Loading...
CC - Item 4B - Minutes of March 10, 2026 MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2026 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Armenta at 7:02 p.m., in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber, located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Mayor Armenta, Mayor Pro Tern Low, Council Members Clark, Dang and Ly ABSENT: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Council INVOCATION was led by Council Member Clark 1. PUBLIC COMMENT Sue Yamamoto, Rosemead upcoming March program workshops for all ages. She noted the continued 'popul Ms. Yamamoto encourageda about broarams. and services' 2. PRESENT A. iry Manager, provided an update, highlighting ;hiding educational and health and wellness Jed residents that gun locks remain available and of the STAR tutoring and homework center. its to contact the library for additional information County Fire Department, Fire Chief on Improving Genasys Evacuation Zones Assistant Fire Chief Paul Stump, from the Los Angeles County Fire Department, provided a`prespntation'on the Genesis Evacuation Zone platform, a zone -based emergency evacuation rimanagement tool used by public safety agencies to improve etiordination, communication, and delivery of timely evacuation information to residents. Chief Stump explained that the platform replaces the former Zone Haven syst&m.jand allows, fire, law enforcement, city staff, and emergency management personnel,t6lr,00�iate evacuation warnings, evacuation orders, and shelter -in -place notifications. The Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management manages the platform and assists agencies with updating information and issuing public notifications. Mayor Armenta thanked Assistant Fire Chief Stump for the presentation and emphasized the importance of maintaining updated emergency preparedness systems to help protect residents and businesses, specially during the January 2025 fires. Council Member Clark asked whether the emergency notification system had been updated following the previous year's devastating fires. She expressed concern regarding past notification issues, including receiving an alert while outside the Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 1 of 33 AGENDA ITEM 4.11 evacuation area and reports that some residents did not receive timely notifications during the fires. Mr. Stump stated he did not have specific details about the notification issues during the previous year's fires but acknowledged that the scale and complexity of the incidents created significant challenges. He said after -action reviews identified emergency notification and communication systems as needing improvement, and that the Los Angeles County Fire Department and law enforcement agencies continue updating communication and dispatch systems to better manage large-scale emergencies. He also noted that responders handled both fire -related and unrelated emergency calls during the incidents, placing additional strain on system capacity. Mayor Armenta asked whether the evacuation planning system includes consideration for households with special needs, such as children with autism, elderly residents who are bedridden, or other vulnerable individuals who may require additional assistance during an evacuation. Mr. Stump replied he would follow up on options for identifying and assisting residents with special needs during evacuations. He noted that the Genesis Protect app allows users to save up to 10 addresses and add location -specific notes, and that he would consult with emergency management partners to confirm what special instructions or accommodations the system can support. Mayor Armenta emphasized the need for a system to identify residents with special needs so emergency responders can provide appropriate assistance during evacuations. She noted that some individuals may appear uncooperative but may instead have disabilities or other circumstances affecting their ability to respond, underscoring the importance of preparedness and support for vulnerable residents. Council Member Dang asked whether an emergency notification would apply to an entire evacuation zone or if notifications could be limited to a specific area within a zone. Mr. Stump explained that evacuation zones can be adjusted based on the specific circumstances of an incident. He stated that, in coordination with the Office of Emergency Management, zones can be reduced or modified as needed, including considerations for locations such as schools or other critical facilities. Updated zone boundaries and related notifications would be reflected in the system once changes are made. Council Member Dang asked whether Rosemead residents using the system would be able to add and receive notifications for family members or locations outside of the City, such as addresses in neighboring cities. Mr. Stump explained that residents can add additional addresses to their profile, and the system will provide notifications for incidents affecting those locations. He requested City approval to authorize the Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management (OEM) to publish the proposed 11 evacuation zones for the City of Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 2 of 33 Rosemead. Once approved, designated city personnel, working with Mandy Wong and an OEM representative, would receive access to the Genesis EVAC platform to assist with emergency planning, updates, and recommendations. Council Member Dang expressed strong support for the Genesis EVAC system, recognizing it as a valuable countywide emergency management resource provided to cities at no cost. He highlighted the benefit of receiving alerts for multiple saved addresses throughout the county, allowing residents to stay informed about incidents affecting family members, friends, or other important locations. He also noted the system's potential to assist vulnerable residents, including those with special needs, by allowing caregivers and family members to receive timely notifications and provide support. 3. PUBLIC HEARING A. Public Hearing Pursuant to Government Code Section 34458 on Draft City Charter On July 23, 2024, the City Council gave direction to place the proposed charter measure on the ballot at the November 3, 2026 statewide general election. The City Council directed that a draft charter be set for public hearing pursuant to State law. This is the first public hearing required by State law on the draft charter. The City Council will be conducting a second hearing on the draft charter at a special meeting on April 21, 2026. After holding a second hearing on the draft charter, the City Council may vote to adopt a motion submitting the proposed charter to the City's voters. The City Council must wait 21 days after the second public hearing before adopting this motion. The deadline to submit the charter to the County for inclusion on the ballot for the November election is August 7, 2026. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Conduct the Public Hearing and take any public comment; 2. Discuss the Charter and provide direction on the City charter; and 3. Direct that the next Public Hearing be noticed for April 21, 2026 City Attorney Rachel Richman provided an overview of the proposed City Charter process. She explained that after extensive discussion and preparation in 2024, adopting a charter would allow Rosemead to maintain greater local control over certain municipal matters. Key proposed charter provisions include establishing charter powers, creating prospective term limits, authorizing the potential creation of a city prosecutor position, expanding economic development authority, allowing adoption of local purchasing procedures, and providing the ability to establish veteran contracting preferences. She noted that the charter would provide authority for future actions but would require additional Council consideration and adoption of ordinances before many provisions could be implemented. Mayor Armenta opened the public hearing for comments. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 3 of 33 Brian Lewin expressed opposition to the proposed City Charter. He expressed concerns with the proposed term limit provisions, stating that he believes they are insufficient and could be difficult to modify if adopted. He also expressed concerns about granting additional authority to the City Council, citing a lack of trust in the current leadership and the way the City has been managed in recent years. Mr. Lewin stated that if the charter measure is placed on the ballot, he would vote against it and advocate against its approval. There being no further comments, Mayor Armenta closed the public hearing. Council Member Ly disagreed with Mr. Lewin's concerns regarding the proposed City Charter, stating that significant time, effort, and public discussion went into developing the proposal in a transparent manner. He explained that the charter provisions were intended to incorporate feedback from both the community and elected officials. Regarding term limits, he stated that the provision was included based on community input and that he personally did not have a strong preference on whether term limits were included. He clarified that the proposed provision would limit elected officials to five four-year terms, unlike the previous proposal, which allowed officials to serve multiple terms with a required break before returning to office. Council Member Ly stated that he approached the charter discussion with the goal of improving and protecting the City. He emphasized that the proposed charter would help preserve local control by allowing decisions affecting Rosemead residents to be made locally rather than by outside agencies. He noted that maintaining local authority is especially important when considering future issues, such as regional projects` that may impact the City. He continued discussing the proposed City Charter and emphasized the importance of maintaining a safe and well -governed community. He stated that ensuring laws are properly enforced and providing the City with appropriate prosecutorial authority supports the Council's priority of protecting residents and maintaining quality of life. He stated the proposed charter would provide the City with additional tools to support economic development, promote fair contracting practices, and better reflect community needs. He stated that the proposal is intended to strengthen local authority and improve the City's ability to serve residents, with any 'decision to move forward determined through the appropriate public process. Council Member Clark stated that voters had previously opposed similar charter provisions 2007 due to concerns that they could eliminate the competitive bidding requirement for public works projects. She emphasized the importance of keeping the requirement to solicit competitive bids for public works contracts, noting that, as a general law city, contracts must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. She expressed concern that removing this requirement could increase the risk of favoritism in awarding contracts. In addition, she expressed concerns regarding provisions that would allow the City Council to establish its own compensation. Referencing the City of Bell scandal, she noted that Bell was a charter city and expressed concern about the potential for abuse if such authority were granted Rosemead 00) Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 4 of 33 without appropriate limitations. Mrs. Clark requested that the proposed charter explicitly prohibit any provisions that would remove public works projects from competitive bidding requirements or allow the City Council to set its own compensation. Mayor Armenta reiterated that the City Attorney had previously clarified the provisions regarding the competitive bidding process in her presentation. It was noted that the provisions regarding competitive bidding requirements and Council compensation are expressly addressed in the draft charter. It was further stated that Council Members had received copies of the draft charter and that the requested provisions were included in the draft document. Council Member Ly requested that the City Attorney explain how City Council salaries are determined in response to comments made by Council Member Clark. City Attorney Richman explained that the proposed charter provides that Council Members shall receive compensation for their services in accordance with applicable state law. Council Member Clark asked whether the City of Alhambra, as a charter city, has its own City Prosecutor and inquired about the associated costs. She also asked whether the proposed charter would simply authorize the City to establish that position if it chose to do so. City Attorney Richman explained that, while not certain of the City of Alhambra's structure, it has a City Prosecutor who handles code enforcement matters. She clarified that the discussion regarding a City Prosecutor under the proposed charter relates to matters that would otherwise be referred to the District Attorney. She noted that previous staff report addressed potential costs and the possibility of sharing prosecutorial services with other cities.She emphasized that the proposed charter would only provide the authority to establish a position, with any implementation, scope, and related decisions requiring future City Council approval. Mayor Armenta stated that she and Council Member Ly reviewed the proposed charter with the goal of preserving local control and ensuring the City is prepared for future needs. She explained that the charter maintains many general law provisions while providing additional flexibility and opportunities for the City, including potential options such as a City Prosecutor through independent or regional efforts. She emphasized that the charter would provide tools to better support residents, businesses, and the community while protecting local authority. ACTION: Motion by Council Member Ly and seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Low to direct staff to schedule the second Public