Loading...
CC - Item 5B - Minutes of October 28, 2025MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL & REGULAR JOINT MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2025 The special meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Armenta at 6:00 p.m., in the Rosemead City Council Chamber, located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, Council Members Dang and Ly ABSENT: Council Member Low 1. CLOSED SESSION A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORM Government Code Section: 54957 Title: City Manager City Attorney Richman announce and that she would report out any Mayor Pro Tem The regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., inthe PRESENT: Mayor Clark (e Council Members Dang and the "E EVALUATION City Council would go into Closed Session ;il action at the regular 7:00 p.m. meeting. :eting to Closed Session at 6:02 p.m. called to order by Mayor Pro Tem Armenta located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Just Cause), Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and ABSENT: Council Member Low PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Council Member Dang INVOCATION was led by Mayor Pro Tem Annenta City Attorney Richman reported there was no reportable action take in closed session. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT -None 3. PRESENTATION A. Presentation and Welcoming Council Member Steven Ly from His Return from Military Service Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2025 Page I of 18 AGENDA ITEM 5.11 EN 5. The City Council welcomed Council Member Steven back from military service abroad. Council Member Ly stated he was excited to return back home after months abroad and looks forward to getting back in working with the City Council and community. B. Declaring a Proclamation for October 10, 2025 as "National Day of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" in the City of Rosemead The City Council presented Sarah Chen, Deputy Director with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Los Angeles with a proclamation declaring October loth as double ten day. C. Declaring a Proclamation for October 6-12, 2025 as "Code Enforcement Officer Appreciation Week" in the City of Rosemead The City Council presented Public Safety Director Murakami and Code Enforcement Officers with a proclamation declaring October 6-12, Officer Appreciation Week. PUBLIC HEARING - None CONSENT CALENDAR ACTION: Motion by Council Member' approve ConsentCalendar Items A - E, carried out by the following roll call'vo NOES: None; ABSENT: Low Claims and Demands • Resolution. No.2025-57 A RESOLUTION OF THE as "Code Enforcement Council Member Dang to h'the ,exception of Item B. Motion was AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang and Ly; CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $2,536,147.00 CHECKS NUMBERED 118784 THROUGH NUMBER 118886, DRAFTS NUMBERED 7948 THROUGH NUMBER 7968 AND EFT NUMBERED 53109 THROUGH NUMBER 53138 INCLUSIVELY Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2025-57. B. Minutes ACTION: Motion by Council Member Ly, seconded by Council Member Dang to approve Consent Calendar Item B. Motion was carried out by the following roll call votes: AYES: Armenta, Clark, and Dang; NOES: None; ABSENT: Low; ABSTAIN: Ly Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2025 Page 2 of 18 Recommendation: That the City Council approve the minutes of the special joint meeting of September 23, 2025 and regular meeting of October 14, 2025. C. Report of Purchase Orders in Excess of $10,000 This report summarizes purchase orders over $10,000 issued from July 1, 2025 through September 30, 2025, reflecting key expenditures for contracted services, community programs, and capital and technology improvements essential to City operations. Recommendation: That the City Council receive and file the report D. Approve Professional Design Services Agreement for Garvey Park Improvements Project As part of the City's Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Capital Improvement Program, funds were allocated for multiple improvements at Garvey Park. These improvements include playground design services,picnic shelter and restroom roof replacements, youth center interior renovations, and parking lot reconstruction. On July 15, 2025, the City published a Request for Proposals for design services and received nine proposals. Each proposal was evaluated based on qualifications, approach, references, staffing, pricing, and completeness. Recommendation That the City Council approve the selection of RHA Landscape Architects -Planners,; Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $196,350.00. Council Member Ly noted that the Parks Commission serves as the advisory body on park related matters and requested that the Director of Parks and Recreation incorporate the Parks Commission into the design discussions and overall design process. E. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-56 - Grant of Easement to Southern California Edison for Access and Utility Purposes Over a Portion of Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel No. 5390-011-915, Owned by the City of Rosemead, and Located in the Southeast Corner of the City Hall Parking Lot Southern California Edison (SCE) has requested that the City of Rosemead grant an easement for construction and maintenance of underground electrical supply systems over a portion of Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel No. 5390-011-915, owned by the City of Rosemead, and located in the southeast corner of the City Hall Parking Lot. There is an existing electrical vault that is owned and maintained by SCE located within the City Hall Parking Lot directly adjacent to the proposed easement location. This grant of easement will allow for the installation of new conduits for additional electrical supply systems to serve the electric vehicle charging stations proposed at 8856 Valley Boulevard (Bank of America). Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2025 Page 3 of 18 6. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-56, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A GRANT OF EASEMENT TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON WITHIN AND OVER LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 5390-011-915 OWNED BY THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD 2. Authorize the City Manager to sign the grant of easement within and over Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel No. 5390-011-915. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Update for State and Federal Funding Appropriations for Community Projects The City's lobbyists will provide an oral update and presentation regarding the status of State and Federal funding appropriation requests to secure $5,000,000 in State funding for Rosemead Park and $1,300,000 in Federal funding, consisting of $800,000 for the Garvey Center improvements and $500,000 for the Veterans Incubator Project. Recommendation: That the City Council discuss and receive the presentation. Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Chua noted that two of the City's lobbyists were present to provide updates. Mr. ;Darryl Lucien of Lucien Partners was in attendance to present an update on state funding requests. Mr. Jamie Jones of David Turch and Associates was participating virtually to present an updates on federal Jamie Jones of David Turch and Associates, Federal Lobbyist, provided a comprehensive overview of the federal appropriations process and the status of the City's pending ;federal earmark requests. Mr. Jones reported that the federal government is currently in the twentieth day of a partial shutdown, which has halted progress on all appropriations bills. He explained that the continuing resolution under consideration by House Republicans does not include earmarks, noting that this is typical. At present, House Republicans are seeking to extend federal funding through November 21; however, congressional Democrats have declined to support the measure unless it includes provisions to continue enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies. Mr. Jones noted that delays in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 appropriations process are not unusual, as Congress rarely completes the federal budget by the start of the fiscal year. He cited FY 2025, which was not finalized until March of this year. He contrasted this with the City's timely budgeting practices. Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October28, 2025 Page 4 of 18 Mr. Jones reported that Representative, Congresswoman Judy Chu has supported an earmark for the City's Garvey Avenue Community Center Renovation Project in the Transportation -HUD Appropriations Bill under the Economic Development Initiative (EDI) account, which does not require a local match and provides flexible funding. He further reported that Senator Adam Schiff has requested funding for the Veterans Incubator Project under the Senate Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill. This request, also under a flexible federal account that requires no local match, remains pending as the Senate has not yet released its earmark list. Mr. Jones described current congressional dynamics affecting the federal shutdown and appropriations process. He stated that the House has been out of session since September 19 after passing a seven -week continuing resolution, while the Senate has held multiple votes to reopen the government but has been unable to overcome a Democratic filibuster. He indicated that although theshutdown may continue for several weeks, public pressure is increasing as essential federal employees, including air traffic controllers, TSA personnel, and military service members, continue to work without pay. He noted that in the 2019 shutdown, widespread air traffic controller absences ultimately compelled Congress to reach an agreement. Mr. Jones further outlined` impacts of the Affordable Care Act premium increases of SNAP access for 42 million Americans Start Early Education Program,. He state travel any future City shutdown on federal programs, including absent congressional action, potential loss , and imminent funding lapses for the Head d that these consequences are expected to ;rs to negotiate an agreement. Mr. Jones i continue to participate actively in federal rington, D.C., noting that such engagement ,ader grant pursuits. He encouraged City onal League of Cities events and offered visiting Washington. Darryl Lucien, of Lucien' Partners, state lobbyist, reported on the City's legislative activities and accomplishments in Sacramento over the past year. He stated that the legislative year began under typical fiscal constraints, with limited state resources and advisories to minimize funding requests. As he reviewed the list of City priorities, he noted that general fund appropriations are among the most difficult funds to secure given the level of competition and political capital required. With City priorities including improvements at Garvey Park and Rosemead Park, he began identifying potential funding sources that could advance these objectives. Mr. Lucien explained that competition for these funding sources was intense. In one Senate office alone, staff reported receiving 38 project requests for the same funding pot, with similar conditions across the Legislature. He noted that early in the process he advised City staff that securing appropriations by the June budget deadline was unlikely, particularly following major wildfire events that redirected significant state budget attention to fire response and recovery. Mr. Lucien reported that he consulted with Council Member Ly, Chair of the City's Legislative Committee, before presenting a funding strategy to Assemblymember Fong. Assemblymember Fong Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2025 Page 5 of 18 was receptive to the proposal, and after additional coordination with Council Member Ly, work proceeded during the summer recess to advance the City's requests. Mr. Lucien and City staff met with Senator Perez's office and separately conducted a virtual meeting with Assemblymember Fong's office to present the City's funding needs and request letters of support. Despite internal tensions between the two legislative houses regarding the distribution of Proposition 4 funds, the City successfully obtained support letters from both Assemblymember Fong and Senator Perez. Mr. Lucien noted that while the volume of statewide requests with similar backing was substantial, he continued to pursue meetings with senior decision - makers, emphasizing that final decisions had not yet been made and that the City's submissions were timely. Mr. Lucien reported that, as a result included in the August budget cli projects statewide. The City had r Garvey Park; however, the Garvey the final allocation. He expressed cG to secure remaining funding for Gai for one of the major funding pots approximately $700 million, while t City's success in securing;, funding jurisdictions. He