not voluntarily provide documents or create documents. Council Member Clark read, "CPRA, authorizes members of the public to view documents responsive to request for information, it does not require answers to questions or for documents to be generated" you cannot make up documents but you can look at what's there. Ms. Shinen commented on the amount given to Mr. Chi upon his departure from the City; severance pay $196,370.80; additional lump sum $98,186.40; vacation pay $23,519.42; sick pay $29,846.78; administrative leave $7,552.80; legal fees $1,000; 2008 Toyota Highlander $29,375; medical $16,000; total of $401,853.20; and he still applied and received unemployment. She added that Mr. Chi did pay back the money because the city manager informed him it was going to be in the Tribune. Council Member Armenta stated that Council did not know about the unemployment until the City was billed by EDD (Employment Development Department). Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 12 of 29 Mayor Taylor stated that the $400,000 was in his contract. Ms. Shinen reiterated that staff by- passed council or council knew and allowed it leaving no one accountable and keeping the issue quiet and no disclosure; if there were any restraints in place John Nunez would have been exposed and prohibited; Oliver, a self acclaimed man of principal would not want to have his actions become public and to prevent it he quickly reimbursed the $9,000 to the City. Ms. Shinen expressed that Mr. Chi was able to collect the maximum unemployment from April 5th through December 24, 2009 in addition to the severance pay of $401,853.20. Council Member Armenta clarified that in order to receive unemployment you have to be fired and not resign. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that the biggest impediment was that EDD stated that they did nothing wrong. The State delayed in billing the unemployment fee to the City and no one knew that Mr. Nunez was collecting unemployment until six months later. Mr. Ly added that the fact that people do ask questions makes Rosemead different from the City of Bell because they do not have a local paper. Mayor Taylor stated that the City of Bell had adopted a city charter. 8. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes April 13, 2010 —Regular Meeting B. Claims and Demands Resolution No. 2010 — 52 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2010 — 52, entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2010 — 52, FOR PAYMENT OF CITY EXPENDITURES IN THE AMOUNT OF $263,567.96 NUMBERED 70394 THROUGH 70481, INCLUSIVELY. Resolution No. 2010 — 53 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2010 — 53, entitled: Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 13 of 29 RESOLUTION NO. 2010 — 53, FOR PAYMENT OF CITY EXPENDITURES IN THE AMOUNT OF $694,869.57 NUMBERED 100909 THROUGH 100932, AND 70482 THROUGH 70571 INCLUSIVELY. C. Approval of Undertaking Agreement for Parcel Map No. 69946.3139 Burton Avenue Parcel Map No. 69946 is being submitted for consideration and approval along with an Undertaking Agreement to guarantee construction of public improvements subsequent to the recordation of the parcel map. Recommendation: That the City Council approve Parcel Map No. 69946 and the Undertaking Agreement. D. Approval of Undertaking Agreement for Parcel Map No. 66501.2512 Earle Avenue Parcel Map No. 66501 is being submitted for consideration and approval along with an Undertaking Agreement to guarantee construction of public improvements subsequent to the recordation of the parcel map. Recommendation: That the City Council approve Parcel Map No. 66501 and the Undertaking Agreement. E. Whitmore Street Road Resurfacing Project, Phase II — Authorization to Solicit Bids As part of the City's Fiscal Year 2010 -11 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council has approved the "Whitmore Street Resurfacing Project ", which consists of the rehabilitation of Whitmore Street from San Gabriel Boulevard to Alhambra Wash. Funding for this project is available through the Community Development Block Grant program, which requires that funds be spent on specific project types and in specific target areas. Recommendation: That the City Council authorize staff to advertise and solicit bids to complete the improvement project. G. _ Treasurer's Report for the Quarter Ended June 30, 2010 In accordance with Government Code Section 53646 the City of Rosemead Treasurer's Report for the fourth quarter of FY 2009 -10 is before Council for review. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 14 of 29 Recommendation: That the City Council receive and file the "City of Rosemead Treasurer's Report" for the month ending June 30, 2010. Mayor Pro Tern Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low, to approve the Consent Calendar. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Bridge Painting Project at San Bernardino Freeway — Contract Award As part of the City's Capital Improvement Program, the City Council approved funding to enhance the aesthetic look of City entry- points from the San Bernardino Interstate 10 Freeway. This project is included in these efforts and consists of painting three (3) freeway bridges at Rosemead Boulevard., San Gabriel Boulevard and Del Mar Avenue. The project consists of initial water blasting, sealing and priming all surfaces, followed by applying graffiti- resistant paint to ensure quick and easy removal if surfaces are tagged. In addition, the project calls for the installation of large City seals on the bridge walls, indicating entry into City of Rosemead, as appropriate. The color and logo design will be similar to the recently painted Walnut Grove Avenue bridge. The City of San Gabriel has expressed a desire to participate as a funding partner for the bridge painting work on the northern side of San Gabriel Boulevard and Del Mar Avenue. The City of El Monte has indicated its inability to provide funding for painting work on the southern side of Rosemead Boulevard. Recommendations: That the City Council: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Painting and Decor, LTD for the Bridge Painting Project at San Bernardino Freeway in the amount of $152,200. 2. Establish an amount of 10% of the contract amount ($15,220), as a contingency, to cover the potential cost of unforeseen site conditions. 3. Authorize the City Manager to execute any agreement documents with the City of San Gabriel for its potential contribution towards the completion of this project. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 15 of 29 Marissa Salvati — representative of Southern California Edison updated staff and Council on the Tehachapi Renewal Transmission Project. There will be a quarterly newsletter to keep everyone updated on projects. Mayor Pro Tem Ly asked if there is any more discussion as to how the Stallo parcel would be used. Ms. Salvati stated that there have been discussions and would meet with staff in terms of inclusive with the RNC and the Stallo. She added their corporate real estate department is looking into it. Council Member Armenta stated that the city has been working hard in beautifying the city and was concerned about some right -of -ways that Edison owns that need weed abatement. Ms. Armenta asked if it could be taken care of or if Edison could work with staff to correct the issue. Ms. Salvati stated that there have been meetings in regards to the vacant parcels that do have some necessary weed abatement and there is a schedule time to try to weed abates the areas that are vacant. Council Member Low stated that the city of San Gabriel has expressed interest in joining the city in regards to the project. Ms. Low asked if the allocation of $152,200 will cover the project for all three bridges in the case that they do not participate. City Manager Jeff Allred stated that any money that the city receives from the City of San Gabriel will offset that total amount. He added they have expressed interest and they are currently searching for some funding but the City has not received an exact dollar amount. The City of El Monte expressed that they would not be able to participate due to lack of funding. Public Works Director Chris Marcarello stated that as proposed there will be a two tone color used. The color used will be more of a maroon color and the top of the color will be similar to the Walnut Grove Bridge color. Council Member Low asked if the bridge was going to be painted the same as the Walnut Grove Bridge. Mr. Marcarello replied that was not included in the contract. Mayor Taylor asked why the maroon was recently added. Mr. Marcarello stated that with the strategic plan adoption one of the components was to create a unique brand for the City of Rosemead including the color that is commonly displayed around the city. Council Member Low stated that she would like to keep the colors consistent. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 16 of 29 Mayor Taylor stated that he had reservations between the Walnut Grove Bridge colors and the new proposed colors because it's a quarter of a million dollars between the two of them. When Walnut Grove Bridge was proposed it started at $24,000 and it ended up at $100,000 with the landscaping. City Manager Allred stated that project included some traffic congestion modifications, including expanding the turn pocket and a landscaping beautification project. Mayor Taylor asked if there was additional work to be done. City Manager Allred replied that currently it is only for the bridge painting for the three underpass bridges. Mr. Marcarello stated that staff had been working on plans for beautification improvements along the median in conjunction with the Caltrans project that is currently ongoing. Caltrans is looking to put landscaping and staff has been working with its landscape architect to develop the Rosemead flair to the landscaping, use their contractor and the city would incremental the cost. Mayor Taylor reiterated that Mr. Allred stated that currently and Mr. Marcarello is saying incremental cost. City Manager Allred stated that they were separate projects. What is brought to Council is the bridge project and what Mr. Marcarello is talking about is a separate project in our capital improvement program. Mayor Taylor stated that there is a reference on the staff report that something is going to be worked out between the State and the City on the landscapes aspects. Mr. Marcarello explained that in this current contract the only element that staff has worked with the State is in regards to permitting the painting of the bridge. Council Member Low stated that she would like the three bridges to look similar; therefore, staff would then have to go back to change the Walnut Grove to a two tone color. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that he liked the idea of the maroon color along the stripping of San Gabriel and Del Mar. Also, Caltrans has been upgrading some on and off -ramps along Walnut Grove and the 10- freeway. Mr. Ly asked if staff was going to coordinate with Caltrans when working on Del Mar and San Gabriel. Mr. Marcarello stated that they will work with Caltrans and added that Caltrans is done with the southbound off -ramp at Del Mar and 10- freeway. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 17 of 29 Mayor Taylor asked when the north side will be done. Mr. Marcarello replied that he did not have the schedule with him. Mayor Taylor stated that his preference would be to not do any painting until Caltrans is done with their work on both sides of the off - ramps. Council Member Armenta inquired about the lettering with two different fonts; she stated the Del Mar bridge had a bold font and the Walnut Grove bridge had a rose within the word Rosemead. Also, the bottom should say incorporated similar to the Walnut Grove bridge. Council Member Clark agreed with Council Member Armenta on the fonts for the bridge. City Manager Allred stated that the "swoosh" of the rose in the Rosemead logo is also on the Garvey Bridge. Mayor Pro Tern Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to award the contract as part of the City's Capital Improvement Program and approve staff's recommendations: Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: Taylor Abstain: None Absent: None Mayor Taylor stated that he is in favor of the project but wants to add the entire cost step. City Manager Allred stated that the August 24th meeting will include an item on the design. 9. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Proposed Community Use of Dinsmoor Heritage House Gardens During its regular meeting of May 25, 2010, City Council directed staff to assess rental use of the Dinsmoor Heritage House grounds by the community as with other City facilities. Given its aesthetic appeal, it is believed that the facility could generate revenue through such use for weddings, receptions, and other events. Those revenues could offset ongoing maintenance and repair costs of the Dinsmoor House and adjoining grounds. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 18 of 29 As no policies exist for the use of the facility, it is necessary to establish rules to govern its use and to set appropriate fees that cover the costs of such use and generate additional funds that would be set aside for Dinsmoor House maintenance. Recommendation: That the City Council approve the proposed Dinsmoor Heritage House Gardens application including rules and regulations, fee schedule, and cancellation policy to be effective October 1, 2010. Director of Parks and Recreation David Montgomery-Scott reviewed the staff report Mayor Taylor asked if there were many wedding receptions at the community centers and how many a year. Mr. Montgomery-Scott replied yes; regularly about a dozen wedding receptions are held in each facility. Mayor Taylor inquired about the electrical in the heritage house and asked if the public will use the building at all. Mr. Montgomery-Scott replied no, the public will have no access to the building at all and the rules and regulations regulate that. Mayor Taylor asked what about bathrooms. Council MemberArmenta stated there is a restroom facility next to the garage. Mr. Montgomery -Scott stated yes, there is a bathroom accessible directly from the garden area and was upgraded not too long ago in preparation for an event hosted by the Heritage House Museum. Council Member Low asked who maintains the garden. Mr. Montgomery-Scott replied City staff with the assistance of the City's landscape contractor. Mayor Taylor asked if there should be any concerns with the electrical. Mr. Montgomery-Scoff replied none whatsoever. Mayor Taylor asked if during winter time when it gets dark at five o'clock if there's outside lighting. Mr. Montgomery-Scoff replied there is electrical in the exterior of the facility; there is no need to access the inside of the house. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 19 of 29 Mayor Taylor expressed concern with the electrical because he felt the system is obsolete and there might be a possibility of injury. Mr. Montgomery-Scott stated some areas of the electrical of the garage have been updated. Mayor Taylor asked if people will be able to put coffee pots under the trees. Mr. Montgomery -Scott stated there is no exclusions of minor appliances; staff will make sure that all is in good service order and operational. Mayor Taylor reiterated there will be no kitchen use, refrigeration or cooking within the building. Mr. Montgomery-Scoff re- affirmed there will be no access to the building at all. Mayor Taylor stated that regarding the parking that would be determined at a later time if it will be abused or