Loading...
CC - Item 9A - Continued Participation in the SR-60 CoalitionSTAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER 1-1-Al DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2011 SUBJECT: CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE SR -60 COALITION SUMMARY The City of Rosemead is a founding member of the SR -60 Coalition in partnership with the surrounding cities of South El Monte, Monterey Park, Montebello and El Monte, advocating for extension of the Metro Gold Line light rail system through the west San Gabriel Valley. Since September of 2010, the City of Rosemead has not been an active participant in the SR -60 Coalition due to concerns regarding the proposed California High -Speed Rail project. In recent months Rosemead's concerns regarding the California High -Speed Rail project have been substantially alleviated. Therefore, the SR -60 Coalition is now requesting that the City of Rosemead resume its full participation in the partnership, including the payment of dues. Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to resume full participation in the SR- 60 Coalition, including payment of membership dues and execution of appropriate agreements. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS The Metro light rail Gold Line Eastside Extension has been extended from Union Station in Los Angeles to Atlantic Blvd. in East Los Angeles. Metro is studying two optional alignments for the next phase of the Eastside Extension. One of the options would extend light rail service eastward along the SR -60 Freeway through Rosemead near the Shops at Montebello mall. The competing option would extend light rail southward towards Whittier along Washington Blvd. Since June of 2009, Rosemead has been a member of the SR -60 Coalition in partnership with neighboring cities to advocate for bringing light rail transportation services to the west San Gabriel Valley. Membership in the SR -60 Coalition includes monthly dues of $2,000 for legislative advocacy to bring the light rail through the San Gabriel Valley. Since September of 2010, the City of Rosemead has not been an active participant in the SR -60 Coalition due to City Council concerns regarding the proposed California High -Speed Rail project along the 1 -10 Freeway. The Council's concerns were that the City Council Meeting October 11,2011 Pape 2 of 2 SR -60 Coalition's efforts could potentially have the effect of pushing high -speed rail to the 1 -10 Freeway corridor. Attached is a copy of a December 1, 2010 letter from former Mayor Gary Taylor that essentially suspended Rosemead's full participation in the SR- 60 Coalition. In the intervening period since Mayor Taylor's letter, the City of Rosemead's concerns regarding the California High -Speed Rail project have been substantially alleviated as follows. • The California High -Speed Rail Authority has determined that there is no funding to advance plans for extension of the project through the San Gabriel Valley. • The California High -Speed Rail Authority had previously communicated that if the project were to be extended through the San Gabriel Valley, no properties in Rosemead would be required outside of the existing 1 -10 right -of -way and that no properties in Rosemead would be taken by eminent domain. • The City of Rosemead and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments are on record of supporting an alternative plan advanced by Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, which proposes to upgrade the Metrolink commuter rail system rather than building a brand new high speed rail system through urban corridors in Southern California. The upgraded Metrolink system could ultimately be linked to a future northbound and southbound California high -speed rail system outside of the Southern California urban corridors. The attached letter from SR -60 Coalition Chairman Joseph Gonzales requests the continued participation and support of the City of Rosemead. Also attached are copies of an invoice for payment of current and past dues in the amount of $28,000 payable from the City's Measure R Transportation funds. FINANCIAL IMPACTS Payment of current and past SR -60 Coalition membership dues of $28,000 would be paid from the City's Measure R Transportation funds. Continued participation in the Coalition would also require continued payments of $2,000 per month from Measure R funds, which are included in the Budget. Attachments: Letter and Invoice from SR -60 Coaliton Letter from former Mayor Gary Taylor dated 12/1/10 Minutes from 11/23/10 City Council meeting Previous agreements with the SR -60 Coaliton August 1, 2011 Honorable Steven Ly Mayor City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Boulevard Rosemead, CA 91770 RE: Continued participation with the SR -60 Coalition Honorable Mayor Ly: The City of Rosemead and its perspective City Council have been strong proponents and one of the founding Cities of the SR -60 Coalition established to advocate for the Eastside Goldline Extension Phase ll. Their indispensible contributions to the efforts to bring light rail to the region have resulted in being selected as one of the two possible alignments in this contentious process. In December of 2010, the former Mayor, Gary Taylor, sent a letter to the SR -60 Coalition Chairman, Joseph J. Gonzales regarding concerns pertaining to the California High Speed Rail. These concerns were largely unrelated to the Eastside Goldline Extension and the efforts of the Sr -60 Coalition. Since that time, the concerns expressed by Mr. Taylor regarding the California High Speed Rail Authority have largely been addressed and resolved. Furthermore, we have recently been informed by our lobbying firm that the funding for the second phase of the high speed