informed the Cow the State Parks Department in earl and next steps. He emphasized that still be linked to an appropriate these efforts, funding for Rosemead Park was up bill along with approximately six other tested funding for both Rosemead Park and rk request for $3 million was not included in idence that the City would be well -positioned y Park in future cycles. Mr. Lucien noted that der consideration, statewide requests totaled $180 million was available; highlighting the ithom having to compete further with other that the City has an upcoming meeting with ovember to begin discussing program details hough the funding has been allocated, it must tte program and fully processed to ensure ig with City staff to identify the best funding n, and ensure the City draws down the full Mayor Clark thanked Mr. Lucien for his efforts on behalf of the City and acknowledged Council Member Ly for making the necessary calls during the legislative process. She expressed appreciation for the work involved and noted the importance of Mr. Lucien's expertise in navigating state political processes. Councilmember Ly, acknowledged additional key accomplishments not previously mentioned in the presentations. He stated that the initial funding request for the Veterans Incubator Project was approximately $300,000 and has since increased to roughly $500,000. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Jones and the David Torch and Associates team for their work in securing funding for Garvey Park, beginning with the Dog Park project, which has since been completed and opened to the community. He noted that this initial success marked the City's first major grant award in this effort and ultimately led to subsequent multimillion -dollar funding opportunities for the City's larger parks. He also highlighted the significant achievement secured by Mr. Lucien for Rosemead Park, noting that while the additional $3 million requested for Garvey Park was not funded, the City received $5 million for Rosemead Park. He stated that, to his recollection over his 20 years of involvement with the City including 16 years on the City Council, this is the largest single allocation the City has received from the state or federal government. He commended this as a major accomplishment for the City. Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2025 Page 6 of 18 Council Member Dang spoke about the complexities surrounding state and national politics and expressed appreciation for the guidance, leadership, and leverage provided by the City's legislative advocates. He acknowledged Council Member Ly's service to both the nation and the City, including the critical calls made in support of the City's funding requests, as referenced by Mr. Lucien. He concluded by recognizing the strong team effort involved and expressed appreciation to Mr. Jones, Mr. Lucien, and all involved in the legislative advocacy efforts. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta expressed appreciation to both Mr. Jones and Mr. Lucien for their extensive efforts on behalf of the City. She noted, based on her own experience working for a State Senator, that the state legislative process presents significant challenges, including frequent advisements that no budget requests would be considered and that agencies must "figure it out" without additional funding. She commended the lobbyists for successfully navigating these hurdles and securing $5 million for the City. She stated that, based on her familiarity with allocations to cities within the San Gabriel Valley, she was not aware of any other city receiving a comparable funding amount during the current budget cycle. She noted that while some cities received allocations in the range of $2 million to,$3 million, the $5 million awarded to Rosemead appeared to be the largest, particularly given repeated statements from the State that no discretionary funding was available. Council Member Ly requested to also discuss Item 7B as part of Item 6A during his comments. Council Member Ly,stated that approximately ten years ago he committed himself to focusing on improving the City's parks, securing funding to upgrade park infrastructure, and ensuring that the community has the amenities it deserves. He noted that this commitment served as the initial motivation for many of the City's recent, grant pursuits. He explained that his focus has since broadened to include strengthening the City's overall infrastructure and amenities, emphasizing the importance of aligning City facilities and services with community expectations. Council MemberrLy reflected on his 16 years of service on the City Council and noted that each Councilmember has consistently brought forward ambitious ideas, ranging from beautification efforts, support for local businesses and restaurants, improvements to parking and outdoor amenities, and ensuring adequate funding for critical infrastructure such as water systems. He highlighted that while these priorities are shared by the Council, the cost of achieving them is significant. He also recounted the City's historic challenges in securing outside funding, noting that for many years the City did not receive financial support from county, state, or federal sources. He stated that this began to change approximately seven to eight years ago when the City secured its first allocation of $400,000, which had been stalled at the U.S. Department of the Interior until the City's federal advocates assisted in releasing the funds. Since that time, the City has received funding for the Garvey Park playground equipment, pending support for the Garvey Center, and recent allocations for Rosemead Park, among other grants. Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2025 Page 7 of 18 Mr. Ly emphasized that the following comments were part of Item 713, and that the importance of coordinating and aligning the City's lobbying strategies at both the state and federal levels. He stated that the City's lobbyists have demonstrated their ability to deliver multimillion -dollar results for Rosemead and that the City must ensure it is empowering them appropriately through contractual structures that reflect the City's long-term goals. Council Member Ly expressed that the purpose of this discussion, although no formal action was being taken, was to provide direction to the City Manager and staff to pursue renegotiation of the contracts with David Turch and Associates and Lucien Partners to align with the City's expanded objectives. He noted that preliminary conversations with the City Manager, along with the priorities expressed by Councilmembers, indicate that the City may need to identify between $20 million to $30 million in funding for projects intended to benefit the community. He stated that providing lobbyists with incentive structures that match these ambitious targets would be essential. Mayor Clark stated that she appreciated Mr. Jones's, presentation and noted her positive experiences working with David Turch and Associates during visits to Washington, D.C. She commented that their team has been highly effective and expressed openness to pursuing additional appropriations, as resources allow, with both the federal and state lobbying firms. Mayor Clark further noted that, given the volume of legislation coming from Sacramento, she would liketo increase the frequency of meetings in the State Capitol. She stated that such engagement had been more common when the City previously contracted with the firm of Gonsalves, and expressed interest in reinstating their services. She reminded the Council that, the firm had provided the City with favorable contract rates due to the long-standing relationship and the City's "grandfathered" status. She requested that this option also be considered as part of the broader lobbying discussion at a future meeting. Council Member Dang acknowledged, the extensive work that occurs beyond the public view and emphasized the value of professional lobbyists in helping the City navigate legislative processes, secure meetings, and access funding opportunities. He expressed appreciation for their efforts on behalf of the City. He noted that when the City has a team capable .of delivering results, citing examples like when Mr. Murakami, who was asked to come out of retirement due to his proven track record, similar expectations can be applied to lobbying firms such as David Turch and Associates and Lucien Partners. He referenced the current funding results as evidence of their effectiveness. Council Member Dang indicated support for revisiting the contracts with the lobbying firms, including potential negotiation or adjustments to further optimize outcomes. He stated that he would support Council Member Ly's suggestion to explore this matter. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta expressed appreciation to Council Member Ly for bringing his vision to the City Council, noting that his efforts have significantly benefited the City of Rosemead. She stated that, historically, the City has often continued with existing firms without evaluating alternatives, but Council Member Ly's initiative has led to substantial results. She emphasized the difficulty of securing funding in the current legislative environment, particularly this year. She highlighted that the $5 million allocation for Rosemead Park represents an exceptional achievement, noting that such results were accomplished through the persistence and expertise of Mr. Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2025 Page 8 of 18 Lucien and his firm. Rosemead's success required proactive lobbying efforts independent of legislative initiation. She described the process as requiring continual persistence, including obtaining letters of support and navigating complex political dynamics, often encountering closed doors that required creative approaches to achieve results. She noted that, to her knowledge, no other city in the region received a comparable amount, with one nearby city receiving $4 million, making Rosemead's $5 million allocation particularly noteworthy. Mayor Pro Tern Armenia thanked Council Member Ly for taking the initiative to challenge the status quo and expressed gratitude to Mr. Lucien and his firm for their relentless efforts. She also acknowledged Mr. Jones for his work in securing federal earmarks, noting the complexity of the current situation in Washington, D.C. She concluded by stating that these outcomes reflect a genuine commitment and dedication to the City of Rosemead. Council Member Ly thanked his c decisions regarding the City's lot lobbying strategy involved calcula emphasized that his current request lobbying, ensuring that the City as financial support. He observed that to authorize the City Manager to Associates and Lucien 'Partners acknowledged that final decisions ri at the federal level and 121 at the However, based on the track recoi expressed confidence that the fi engagement. He concluded by i incentive -based contracts with both and umed Councilmembers to c< FY5141110d B. Consideration ` agues for their support and reflected on past ng efforts, noting that previous changes in risks that have since proven beneficial. He ains specifically to the funding component of -or an appropriate and achievable amount of �e appears to be consensus among the Council ea¢e in 'discussions with David Turch and regarding achievable funding targets. He with a limited number of decision -makers, 536 ate level, so outcomes cannot be guaranteed. of both lobbying firms with other clients, he ling targets are attainable with substantial ommending'that the City Manager pursue avid Turch and Associates and Lucien Partners iborate with staff to clearly define funding bying team is fully informed and positioned to of Title 15 of the Rosemead Municipal Code on On October 14, 2025, the City Council discussed the proposed building code updates to Title 15 of the Rosemead Municipal Code. After hearing all testimony, the City Council continued the discussion to the next City Council meeting and directed staff to provide an analysis of the 2025 Los Angeles County's Building Standards Code updates against the 2025 California Building Standards Code. The analysis would assist the City Council in determining which code adoption is best for the City of Rosemead. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Receive and file the Executive Summary and Comparison of the 2025 Los Angeles County Amendments to 2025 California Building Standards Code; and 2. Adopt by reference, Title 24 of the 2025 California Building Standards Code as Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2025 Page 9 of 18 recommended by staff during the Council meeting dated October 14, 2025, and a. Move to INTRODUCE for FIRST READING, by title only, Ordinance 1030, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE, THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, INCLUDING THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, THE CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, THE CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, THE CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL' CODE, THE CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE, THE CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDINGS CODE, THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, AND THE CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDINGS CODE, WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS THERETO, and b. Direct staff to schedule a public hearing on December 9, 2025, to consider the adoption and second reading of Ordinance 1030 and Urgency Ordinance 1031. Or 3. Direct staff to draft an urgency;; and regular` ordinance, and schedule a public hearing on December 9, 2025 to adopt the 2025 California building standards code as amended by the Los Angeles county. Building Official Avla Jefferson addressed the City Council and introduced Dennis Tarango, John Tufan, Jonathan Tarango, and Jason Robbins, all of whom assisted in preparing the code adoption materials and the accompanying 311-page report. Ms. Jefferson reported that at the previous meeting, the Council introduced the ordinance for the adoption of the 2025 California Building Standards Codes. At that time, staff recommended adopting the California Codes directly, without incorporating the Los Angeles County local amendments. The Council requested that staff conduct a more detailed review of the County amendments to determine how they compare to the base California Codes and whether they present any substantial impact on public health, safety, or welfare within the City of Rosemead. In response, staff prepared a comprehensive 311-page comparative analysis, accompanied by an executive summary outlining the key findings. Ms. Jefferson stated that the presentation would provide an overview analysis, including the primary differences identified and staff s overall conclusions regarding the applicability of the County amendments to Rosemead's local codes. She proceeded to summarize the report, noting that it includes a review of the base California Codes, the Los Angeles County amendments, and a comparison of how the proposed amendments would affect the City of Rosemead. Staff provided an Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2025 Page 10 of 18 overview of the code adoption process, noting that it involves four primary steps. First, national model codes are published by organizations such as the International Code Council (ICC), National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and IAPMO, establishing baseline safety standards used throughout the country. The State of California then adopts these national model codes into Title 24, incorporating amendments to address state -specific requirements related to seismic safety, energy efficiency, accessibility, wildfire protection, and other life -safety concerns. Next, local jurisdictions are required to adopt the state codes so they may be enforced through local building permits, plan review, and inspections. The State also allows jurisdictions to adopt additional local amendments when justified by express findings related to unique geological, climatic, or topographical conditions. Any such local amendments must be filed with the California Building Standards Commission before they become enforceable. Staff also ;provided background regarding the update cycle, noting that Title 24 is updated every three years, with the next edition becoming effective January 1, 2026. Historically, the City of Rosemead has followed the Los Angeles County amendments. However, for this code cycle, staff conducted a comparison between the State codes and the County amendments to evaluate their relevance to local codes. Following this review, staff recommended adopting the California Codes without the Los Angeles County amendments. This analysis was prepared in response to the City Council's direction from the October 14, 2025, meeting to compare the 2025 California Building Standards Codes with the Los Angeles County amendments, identify differences, assess local applicability, and confirm that the State codes continue to provide an equivalent level of public safety_ Staff presented a comparison of the Los Angeles County amendments to the California Building Codes. The analysis found that most County amendments are designed for hillside, mountainous, or wildfire -prone areas and therefore do not apply to Rosemead's flat, urban conditions. 'State codes already provide strong seismic, structural, fire safety, grading, and administrative standards. Adopting the County amendments would add unnecessary complexity to the City's permitting process without offering' additionalpublic safety benefits. Staff outlined the advantages of adopting the California State Codes without additional Los Angeles County amendments. These benefits include a reduction in administrative burden, as staff would no longer be required to track and maintain separate local amendments. Direct adoption also eliminates the need for the City and design professionals to purchase supplemental County code publications. Staff noted that using the State codes alone simplifies plan review, reduces redundancy, and streamlines the permitting process. The California Building Standards Codes were determined to be fully consistent with and supportive of the regulatory needs of the City of Rosemead. The adoption of the California codes ensures full compliance with statewide standards while minimizing administrative workload and maintaining public safety. The Los Angeles County amendments primarily address conditions such as extensive hillside development, taller structures, and higher -risk seismic zones, which are not present in Rosemead. As such, the additional county provisions would not provide meaningful local benefit. Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2025 Page 11 of 18 Staff recommended that the City Council receive and file the Executive Summary and the comparison of the 2025 Los Angeles County Amendments to the 2025 California Building Standards Code, and move to introduce for first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 1030, directing staff to schedule a public hearing on December 9, 2025 for the consideration of adoption and second reading of Ordinance No. 1030 and Urgency Ordinance No. 1031. As an alternative, the Council may direct staff to prepare both an urgency ordinance and a regular ordinance for the December 9, 2025 meeting to adopt the 2025 California Building Standards Codes as amended by Los Angeles County. Council Member Dang stated that while the State codes was helpful, it would also have bf Los Angeles County Code with the upcoming the County's seismic, wildfire, and hiltsid Rosemead due to its flat, urban geograph Rosemead would be exempt from those pn iparison between the County and seful to compare the current 2025 i version. He agreed with staff that ited provisions do not apply to lowever, he noted that because ons regardless, there may be no disadvantage in continuing to adopt; the Los Angeles County Code. He added that many consultants in the region are accustomed to designing under the County's standards and that some of the County's structural requirements provide beneficial redundancy. He suggested there is value in considering continued adoption of the Los Angeles County Code for consistency and ease of use. Council Member Ly asked a follow-up question directed to Council Member Dang. He stated that he understood the explanation regarding the seismic, wildfire, and hillside provisions that do not; apply to Rosemead and agreed that non -applicable provisions may not warrant concern. However, he referenced the administrative procedures section of the comparison, noting that the summary indicated that adopting the Los Angeles County Code could potentially slow the City's permitting Council Member Ly asked Council Member Dang whether he agreed with that assessment or, based on his experience, if he had a different perspective regarding the administrative impacts of adopting the County's procedures. Council Member Dang responded that the administrative procedures item had been intentionally highlighted for consideration. He stated that, based on his interpretation, if the County's defined administrative procedures are not applicable to Rosemead, then the fourth category in the comparison table becomes a moot point. He indicated that this was his reasoning in reviewing the final section of the report. Council Member Ly asked Transtech for clarification regarding the administrative procedures. He inquired whether Transtech shared the view that the Los Angeles County Code could slow the permitting process, or if their perspective differed. Specifically, he asked what evidence or observations indicate that adopting the County code would create a more burdensome process for the City's residents, applicants, and businesses. Building Official Jefferson explained the rationale for recommending direct adoption of the California Building Standards Codes. She agreed with Council Member Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October28, 2025 Page 12 of 18 Dang's observation that many designers typically design above and beyond the minimum code requirements, and noted that staff does not restrict designers from doing so. Ms. Jefferson highlighted that for smaller -scale projects such as single- family homes, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), small room additions, and interior remodels, referencing the Los Angeles County Code can trigger additional correction requests. This occurs because plan submittals may not accurately reflect the effective code requirements, requiring staff to issue corrections even when plans meet the intended standards. She noted that for these types of projects, whether following the County Code or California Code does not significantly impact plan review, as single - story structures generally follow the prescriptive provisions of the California Code. She further explained that the process of amending the California Code with County provisions requires tracking detailed findings and filing with the California Building Standards Commission, which now reviews and validates the applicability of such findings rather than accepting them automatically. She stated that for larger projects, such as multi -story or mixed -use developments, designers typically engage engineers and soils reports to design above minimum code requirements. Therefore, the proposed approach to adopt the California Code directly simplifies administration while maintaining public safety and allowing designers flexibility. Council Member Dang acknowledged that differences between the County and State codes for smaller projects are minimal. He noted that while the California Residential Code offers a prescriptive method, it i more user-friendly Los Angeles Con typically over -design, so adopting th( Rosemead, he stated that he has County code with the State code some, and engineers often prefer the )hlct..He emphasized that engineers code would not create a significant tt certain provisions are exempt in Tent data to justify fully replacing the further justification. Building Official Jefferson clarified that the proposed adoption of the California Building Standards Code is not a burden for plan checkers. She explained that plan checkers are experienced with both the California and Los Angeles County codes and are familiar with the requirements, so transitioning between codes does not affect their review process. She noted that the primary impact is on designers and applicants, who must adjust their submittals when switching between codes. For plan checkers, however, the change would have minimal to no operational impact. Council Member Dang acknowledged staff s point regarding the challenges designers face when switching between codes. He noted that, from his professional experience, it is easier for designers to transition from the Los Angeles County 2025 Code to the 2026 Code, as the structural provisions relevant to Rosemead are minimal. He emphasized that most structural amendments in the report are intended for hillside homes, which do not exist in the City. He also noted that even if the City chooses not to adopt the Los Angeles County 2026 Code, the City will by default operate under the California Building Standards Code, ensuring that staff and the community are prepared to comply with code requirements effective January 1, 2026. Building Official Jefferson clarified that while the technical provisions of the California Building Standards Code will take effect on January 1, 2026, the City must Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2025 Page 13 of 18 formally adopt the code to have the necessary administrative tools for enforcement. She explained that adoption provides authority to issue permits, process extensions, and approve alternative methods of construction when requested. Ms. Jefferson emphasized that administrative procedures are essential to effectively implement and enforce the technical provisions of the code. Council Member Dang asked whether the administrative