not. Mr. Montgomery-Scott stated it will be a trial balloon because there is no way to determine the kind of impact that will be to the community. However, the Dinsmoor Heritage Museum group has conducted a number of outdoor events and has drawn large crowds and the parking is absorbed by the community. Mayor Taylor asked if this is up to 60 people occupancy. Mr. Montgomery-Scoff replied yes. Council Member Clark asked if purchasing tables was necessary or if they could be brought over from other facility. Mr. Montgomery-Scoff replied that was feasible for a short time. The tables are not meant to be moved frequently, it will increase the damage on the tables and the tables in the facility are more expensive. Council MemberArmenta stated when she was working at the community facility, wedding receptions were not allowed because of the risk of alcoholic beverages being served. Ms. Armenta requested that staff make sure that the applicants understand there are no alcoholic beverages allowed. Mr. Montgomery-Scott stated there is no tobacco and no alcohol allowed. He added that it will be staffs responsibility to supervise the events and at the time the application is submitted all the rules and regulations will be run through. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 20 of 29 Council Member Armenta asked what the consequences are if alcoholic beverages are found on the premises. Mr. Montgomery-Scott replied that if staff thought the severity of the infraction necessitates the event will be shut down and there are laws and deposit fees. Mayor Taylorwhat is the severity of the infraction when there is alcohol. Mr. Montgomery-Scott stated if it's an individual that person is asked to leave the event. He explained that a staff member will be there from the moment of set up till the clean up stages and will make sure the applicant signs the facility condition report to ensure that all of the rules and regulations were followed through. Mayor Taylor stated he is hesitant on the liability involved. Council Member Margaret Clark made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Steven Ly, to approve the proposed Dinsmoor Heritage House Gardens application including rules and regulations, fee schedule, and cancellation policy to be effective October 1, 2010. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Julie Gentry — representing the Dinsmoor Museum Board of Directors spoke in regards to preservation of culture and museums. She commended staff for a job well done and the exposure the Dinsmoor House has received. Mrs. Gentry added that since 2003, the Board expressed interest in assisting in the repairs; however, the board never received a business agreement with the city. Jean Hall — stated they were pleased to be allowed to use the gardens. Mrs. Hall stated that the one thing heard from the Jones's, who are connected with the Dinsmoor legacy, was that they hoped no weddings and receptions would be permitted. Mrs. Hall mentioned there should be no problems with parking and that loud music was also a fear of the neighbors. She complemented Mr. Montgomery-Scott and his staff for the attention given to the Dinsmoor House. Council Member Clark asked if some funds of the rental could go for repairs. Mr. Montgomery-Scott stated yes and that part of the policy explained that half of the rental fee will go into repairs for the Dinsmoor House. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 21 of 29 Council Member Clark asked how soon staff would be able to paint the outside. Mr. Montgomery-Scott stated a contractor was coming out this week; part of the sensitivity of the house is that it is a historical house. Staff is trying to deal with contractors who deal specifically with historical facilities and staff is working with the consultant who handled the City's preservation plan. He added the consultant will be giving the City a timeline and estimated cost then staff will have to go out and request bids. Council Member Clark stated there were repairs that had to be done in some windows and that some people, including herself, had offered to volunteer to do the painting. Mr. Montgomery-Scoff replied that in addition to the windows there was stucco around the windows, doors, and other areas that had to be repaired. He stated that staff could include volunteer assistance on the request for bids. Council Member Armenta commented that when dealing with old paint there was a way to treat the lead paint. B. Non-Resident Fee for Senior Meals Program At its regular meeting on May 25, 2010, City Council authorized an increase in non - resident fees for recreation programs. However, fees related to the senior lunch program were not adjusted because patrons are asked to pay a donation. Currently, 60% of the program budget is comprised of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, which is limited to resident services unless a specific finding is made. More than half of senior lunch program participants are non- residents. Thus, Rosemead is subsidizing a portion of non - resident meals with CDBG funding. It is, therefore, recommended that, while donations will continue to be requested of resident patrons, non - residents would be charged a flat fee for a meal to avoid continued subsidies. Recommendation: That the City Council provide direction in establishing fees for non - resident patrons of the senior lunch program: Option A: Establish a non - resident senior meal fee of $3 per meal effective August 2, 2010 and direct staff to assess fees annually in accordance with their actual cost; or Option B: Establish a non - resident senior meal fee of $2 per meal effective August 2, 2010 and increase the fee to $3 effective July 1, 2011, and direct staff to assess fees annually in accordance with their actual cost. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 22 of 29 Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery -Scott reviewed the staff report Council MemberArmenta asked if residents were going be told the amount is $1.25 and how staff was going to make sure that non - residents pay the $3 fee. Mr. Montgomery-Scoff stated that participants complete an annual application form that provides basic information and staff will revise those forms to include the new and updated information. He added that the card system may be used in the future. Mayor Taylor asked if the seniors were making donations. Mr. Montgomery-Scoff replied that the majority are donating. Mayor Pro Tem Ly made a motion to approve Option B. Council Member Low asked if Council approved Option B would there be any violations with CDBG money. Economic Development Administrator Ramirez stated CDBG money could not be utilized for this . and that general fund money would have to cover the difference. Council Member Low asked if Council approved the $3 change could CDBG money be utilized. Mrs. Ramirez replied that CDBG money is for any resident that applies to the program but that the program cannot cover any non - resident. She explained that if the $3 change was approved then general fund would have to cover that additional $1. Mayor Taylor asked how many seniors attend each day. Mr. Montgomery-Scoff replied that between the two centers, approximately 160 seniors attend the lunch program and about 80 of them are non - residents. Mayor Taylor stated that if the city pays the extra dollar; at $80 a day times five is $400 a week; and times 10 weeks its $4,000 a year. Mayor Pro Tern Ly stated when Council was trying to consolidate the senior programs to one location he received a lot of calls. He added that a lot of the senior program attendees are from outside the city and Rosemead seniors do use other city's facilities as well. He added that it is $21,000 for senior programs for one year and the cost might decrease as the prices rise. Council Member Armenta stated that she became aware of a Rosemead resident who goes to South El Monte because he feels the food is better there. She added that people will be willing to pay more if the quality of the food is better. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 23 of 29 Council Member Low stated she did not want Rosemead residents to subsidize the cost and she thought Option A was better.- Mayor Taylor stated the seniors might be a shock the fees increase; Mr. Taylor added that he has received calls about the $1.25 fee being too much. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated people do live in fixed incomes or it might be an issue that they have not budgeted the new fee. Mayor Taylor stated that he thought it was a reasonable solution for the 11th month period. Council MemberArmenta supported Option B because she understood change was hard for some people and it should be done in phases for them. Mayor Pro Tern Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Margaret Clark, to approve Option B: Establish a non-resident senior meal fee of $2 per meal effective August 2, 2010 and increase the fee to $3 effective July 1, 2011, and direct staff to assess fees annually in accordance with their actual cost. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None C. Proposed "Social Host Underage Drinking and Consumption Accountability" Ordinance One of the many goals of the Rosemead Public Safety CONNECTIONS forum is to educate parents, grandparents, and other caregivers of their responsibilities to help young people to avoid the negative consequences associated with alcohol and drug use. The CONNECTIONS forum is recommending that the City Council adopt a "Social Host Underage Drinking and Consumption Accountability" Ordinance, which prohibits gatherings where alcohol is served to, consumed by or in the possession of underage persons. The purpose of the ordinance is to send a clear message to parents and others that have a responsibility not to allow underage drinking on their properties. The proposed ordinance will be a valuable resource and "tool' to assist Sheriff Deputies in the enforcement of underage drinking laws. Recommendation: That the City Council introduce for first reading Ordinance No. 899, entitled: Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 24 of 29 Chief of Police Lieutenant Murakami reviewed the staff report Council MemberArmenta stated this ordinance surfaced because of the Public Connections Forum in which Council Member Low serves as Chair and she as Vice - Chair; she explained they were both trying to figure out a way to get the youth off the streets, off