rail project (Los Angeles to San Diego) has been eliminated. The SR -60 Coalition respectfully requests the continued participation and support of the City of Rosemead as per the attached agreement. We thank you once again for your support in our efforts to bring such an economically advantages and inter- jurisdictional project to the region. iJ. o al nan Coalition Connecting Our Communit/es OP ACHI0e� SR60 COALITION 1415 N. SANTA AANTA AVENUE SOUTH EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA 91733 (626) 579 -6540 - FAX(626)579 -2107 ALL AMERICA CITY Invoice No. 1024 Name: CITY OF ROSEMEAD 9/27/2011 Address: 8838 E. Valley Boulevard City: Rosemead, CA 91770 Attention: Jeff Allread, City Manager Date Description Unit Price Total Oct -11 PAST DUE Coalition Services for the Goldline Phase II PhaseIl SR60 Project September 2010 /October 2010 /November 2010 December 2010 /January 2011 /February 2011 March 2011 /April 201 I/May 2011 /June 2011 July 2011 /August 2011 /September 2011 $ 10,000.00 2,000.00 26,000.00 Sub Total Please Make Check Payable to City of South El Monte Total $ 28,000.00 $ - $ - $ 28,000.00 Thank you 1415 Santa Anita Avnue, South El Monte, Ca 91733, Tel: (626) 579 -6540, Fax: (626) 579 -2107 MAYOR: GARY TAYLOR MAYOR PRO MW STEVEN LY COUNCIL MEMBERS: SANDRA ARMENTA MARGARET CLARK POLLY LOW Joseph Gonzales, Chairman SR 60 Coalition 1415 N. Santa Anita Avenue South El Monte, CA 91733 Re: SR 60 Coalition and California High Speed Rail Concerns Dear Mr. Gonzales: December 1, 2010 As communicated during our November 23r City Council meeting, the City of Rosemead is continuing its deliberations on the renewal of its membership in the SR 60 Coalition. To date, the Rosemead City Council has not taken action to renew Its membership in the SR 60 Coalition due lingering concerns over the unknown impacts of a potential California High Speed Rail alignment through our community along the 1 -10 Freeway. Enclosed is a letter from the Rosemead City Council regarding our action to OPPOSE any rail alignment along the 1 -10 Freeway that would directly or indirectly impede on properties in Rosemead, which would include aerial, north side, south side of the 1 -10 Freeway. (If the CHSRA were to approve an alignment adjacent to the 1 -10 Freeway, an estimated 350 to 500 homes would be in jeopardy of eminent domain.) Specifically, we are requesting written assurances from the SR Coalition as follows: ® The SR 60 Coalition will oppose the taking of residential properties through eminent domain relative to the California High Speed Rail project. The SR 60 Coalition will take appropriate measures, through its legislative advocacy firm, to encourage Metro, Metrolink, Caitrans and the CHSRA to explore a potential right -of -way rail tracks "swap" whereby the Metrolink service through Rosemead could be rerouted to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks in order to free -up the 1 -10 Freeway median for an at -grade or below -grade route alignment for the California High Speed Rail project. • The legislative advocacy consulting firm retained by the SR 60 Coalition will take proactive measures to communicate and advocate the City of Rosemead's position on the Califomia High Speed Rail project to the CHSRA and State legislators. • The SR 60 Coalition will not advocate or support a California High -Speed Rail alignment along the t-10 Freeway unless it is within the median with an at -grade or below -grade vertical profile. Before taking action to renew its membership in the SR 60 Coalition, the City of Rosemead is seeking written assurances from the Coalition regarding these above- listed items. Respectfully, Gary Tayl Mayor Attachment 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD • P.O. BOX 399 ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 TELEPHONE (626) 569 -2100 FAX (626) 307 -9216 Cc: Rosemead City Council Minutes of the Community Development Commission and City Council Re&lar Meeting November 23, 2010 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Community Development Commission and City Council was called to order by Mayor Taylor at 6:03 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Chair/Mayor Taylor, Vice-Chair/Mayor .Pro Tem Ly, Commissioners /Council Members Armenia, Clark, and Low ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth, Community Development Director Wong, Director of Finance Bnsco, Directo[ of Parks and Recreation Montgomery- Scott, Economic Development Manager Ramirez, Public Works Director Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda ABSENT: City Manager Allred 1, ORDINANCES READ BY TITLE ONLY State law requires that all ordinances be read in full prior to the City Council /Agency Board taking action; however, by motion, unanimously adopted, the City Attorney can be instructed to read all ordinances by title only. Recommendation: That the City Attorney be instructed to read all ordinances which appear on this agenda by title only, and that further reading be waived. Commissioner /Council Member Sandra Armenta made a motion, seconded by Commissioner /Council Member Polly Low, to approve ordinance 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 CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Demands Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of November 23, 2010 Page I of] 7 ® Resolution No. 2010 — 37 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2010 —37, entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2010 — 37 FOR PAYMENT OF COMMISSION EXPENDITURES IN THE AMOUNT OF $139,619.49 DEMAND NO. 10096 AND DEMAND NOS. 11386 THROUGH 11394. Vice-Chair/Mayor Pro Tem Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner /Council Member Sandra Armenta, to approve the Commission Consent Calendar. Vote resulted in: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 4. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER $ STAFF A. Extension of the SR-60 Coalition Reimbursement Agreement The City Council will receive a presentation and consider an extension of agreement with neighboring cities to gamer support for the selection of the SR -60 freeway as the preferred route for the Gold Line Eastside light rail extension project. Rosemead's proportional cost for participation in the coalition will be derived from Measure R Transportation funds. Recommendation: That the City Council direct staff regarding the extension of the SR -60 Coalition Reimbursement Agreement for legislative advocacy services. Public Works Director MarcareNo reviewed the staff report. Representative of the SR- Coalition, Council Member Gonzales of South El Monte gave a PowerPoint presentation. PowerPoint presentation is available in the City Clerk's Office, Commissioner Clark asked what the connector to downtown was. Vice -Chair Ly explained it's a light rail from Union Station area and instead of transferring from the gold line, to the red or blue line; passengers can stay on the gold line to go directly to a regional connector on the same line. Mr. Ly added that a regional connector would be a benefit to the community. Commissioner Clark asked when the route will be decided on. Mr. Gonzales • replied the route will be decided between September and December'of 2011. Commissioner Clark asked if the High Speed Rail Authority can show the SR -60 that they can be compatible. Has the SR60 Coalition looked at that? Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of November 23, 2010 Page 2 of 17 Mr. Gonzales - replied that the compatibility is an issue for the City, 1 -10 cities and the SR -60 and when Metro decides on a route, they will look at it with more detail. Chair Taylor asked if Metro is looking at one or two routes. Mr. Gonzales - explained that the there are two lines for the SR -60. For the High Speed Rail, Metro is looking at four routes the 1 -10, SR -60, UPA Rail line, and the Union Pacific line. CommissionerArmenta stated that Metro has taken out the Union Pacific line because it's not a possible route. The only two routes that Metro is looking at are the 1 -10 and the 1 -60. NTr. Gonzales - stated that at the Council of Governments meeting they came up with a timeline chart of the High Speed Rail that shows the SR -60 to be quicker route than the 1 -10. SR60 is now concerned because now does that mean we are the favored route. We're waiting to see what happens with the light rail line. Vice -Chair Ly explained that the two lines are not compatible because of the technology. Metro has indicated they are looking towards the south end of the freeway because the High Speed Rail does not like curvature trails on their route. Mr. Ly added that if the High Speed Rail did go along the 1 -60 it will be on the right -of -way of the freeway or along the north end of the freeway; whereas the light rail gold line would be going on the south end of the freeway. Also, if the High Speed Rail Authority wants to avoid eminent domain of homes, they would have to go on the north end of the freeway all the way to Garfield and then switch to the south end and that is a curvature. Mr. Ly stated that for the safety ability of the High Speed Rail, so that most likely eliminates the option of the south end freeway. The SR -60 and the High Speed Rail are two different projects and does not believe eminent domain will be used on the south end of the freeway for the gold line extension. Chair Taylor asked Mr. Gonzales how many homes could be in condemnation in the City of Rosemead because of the High Speed Rail. Mr. Gonzales - replied that about 200 to 300 homes would be in condemnation. Chair Taylor confirmed it was 350 homes that would be in condemnation. He added that's in the right -of- way and the right -of -way is 250 feet wide and approximately 125 feet. For example 250 foot right -of -way, 125 feet to the center of the right- a -way, take off 25 feet, it's a 50 foot concrete deck; take off another 25 so you have approximately 100 feet from the right- of -way which would be the first house on the residential streets all across the city. Mr. Taylor asked what happens to the value of the house or ten houses down the street that terminate on the high speed rail system. He stated if we hang ourselves by saying we'll support the gold line, he can't support it. Mr. Gonzales - stated that his city is in the same situation and didn't know how many homes will be affected because of the High Speed Rail. Mr. Gonzales added that the City of South El Monte has chosen to see what is going to happen with the SR -60 extension first and by waiting the City is not saying they are in support of the High Speed Rail, Also, other cities such as Montebello, Monterey Park and El Monte have not voiced their opposition to the High Speed Rail because the Authority may have another phase of alternatives for the High Speed Rail and the decision on the gold line will be made after September 2011. Rosemead Cry Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of Noveinber 23, 2010 Page 3 of 17 Chair Taylor asked what the High Speed Rail system's EIR time was because the Authority is a State organization that can override all of the cities and will come on March of 2011 to make a decision. Mr. Gonzales — stated that he was not sure about the time frame. Vice-Chair Ly stated that the High Speed Rail Authority may narrow their choices for two routes by March of 2011, however may look at other potential lines because of the EIR process. He added that an issue is where the meeting will be held whether in Los Angeles or Riverside