provisions are automatically tied to the code in effect on January 1, 2026. He inquired if, should the City decide not to take action today, the California Building Standards Code would provide the necessary administrative authority by default. Building Official Jefferson explained that C Building Standards Code, which addresse suggested administrative language. She state adapt these provisions into their own munici become part of the City of Rosemead Code plan reviews, and other administrative functii Council Member Dang noted that even if the County 2026 Code, it is not yet available fo,, finalized or approved the code. Council Member Armenta referenced dis meeting, noting that the formal adoption -is nec Cola could change prior to its Code for comparison pr finalized. She noted that, that the process is flexi Member Armenta indica meeting but emphasized consideration, consistent ter1, Division 2 of the California dministrative provisions, contains at local jurisdictions must formally code. Once adopted, the provisions abling,the City to enforce permits, y chooses to adopt the Los Angeles option, as the County itself has not from the previous Council ay time. She emphasized that ssary, , as explained >, by Ms. Jefferson, to implement the s of the code. She acknowledged that the Los Angeles 5t yet been adopted by the County, and therefore provisions finalization. She stated that using the 2025 adopted County oxides a concrete reference point, as it has already been while code adoption is not her area of expertise, she is aware ble and amendments can be made in the future. Council led that she was comfortable with the discussion at the last support for colleagues who wish to pull an item for further with Council practice. Council Member Ly asked if a 4/5 vote is needed to approve an urgency ordinance? City Attorney Richman replied a 4/5 votes is required to approve an urgency ordinance. Council Member Ly stated that, in order to proceed with an urgency ordinance, all four Council Members present would need to be in agreement. He directed a question to Council Member Dang, referencing his earlier comments regarding the Los Angeles County 2026 Code. Council Member Ly asked for clarification on whether Council Member Dang's intent or hope is for the City to eventually adopt the 2026 County Code. Council Member Dang stated that he had been under the impression that the 2025 Los Angeles County provisions, as compared to the 2026 Los Angeles County Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2025 Page 14 of 18 provisions, would have little to no impact on the City of Rosemead. He noted that this understanding was reinforced by the presentation, which highlighted that the major amendments primarily address hillside homes, hillside grading, and redevelopment activities in the Altadena area. He further stated that, given the minimal differences between the 2025 and 2026 Los Angeles County provisions as they relate to Rosemead, it would be a smoother transition for the City to proceed with adopting the 2026 provisions. Council Member Ly reiterated that the 2026 amended Los Angeles County Building Codes had not been adopted by county board yet. Council Member Dang stated that Los Angeles': County is currently proceeding through its internal process in preparation for the implementation of the County's building code on January 1, 2026. He noted that the County must complete and publish the updated code prior to that effective date. Council Member Ly clarified that staff had presented :two options for Council consideration. He stated that the first option would be to adopt Ordinances Nos. 1030 and 1031 through both a regular and an urgency ordinance process. The second option would be to proceed solely with an urgency ordinance to adopt the applicable California and County codes. City Attorney Richman clarified that Option A which was introduced at this meeting for first reading, involvesadopting the code by reference. She explained that this process requires noticing a public hearing, after which both the regular and urgency ordinances would be brought forward, though that step would occur at a subsequent meeting, not this one.; She further stated that the alternative option, as previously noted, would be to adopt the California Building Codes through both a regular and an urgency ordinance process. Council Member Dang stated that, in his view, adopting the 2026 provisions would be the simpler approach. He added that he would be open to considering the California provisions; however, he noted that sufficient supporting evidence had not been presented. Council Member Armenta stated that she did not feel comfortable adopting an ordinance based on a plan that has not yet been formally adopted by Los Angeles County. She expressed concern that, when working with the County, preliminary information may appear stable, yet changes can occur unexpectedly. For this reason, she stated she was not comfortable proceeding with the adoption of provisions that the County itself has not finalized. City Attorney Richman stated that the City is not able to adopt the County's code at this time, noting that, based on past practice, the City typically must wait until the County has formally adopted its code before proceeding. Building Official Jefferson stated that the essential decision before the Council is whether to adopt the California Building Codes alone or the California Building Codes with Los Angeles County amendments. She explained that the staff report Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2025 Page 15 of 18 includes an analysis of the forthcoming 2026 Los Angeles County Codes. She further noted that the County's first reading, originally scheduled for the prior week, had been continued to November 4. If the County conducts its first reading on November 4, the City would then be able to proceed with its own first reading after that date; however, the City's second reading must occur after the County completes its second reading. She added that, alternatively, if the City elects to adopt the California Building Codes without the County amendments, the City could conduct its first reading at this meeting and proceed with the public hearing and second reading at the next regular meeting. Council Member Ly asked for clarification regarding the recommendation, stating his understanding that Option 3 aligned more closely with Council Member Dang's preference and would position the City closer to adopting the County's 2026 Code. Building Official Dennis Tarango, from