drugs, and alcohol and find other alternatives for them. Ms. Armenta stated she thought this was a great way to make parents accountable for their children when they are cited and maybe it will serve as a reality check. She explained there are different severities of fines ranging from parenting classes to jail time. She added that there are currently 40 cities that have these social host ordinances and the City was not trying to receive additional revenues as the blogs in the Tribune stated. This ordinance will make parents accountable for their children. Council Member Low asked City Manager Allred to clarify on how this ordinance affects parties where parents are involved in underage drinking. Jean Hall — stated the ordinance makes sense but expressed concern regarding some of the language in the ordinance. She asked what if this happens on private property while watching sports events? Can residents be sited for allowing underage family members at their home. She reiterated that she was concerned with the vague language of the ordinance. Mayor Taylor stated that sheriffs would be called for disturbing the peace or a guest seeing a party getting out of control. He stated that other than that he did not see any intrusion of privacy unless there was a peace disturbance for peace officers to come into that private property. City Manager Allred stated if we look at section 9.1.8.030 of the ordinance it emphasizes the prohibition of parties or gatherings of young people that are drinking or are permitted to drink. The intent of this is to deal with these types of parties that occur on regular basis nation wide. Mr. Allred read the following statement, "No person shall knowingly suffer, permit, or host a party, gathering or event at his or her place of residence or other private or public property, place or premises under his or her control where two or more persons under the age of 21 are present, where alcoholic beverages are in the possession of, being consumed by, or served to any underage person. This prohibition shall not apply to parties, gatherings or events where religious services and /or activities protected by Article 1, Section 4, of the California Constitution, are exercised, nor shall the prohibition apply to the consumption of an alcoholic beverage by a minor at any place not open to the public when the minor is being supervised by his or her own parent or legal guardian." If a parent wants to'allow their child to consume a glass of wine, under their supervision that is not dealt with in this ordinance. This ordinance deals with people coming to a home where they are not being supervised by their own parents and are allowed to consume alcohol that would be a violation of this ordinance. This will only occurred when the sheriffs are called to a party and they discover that underage people are consuming alcohol. If people get belligerent with the sheriff and the provision of the ordinance may get invoked. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 25 of 29 Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to introduce Ordinance No. 899 for first reading. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None D. Street Name Sign Design and Replacement Program As part of the City's Capital Improvement Program, the City Council approved funding to implement a signage replacement program. This program is aimed at meeting new Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requirements for signage reflectivity on all City -owned signs (regulatory signs, warning signs, and street name signs). According to these requirements, the City's current street name sign background color of yellow will also not be in compliance. Prior to developing a replacement program for street name signs, the Traffic Commission developed a new design to meet the new reflectivity requirements. Recommendation: That the City Council concur with the Traffic Commission's recommendation for a new street name sign design and authorize the replacement of signs in conjunction with street resurfacing projects and as funding allows. Public Works Director Marcarello reviewed the staff report and had a PowerPoint presentation. Mayor Taylor expressed concern with regards to the font size being too small on the proposed signs. Mayor Pro Tern Ly suggested that taking out "The City' and just leaving the name "Rosemead" on the street sign would help keep the larger font. Mayor Taylor stated that staff recommends resurfacing projects as funding allows and asked what the prices for the new signs were and how many signs would the City acquire. Mr. Marcarello stated the City has an existing inventory that is being worked on; staff hasn't developed an exact cost estimate for the street name signs or the regulatory signs, and warning signs. He explained that staff's tentative plan was to get a conceptual approval of the design and then start working more on a replacement plan. City Manager Allred stated that the cost would be absorbed by the capital improvement projects. Mayor Taylor asked what funding source the City would have for those. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 26 of 29 Mr. Marcarello replied that with the street resurfacing project when Garvey is resurfaced, staff will be able to include the curb ramps, signage and striping in one lump. That will come before the Council when considering a bid specifications and plans. He added that there is a line item in the bid document stating "x" number of signs and so forth. Mayor Pro Tem Ly asked how much the signs cost as well as the signs on Valley Boulevard next to the signal lights. Mr. Marcarello stated the estimated cost on those are $80 to $90 plus tax and the signs next to the traffic lights are about $650 each. Mayor Taylor asked Mr. Marcarello if he knew how many signs were going to be replaced. Mr. Marcarello stated it will be substantial, in the thousands. There are approximately 43 intersections that are shared with Caltrans. Some will require two to four signs at intersections and it varies with each intersection. Council MemberArmenta commented that the City will be saving some revenue without the lighted signs that are in the major corridors. Mayor Taylor asked if Ms. Armenta's statement was correct. Mr. Marcarello stated the existing signs illuminate and the proposed signs that were hung in the pilot program do not need to be powered. Mayor Pro Tem Ly asked if Measure R funding could be utilized for the signs. Mr. Marcarello replied yes. Mayor Taylor expressed concern over the possibility of spending over $100,000 for the signs. City Manager Allred stated that this was another State or Federal unfunded mandate that the City would have to assume over the years and gradually phase into it. Council Member Low stated she supports the project and added that the current signs are old and the new signs will brighten up the city. Mayor Taylor reiterated that the intersection signs are $650 each and that will be about $2,500 per intersection; there are 43 intersections and 4 of those intersections will be $10,000. Council Member Armenta asked if there was any possible way residents could buy the old signs to subsidize the cost. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 27 of 29 Mr. Marcarello replied that could be considered. Jean Hall — thanked staff and the Traffic Commission for being involved with the street sign project. She stated the new signs are easier on the eyes and will make the residential area signs feasible to view. Brian Lewin — stated that on page 1 or 2 of the packet it did indicate some modifications, such as, adding directional and increasing the fonts. He stated this will be an improvement in the city. Juan Nunez — asked that two street light bulbs that are out in Valley Boulevard be repaired and spoke to staff and Caltrans to check the lights and the street signs. Mayor Taylor asked if the cost included installation for the signs. Mr. Marcarello replied it included the total cost. City Manager Allred stated that the funding allows for the project to be done gradually; it allows staff to use capital improvement projects funding and not general funds. Council Member Low stated she was very happy to see that street signs were going to be updated as she had hoped when getting elected. Council Member Polly Low made a motion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to concur with the Traffic Commission's recommendation for a new street name sign design and authorize the replacement of signs in conjunction with street resurfacing projects and as funding allows. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 10. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL A. Consideration to Cancel the August 10, 2010 Community Development Commission and City Council Meetings Due to upcoming scheduling conflicts and a lack of scheduled business items, the City Council will consider action to cancel the August 10, 2010, Community Development Commission and City Council Meetings. Meeting cancellations will result in cost savings of city attorney's fees. The next regular scheduled meeting date will be August 24, 2010. Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 28 of 29 Recommendation: That the City Council provide direction. City Manager Allred reviewed the staff report. Council Member Sandra Armenta made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low, to cancel the August 10, 2010 meeting. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: Taylor Absent: None Council Member Armenta thanked Rosemead residents for voting no on Measure CC — Charter City. 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:38 P.M. The next regular joint Community Development Commission, the Rosemead Financing Authority, and City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on August 24, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., respectively. Gary Ta , Mayor ATTEST: Gloria Molleda City Clerk Rosemead City Council, Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Joint Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010 Page 29 of 29 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF ROSEMEAD 1 I, Gloria Molleda, City Clerk for the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the minutes from July 27, 2010, were duly and regularly approved and adopted by the Rosemead City Council on the 12th of October, 2010, by the following vote to wit: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Gloria Molleda City Clerk