area. Mr. Ly also stated that the gold line is a separate line and will be built along Washington Boulevard or along the SR -60. Chair Taylor asked Mr. Ly if it was definite that the gold line will be built. Vice -Chair Ly explained that Metro is looking at the Transportation Management System or the no build option as part of the EIR process because it's a scientific study. Chair Taylor asked what the scientific study on the High Speed Rail is going down the 1 -10 freeway. Vice -Chair Ly replied the scientific study is currently being conducted and the gold line plan is ahead by a year and a half than the High Speed Rail. Chair Taylor stated that things were different In 2006 and 2007 and the City had just found out in February of 2010 that an alternate route had been chosen on the 1 -10 freeway which was a surprise that hit us head on. Mr. Gonzales — explained that the light rail and high speed rail are different projects Chair Taylorstated that there has to be a compatible way for the two lines to go on the Pomona freeway. It's only a certain segment that the High Speed Rail would go along the Pomona Freeway. Vice- Chair Ly stated the problem is that there are two different agencies with different time lines and the High Speed Rail Authority, Metro has already analyzed going along the south end of the freeway. Omar Hernandez - stated that the High Speed Rail has been funded for the first phase of which the project is supposed to go from San Francisco to San Diego. The second phase will not start till 2022 and because of funding will be set through Measure R, and when the funds goes through, the SR -60 or the Washington line will already be in. Commissioner Low stated there are two choices: the SR -60 or Washington Blvd and felt the City should focus on what is going to benefit the community. Mrs. Low added that if that is the case, the City should support the Coalition to continue to fight that the line goes on the SR -60 and not on the Washington Boulevard route. Chair Taylor stated that 500 homes should not be sacrificed when only one store is producing tax revenue at Montebello Mall for the City and potential restaurants. Vice -Chair Ly stated if there is a stop by the Montebello Mall that would put that stop within a quarter of a mile from Double Tree and Holiday Express and that would benefit the transient occupancy tax revenue. Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of November 23, 2010 Page 4of17 Chair Taylor reiterated that by taking 500 R -1 homes is almost 7 percent of residents Commissioner Low asked Mr. Taylor if by supporting the SR -60 the City will lose. Chair Taylorstated that 500 residents will lose out. Commissioner Low asked what 500 residents he was referring to. Commissioner Clark stated that the High Speed Rail staff previously made statements in front of almost 200 of our residents that they were looking at the 1 -60 freeway but there was so much pushback from cities and organizations that they decided to look at the 1 -10. That was heard by our residents that feel the push to have it on the 10 was from SR60 people who said, "Better you than me ". Commissioner Low clarified to the High Speed Rail Authority staff that she would never support anything that would take homes from people. Commissioner Clark stated to Mrs, Low that the perception is that she would be in support of the 1 -10 route. CommissionerLow stated that if the High Speed Rail is going to go on the 1 -10 freeway on grade or underground she would support that and referred to Mr. Hernandez's comments that the SR-60 would be done before the High Speed Rail. Mr. Hernandez — stated that it was discussed in the Alhambra High Speed Rail meeting it would be a problem to have both High Speed Rail and Metro Link both on the middle of the median and therefore the Authority is looking to move the Metro Link onto the Alameda Lines that go through Alhambra. Commissioner Clark stated that Ms. Genoveva mentioned to her that Union Pacific is against the High Speed Rail because it's not compatible and they are looking at swapping Metro Link with High Speed Rail when it turns to El Monte; Union Pacific could allow Metro Link to use their lines. Chair Taylor— reiterated that two rails cannot run on the same track system. He added the concept of building towers that are going to be subterranean which is not possible. Mr. Taylor stated that he needed to see something in writing with serious alternatives. Mr. Hernandez — stated that the issue is that the High Speed Rail will affect Rosemead corridors and since the City is a member of the SR -60 Coalition, they can help as a group to fight the High Speed Rail. Cities in the SR-60 Coalition include the City of El Monte, Monterey Park and Montebello and many others. Mayor Taylor Recessed the Community Development Commission meeting at 7:01 p.m. in order to continue this discussion at the Council Meeting. Minutes of the City Council Meeting The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor Taylor at 7:03 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. Rosemead City Council mid Community Development Comm ission Joint Meeting Minutes ofNovember 23, 2010 Page 5 of 17 PRESENT: Mayor Taylor, Mayor Pro Tem Ly, Council Members Armenta, Clark, and Low ABSENT� STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Alfred, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth, Community Development Director Wong, Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery- Scott, Economic Development Manager Ramirez, Public Works Director Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda Community Development Commission /City Council continued the discussion regarding the SR -60 Coalition. Council Member Sandra stated that Ms. Genoveva stated the Authority is