Transtech Engineers explained that the Los Angeles County Building Code is the California Building Code supplemented with County -specific amendments. He stated that the County is currently in the process of finalizing those amendments. He further clarified that the resulting document is the 2025 California Building Code with Los Angeles County amendments applied, which together comprise the 2026 County Code. Council Member Dang asked staff how the building code amendments were adopted in the past. Building Official Jefferson stated that the City cannot introduce the Los Angeles County; Code at this time. She explained that, had the County held its meeting on October 21 as originally scheduled, staff would have prepared two ordinances for Council considerationthis evening, allowing for a selection between options. However, because the County postponed its first reading, the City will need to proceed with an urgency ordinance at the next meeting. Council Member Ly stated that the City is awaiting the official language of the County Code, which has not yet been provided. He explained that, for this reason, the City cannot proceed with a full ordinance at this time and would need to adopt an urgency ordinance instead. Building Official Jefferson explained that the previous County code adoption aligned well with the City Council's schedule, so no urgency ordinance was needed. She noted that the current County timeline, affected by postponed dates and holidays, would require an urgency ordinance. Additionally, she stated that adopting the County amendments now would create extra administrative work without significantly affecting local construction. Council Member Armenia summarized that, three years ago, the County's code adoption coincided with the City Council's meeting schedule. She emphasized that the City's adoption at that time occurred because of this alignment, not because the City chose to adopt provisions before the County had finalized them. Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2025 Page 16 of 18 Mayor Clark stated that he generally agreed with Council Member Ly's comments. She inquired, however, whether the Council could amend any provisions in the 2026 Code that they found undesirable after adoption. Council Member Dang responded that any amendments made would constitute the City of Rosemead Building Code, as the City would be applying its own modifications on top of the Los Angeles County Code. Council Member Ly moved to direct staff to draft both an urgency ordinance and a regular ordinance, schedule a public hearing for December 9, 2025, and adopt the 2025 California Building Standards Code as amended by Los Angeles County. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly and seconded by Council Member Dang to direct staff to draft both an urgency ordinance and a regular ordinance, schedule a public hearing for December 9, 2025, and adopt the 2025 California Building Standards Code as amended by Los Angeles County:, Motion was moved by the following roll call votes: AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, and Ly NOES: None ABSENT: Low 7. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL A. Appointment to San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District The City received notice that the City's delegate, Mayor Pro Tern Sandra Armenta, term of office to the Board of Trustees for the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District ends on December 31, 2025. Mayor Pro Tem Sandra Armenta has expressed an interest in continuing to serve as the City of Rosemead's representative. The Board of Trustees is respectively requesting that the City Council appoint a representative to the Board prior to its January 9, 2026, meeting. Recommendation: That the City Council appoint a representative from the City of Rosemead to the Board of Trustees for the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District for a two-year term. ACTION: Motion by Council Member Ly, seconded by Mayor Clark to appoint Mayor Pro Tern Sandra Armenta to a two-year term on the San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control Board. Motion was carried by the following roll call votes: AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang and LY, NOES: None, ABSENT: Low B. Discussion on Expanding the Lobbying Services to Secure State and Federal Funding Efforts Council Member Ly requested a discussion on expanding the scope of services provided by the City's lobbyist to increase efforts in securing grant and earmark funding efforts. Recommendation: That the City Council discuss and provide direction to staff. Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2025 Page 17 of 18 8. Council Member Ly's discussion was combined with agenda item 6.A to renegotiate the contracts with David Turch & Associates and Lucien Partners and reflect an incentive base contract. C. Council Comments Council Member Ly thanked the Council for recognizing his return and the City's lobbying efforts. He acknowledged the appointment of Tim Murakami as Public Safety Director, praising his experience and Mayor Pro Tem Armenta's role in supporting the appointment. He also reported attending the League of California Cities conference, highlighting participation in the inaugural Military and Veterans Community Group. Council Member Ly noted that Rosemead will be among the first cities to promote a resolution formally recognizing the group as a League caucus and indicated he will seek the Council's future support for this effort. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta addressed ongoing graffiti issues on Rosemead Boulevard, commended efforts by staff and Caltrans, and requested continued follow-up. She recognized the collaboration between public safety, code- enforcement, and the Sheriff's Department, thanking leadership and teams for handling recent challenging incidents. She also expressed appreciation to City staff across departments like Public Works, Community Development, Finance, City Manager, and City Attorney for their contributions to City operations and 'community well-being. Finally, she acknowledged upcoming rHalloween activities and thanked all staff for their dedication to Rosemead residents. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pro Tem Armenta adjourned the meeting at 9:21 pm. Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk APPROVED: Margaret Clark, Mayor Rosemead City Council Special and Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of October28, 2025 Page 18 of 18