looking at the 1 -10 freeway because stakeholders at the scoping meeting did not want the High Speed Rail to go along the 1 -60 she stated that at many meetings. She added that a route will be chosen by 2014, and if the High Speed Rail goes on the south side of the 1 -10 freeway, property owners will have to disclose that information when trying to sell their homes. She asked if we support the SR60 how do we know it won't backfire on us. Ms. Armenia asked if the Coalition can produce a letter or proclamation to the City guaranteeing support when the City needs assistance from the Coalition. Council Member Clark reiterated that is would be best if the Coalition looked into the swap option because it would avoid the 1-60 freeway, She suggested a letter be written and postpone the issue so the consultants could work with Union Pacific and High Speed Rail Authority. Mr. Hernandez — agreed to Mrs. Clark's request in assisting with a letter to be written on behalf of the Coalition to look at further study and address the land swap. Mike Roos — former Assembly Member stated Jerry Lewis, who will be Chair of Appropriation has introduced a bill in which all stimulus money will come back, turning High Speed Rail on its head. He commented that this was a way to balance or rebalance the $3,3 trillion dollars debt of the nation and that is why the City and the SR -60 should collectively work together. Council Member Clark asked Mr. Roos to contact Union Pacific and High Speed Rail regarding the swap option on behalf of the City. Mayor Taylor asked how much time the City had before the High Speed Rail Authority meets in March of 2011. Mr. Taylor also inquired about the $9 billion bonds. Mr. Roos — stated there was plenty of time and that all the bonds have not been issued because there is a lot of clutter in the muni bond market. The Treasurer has announced that because of interest rates and problems with the budget it's creating a bigger back log. Richard Alatorre - former member of the Legislature and former L.A. City Council Member, stated when a City stands to lose 400 to 500 homes the best way to fight it is when you have other cities support. The SR- 60 has succeeded because of the unity of purpose when all cities come together with like objectives. Mr. Alatorre added the commonality that all the cities and the coalition share is the disproportionate amount of Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of November 23, 2010 Page 6 of 17 money going somewhere other than going Into the San Gabriel Valley and the need for a multi model system of transportation. Mayor Taylor inquired about the March timeline and that the City does not have any authority. He added that the High Speed Rail Authority will hold their meeting, make a decision and the City should have something to present. Council Member Clark asked the Coalition to make phone calls as soon as possible and meet with High Speed Rail Authority. Mr. Gonzales — stated that the Coalition will need to draft a letter and submit it asking the High Speed Rail Authority to look for alternatives. Mr. Hernandez - commented that the SR -60 Coalition has never endorsed High Speed Rail along the 1 -10 freeway and It discussed that each individual city had to look at their best Interest. He added that the SR -60 Coalition had a neutral stand on the issue. Mayor Pro Tem Lysuggested that City Manager draft a letter encouraging the High Speed Rail Authority to look at the swap as an option. Council Member Clark commended Mr. Roos public service to communities. She added when she was fighting eminent domain in Rosemead, there was a bill that they called Roos Bill which allowed otherways to build onto existing schools instead of taking 40 acres of land. As a result the Alhambra School District backed off using eminent domain and obtained funding to build on to their existing high schools. Council Member Armenia stated she felt more secure if the SR -60 would join the City to fight the High Speed Rail. Mayor Taylor stated he could not endorse the extension to the SR -60 agreement at the moment, Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated the City is asking the SR-60 to take an official stand and draft a fetter to look into the High Speed Rail and Metro link swap. City Attorney Richman asked the SR -60 representative that if each of the member cities had to have a meeting at some point. Mr. Gonzales - stated the SR -60 will hold a meeting on December 14th, and asked the City Council to provide a letter addressing the City's concerns that would serve as basis for the SR -60 letter. Mayor Pro Tem Ly— stated that the High Speed Rail Authority may or may not meet in March and that gave the City about 120 days to adopt a letter in concept and authorize the City Manager to draft a letter asking the High Speed Rail Authority to look at the swap as an alternative option. City Manager Alfred reiterated City Council's direction to draft a letter for discussion and present it on the SR- 60 for the December 14 meeting. Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of November 23, 2010 Page 7 of 77 Mayor Taylor asked if the City and the SR -60 are to be united, what other cities will bring to the unity. Also added that is why the letter needs to be drafted quickly to allow other cities provide input. City Attorney Richman clarified that Council's direction is to direct the City Manager to draft a letter for the December 14th meeting. Council Member Clark stated that the letter needed to be drafted earlier. Mr. Hernandez - stated that the SR -60 would like to get approval of the letter at their December 14th meeting. City Manager Allred reiterated that Council direct City Manager'to write a letter for the Coalition to assist the City of Rosemead in support. Council MemberArmenta clarified that the letter needs to be drafted before the 14 so the SR -60 could present it to their board members. City Council recessed the meeting at 7.34 p.m. and reconvened back at 7.40 p.m. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE John Thai — traveled from New York to represent his family who reside on Prospect Avenue in Rosemead. Mr. Thai expressed concern with the Housing Rights Center, claiming they initiated an audit in January of 2010. He added that the Housing Rights Center contacted classified ads of property owners and pretended to be interested or to become prospective tenants. Mr. Thai stated that on August of 2010 he received a letter from the Housing Rights Center making false statements. He spoke to Ms. Irma Salgado and other supervisors and stated that the landlords were required to take a course for anti- discriminatlon and if they did not sign a letter of arbitration with their corporation, they would sue and prosecute the landlords. Mr. Thai stated that the Housing Rights Center told him that they were contracted with the City and can act as a government agency. He contacted Economic Development Manager Mrs. Ramirez, who contacted the Housing Rights Center and clarified that they are not a government agency but a contractor. Another Issue, Mr. Thai expressed was that Mrs. Ramirez stated to the Housing Rights Center that they cannot force any landlord and property owner to take any courses. He added that the Housing Rights Center staff told Mrs. Ramirez that they were required to take the course or-be prosecuted. He reiterated that it was against the law because It's a writ of attainder. Mr. Thai asked the Housing Rights Center to provide statistics on how many people are forced to take their course and they refused. Mayor Taylor asked Mr. Thai about the time frames of the issue. Mr. Thai - stated that the issue started in January of 2010, on August he received a letter and as of today there has not been any resolution. Mayor Taylor asked for clarification on what the Housing Rights Center would inquire when asking if dogs and if transgender tenants were allowed. Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of November 23, 2010 Page 8 of 17 Memorandum of Understanding In Support of The Goldline Extension Alternative 1 This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ( "MOU ") is made as of June 9 2009, by and between the signatories to this MOU. Recitals A. The Metropolitan Transit Authority ( "MTA ") is in the process of designing and constructing, in phases, a light rail project known as the Metro Gold Line. The MTA is currently evaluating potential alternatives for the second phase of the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension. B. One of the alternative routes MTA is considering is "Alternative 1" aligned with State Highway 60. The proposed Alternative 1 route is shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. C. The signatories, comprised of local agencies Cities of South El Monte, Monterey Park, El Monte, Montebello and Rosemead (collectively "Local Agencies ") and certain Los Angeles County, State of California and United States officials, support selection of Alternative 1 and desire to cooperate in all efforts in favor of the selection of Alternative 1. THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: L Goldline Extension Alternative I Coalition The signatories hereto hereby form the Goldline Extension Alternative 1 Coalition ( "Coalition ") for the purposes set forth in the recitals. The signatories agree not to participate in efforts supporting other alternative routes. 2. Term This MOU shall be valid for one year and shall be automatically renewed each year thereafter, beginning on the first day of each fiscal year. Any signatory may terminate his, her or its participation in this MOU upon 60 days written notice to the other signatories prior to the start of the fiscal year. 3. Meetings Representatives of the signatories shall meet from time to time, but no less than monthly, to discuss the efforts designed to secure selection of Alternative 1. South El Monte City Manager Anthony Ybarra and Baldwin Park City Manager June Yotsuya, or their respective designees, shall coordinate the time, place and agenda for each meeting. 4. Limitation on Powers The Coalition is not authorized to perform any of the following acts: A. ' To make and enter into contracts. Under no circumstance shall the Coalition enter into any contract or commit any act of omission which may result in a debt, liability or obligation, either present or future, for any signatory; B. To employ or engage contractors, agents, or employees; C. To sue; or 12402 - 0001 \113857 M.doe D. To issue bonds or otherwise to incur any debts, liabilities and obligations. 5. Obligations of Coalition Notwithstanding Section 4, no debt, liability or obligation of the Coalition shall be the debt, liability or obligation of the signatories, and no signatory, or representative thereof, shall be personally liable for any debt, liability or obligation of the Coalition. 6. Consultants From time to time, the Local Agencies may agree that a consultant or consultants will be needed to advance the interests of the Coalition. The Local Agencies hereinafter hereby acknowledge that, upon the unanimous approval of such Local Agencies, a Local Agency shall enter into a contract with such consultant, and each Local Agency shall reimburse the contracting Local Agency its proportionate share pursuant to a reimbursement agreement. Additional Parties Any interested party may join the Coalition at anytime. 8. No Separate Entity This MOU establishes a framework for cooperation on transit issues. Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to create an entity separate from the Local Agencies that join in this cooperative effort. The signatories that join together in this effort may be referred to collectively as the Goldline Extension Alternative I Coalition. 9. The parties have been represented by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this MOU. Accordingly, this MOU shall be construed according to its fair language and any ambiguities shall not be resolved against the drafting party. 10. Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to render the parties in any way or for any purpose partners, joint venturers or associates, nor shall this MOU be construed to authorize any party to act as agent for another party. 11. Nothing in this MOU shall be construed to authorize any party or the Coalition to make and enter into contracts or commit any act of omission which may result in a debt, liability or obligation, either present or future, for any individual party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this MOU to be executed and attested by their duly authorized proper officers as follows: (Signatures follow) 12402 - 0001 \1138571v2.doc LOCAL AGENCIES CITY OF ROSEMEAD, a municipal corporation By: MARGAREe CLARK, MAYOR ATTEST: ' Al ' --' W (seal) - City Clerk APPROVED • FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT City Nknager 12402-0001%113 85 7 1 vZdoc REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH COSTS INCURRED BY THE CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE PURSUANT TO ITS CONTRACT WITH MIKE, ROOS & COMPANY THIS REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement ") is made and entered into as of June 9, 2009, by and among the cities of South El Monte, Monterey Park, El Monte, Rosemead and Montebello, with respect to the following recitals: RECITALS A. The Metropolitan Transit Authority ( "MTA ") is in the process of designing and constructing, in phases, a light rail project known as the Metro Gold Line. The MTA is currently evaluating potential alternatives for the second phase of the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension. B. One of the alternative routes MTA is considering is "Alternative 1" aligned with State Highway 60. C. The cities of South El Monte, Monterey Park, El Monte, Rosemead and Montebello support selection of Alternative 1 and desire to cooperate in all efforts in favor of the selection of Alternative 1. D. The City of South El Monte has entered into that certain Agreement for Professional Services ( "Consultant Agreement ") with Mike Roos & Company ( "Consultant ") under which Consultant will act as an advocate on behalf of the Alternative 1 and use his best efforts to develop support and political consensus, inter alia, among the Board of the MTA so that the MTA selects Alternative I E. Monterey Park, El Monte, Rosemead and Montebello have each agreed to reimburse South El Monte one -fifth of the costs incurred by South El Monte pursuant to the Consultant Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City of South El Monte has entered into that certain Agreement for Professional Services ( "Consultant Agreement") with Mike Roos & Company ( "Consultant "), under which South El Monte is contractually obligated to pay Consultant $10,000 per month for the period of May 13, 2009 through November 13, 2009, and reimburse Consultant for expenses incurred. The Consultant Agreement obligates Consultant to provide monthly invoices to South El Monte describing expenses incurred and seeking payment of the monthly fee and reimbursement for expenses incurred. 2. Each of the cities of Monterey Park, El Monte, Rosemead and Montebello shall reimburse South El Monte one -fifth of the fees and costs incurred by South El Monte pursuant to the Consultant Agreement, as follows. Upon its receipt of an invoice from Consultant, South El Monte shall forward such invoice to the other parties to this Agreement. Thereafter, Monterey Park, El Monte, Rosemead and Montebello shall each pay South El Monte in accordance with the following schedule: July 15, 2009 $2000 plus 115 of expenses reimbursed by SEM for the period of May 13 — June 12 Aug 15, 2009 $2000 plus 1 /5of expenses reimbursed by SEM for the period of June 13 — July 12 Sept 15, 2009 $2000 plus 1 /5of expenses reimbursed by SEM for the period of July 13 — Aug 12 Oct 15, 2009 $2000 plus 1/5 of expenses reimbursed by SEM for the period of Aug 13 — Sept 12 Nov 15, 2009 $2000 plus 1/5 of expenses reimbursed by SEM for the period of Sept 13 — Oct 12 Dec 15, 2009 $2000 plus 1/5 of expenses reimbursed by SEM for the period of Oct 13 — Nov 13 3. Applicable Law This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 4. Assi ng ability and Subcontracting Parties shall not assign this Agreement or any portion thereof to a third party or subcontract with a third party to provide services required under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other parties. 5. Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior offers and negotiations, oral and written. This Agreement may not be amended or modified in any respect whatsoever except by an instrument in writing signed by the Cities of South El Monte, Monterey Park, El Monte, Rosemead and Montebello. 6. Interpretation This Agreement is deemed to have been prepared by all of the parties hereto, and any uncertainty or ambiguity herein shall not be interpreted against the drafter, but rather, if such ambiguity or uncertainty exists, shall be interpreted according to applicable rules of interpretation of contracts under the law of the State of California. 7. Litigation Costs Should any dispute under this Agreement lead to litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party to the lawsuit all attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with the lawsuit. 8. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered, shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which, taken together, shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument. 9. Authority The persons signing this Agreement warrant that each of them has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the party on whose behalf said person is purporting to execute this Agreement, and that this Agreement is a binding obligation of said parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Cities of South El Monte, Monterey Park, El Monte, Rosemead and Montebello have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written, goldline coalition Reimbursement Agreementf3].DOC -2- CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE, a municipal corporation ATTEST: City Clerk ATTEST: City Clerk ATTEST: (seal) (seal) (seal) City Clerk ATTEST: - (flu s A, (seal) City Clerk CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, a municipal corporation By: CITY OF MONTEBELLO, a municipal corporation By: CITY OF ROSEMEAD, a municipal corporation 021 2- L .r goldline coalition Reimbursement Agreement[31.DOC -3 - CITY OF EL MONTE, a municipal corporation ATTEST: City Clerk (seal) By: goldline coalition Reimbursement Agreement[IIDOC -4- yo-bk>� �1 • 2"1 TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: MATTHEW HAWKESWORTH, ACTING CITY MANAGER DATE: JUNE 9, 2009 SUBJECT: SR -60 COALITION MOU FOR THE GOLD LINE EASTSIDE TRANSIT COORIDOR PHASE 2, ALTERNATE 1 SUMMARY The Gold Line Eastside extension, which is under construction from Union Station to Pomona Boulevard and Atlantic Boulevard in East Los Angeles, is scheduled to be completed in mid 2009. The Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) is currently studying four alternatives to extend the Gold Line, in addition to a no build alternative. Alternative 1 (SR -60), follows the southern edge of the SR -60 freeway, and traverses through Rosemead, Montebello, Monterey Park, El Monte, and South El Monte. This route would bring light rail transportation to our community. In May of 2008, City Council directed staff to continue to work with Metro regarding SR- 60. In February 2009, the City Council also passed a resolution in support of the SR -60 route. Since that time, several meetings have taken place with staff from the above cities to combine efforts to lobby for SR -60. As a result, the SR -60 Gold Line Extension Coalition is in the process of being formed and formalized through the attached MOU. Additionally, one of the founding members of the coalition initiated hiring a lobbying consultant on behalf of the coalition. Staff recommendation Staff recommends that City Council approve the MOU and the Reimbursement Agreement for the lobbying consultant. ANALYSIS The Metro Gold Line Eastside extension will be completed in mid -2009. The light rail will connect Union Station in downtown Los Angeles to Atlantic and Pomona Boulevards in East Los Angeles. Metro is studying the next phase of the Eastside Extension and has narrowed the alternatives to four alignments. The SR -60 route is the only alternative that would provide our community with light rail transportation. • SR -60: This alignment follows the southern edge of the SR -60 freeway, and traverses through Rosemead, Montebello, Monterey Park, El Monte, and South El Monte and terminates near the 1- 605 /SR -60 interchange. APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: { City Council Meeting June 9, 2009 Page 2 of 2 • Beverly: This alignment follows SR -60 to Garfield then along Beverly Boulevard to Whittier Boulevard. This alignment traverses through the cities of Montebello, Pico Rivera; and Whittier, and terminates at Whittier Boulevard. • Beverly/Whittier: This alignment follows the Beverly alignment to Montebello Boulevard, then to Whittier Boulevard, and terminates in the City of Whittier. This route traverses through the cities of Montebello, Pico Rivera, and Whittier. • Washington: This alignment follows the Beverly alignment then to Washington Boulevard, and terminates in the City of Whittier. This route travels through the cities of Montebello, Commerce, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs, and Whittier. Although the SR -60 Gold Line Extension Coalition has started to promote the SR -60 alternative and has approached other agencies for support of this alternative, the MOU would enable the coalition to move forward with additional cooperative efforts in favor of the SR -60 route. Other city coalitions (e.g., Whittier and Pico Rivera) have already started their efforts to promote their preferred alternative, which also includes hiring a lobbying consultant. The Metro board is scheduled to make their decision regarding which alternative(s) to refine or study further in Fall 2009. The lobbying firm of Mike Roos and Company was retained by the City of South El Monte to help garner support of SR -60 and the efforts of the coalition. The contract with Mike Roos and Company is for $10,000 per month, plus approved expenses, for the period of May 13, 2009 through November 13, 2009, for a total of six months with a total cost of $60,000. The Reimbursement Agreement equally divides the cost among the coalition cities, which is equivalent to $2,000 per month. FISCAL IMPACT At this time, the only financial impact that has been identified is $60,000 for the cost of a lobbying consultant, which is to be equally divided and paid for by the coalition cities. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Prepared by: Aileen Flores Public Affairs Manager Attachments: Attachment A- MOU in Support of he Gold Line Extension, Alternative 1 Attachment B — Reimbursement Agreement