Hearing for April 21, 2026. Motion was carried out by the following roll call votes: AYES: ARMENTA, CLARK, DANG, LOW AND LY NOES: NONE Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 5 of 33 B. Public Hearing to Adopt Resolution No. 2026-11, Authorizing an Amendment to the California Department of Housing and Community Development Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program Five -Year Plan In 2022, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) awarded the City $1,983,626 in PLHA funds for housing -related projects and programs that assist in addressing the unmet housing needs of the City. As part of the process, the City adopted a PLHA Program Five -Year Plan, which outlined the City's strategy to carry out activities that will increase the affordable housing supply. During that time, the City intended to allocate funds for new homeownership units. To date, the funds have not been expended and although the amendment period for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 PLHA allocations have expired, HCD is authorizing the City a one-time exception to amend the Five -Year Plan. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Conduct the Public Hearing and take any public comments; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-11, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY .OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE PERMANENT LOCAL HOUSING ALLOCATION PROGRAM (PLHA) FIVE-YEAR PLAN 3. Authorize the Mayor or her designee to execute a Standard Agreement, any amendments, and all other related program documents with the Housing and Community Development PLHA Program. Director of Community Development Valenzuela introduced Housing Consultant Debbie Sottek to present. Housing Consultant Debbie Sottek stated that staff is proposing an amendment to the City's Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) five-year plan to reallocate approximately $1.98 million in previously awarded State funds. She explained that the funds, awarded in 2022 to address community housing needs, have not yet been expended, and the State has authorized a one-time amendment to redirect the funds toward eligible housing activities ready for implementation. Staff proposed reallocating PLHA funds to support two eligible activities: assisting the Marshall Heart Housing Development with pre -development and development costs for new residential units, including affordable housing opportunities, and establishing a new homeownership assistance program for qualified households earning up to 150% of the Area Median Income. The homeownership program would provide zero -interest deferred loans for down payment and/or closing costs. The proposed activities align with PLHA guidelines and the City's housing priorities and recommended approval of the amended five-year plan and related authorizations. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 6 of 33 Mayor Armenta opened the Public Hearing public comment. There being no public comments, Mayor Armenta closed the Public Hearing ACTION: Motion by Council Member Ly seconded by Council Member Dang to adopt Resolution No. 2026-11, amending the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program (PLHA) five-year plan, and authorize the Mayor or her designee to execute a Standard Agreement, any amendments, and all other related program documents with the Housing and Community Development PLHA Program. Motion was carried out by roll call vote AYES: ARMENTA, CLARK, DANG, LOW, AND LY NOES: NONE 4. CONSENT CALENDAR ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly and seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Low to approve Consent Calendar Items A through E. The motion was carried out by the following vote AYES: ARMENTA, CLARK, DANG, LOW, AND LY NOES: NONE A. Claims and Demands • Resolution No. 2026-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,688,230.90 CHECKS NUMBERED 121193 THROUGH NUMBER 121322, DRAFTS NUMBERED 8834 THROUGH NUMBER 8900 AND EFT NUMBERED 53902 THROUGH NUMBER 53953 INCLUSIVELY Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2026-13. B. Request to Add and Proclaim the Month of April as Fair Housing Month and Donate Life Month to the Approved List of Proclamations for Year 2026 The Fair Housing Foundation and OneLegacy have each requested that the Rosemead City Council proclaim the month of April in recognition of their respective causes. The Fair Housing Foundation is requesting a proclamation declaring April as Fair Housing Month, while OneLegacy is requesting a proclamation declaring April as DMV/Donate Life Month. April has been recognized as Fair Housing Month since the enactment of federal fair housing legislation in 1968. Each year, national organizations promote awareness of equal housing opportunities through various events and educational activities. Additionally, April is observed as DMV/Donate Life Month. This nationwide effort raises awareness about organ, eye, and tissue donation and encourages individuals to register as donors often when applying for or renewing a driver's license or identification card at their local Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 7 of 33 Recommendation: That the City Council approve the request to add the Fair Housing Month and Donate Life Month Proclamations to the list of Approved Proclamations list for Year 2026 and schedule the presentations to a subsequent City Council meeting. C. First Amendment to Agreement with CultivaLA, Inc. for General Services of the Del Mar Avenue and Glendon Way Community Gardens The Parks & Recreation Department seeks to amend the General Services Agreement with CultivaLA, Inc., which provides community garden support services at the Del Mar Avenue and the Glendon Way Community Gardens. CultivaLA, Inc. offers a variety of programs designed to enrich the lives of residents and enhance the experience of Community Garden users. Recommendation: that the City Council approve the First Amendment with CultivaLA, Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment on behalf of the City. D. 2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports California Government Code §65400 requires the filing of both a General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report by April 1st of each year, for the prior calendar year, with the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation and the Department of Housing and Community Development. State law also requires that the Annual Progress Reports be presented at;a public meeting before the City Council where members of the public are given an opportunity to comment on the City's progress. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Receive and file the 2025 Annual Progress Reports; and 2. Direct the Community Development Department to submit the 2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports to the Governor's Office of Land Use ` and Climate Innovation and California Department of Housing and Community Development by April 1, 2026. E. Consideration to Cancel March 24, 2026 City Council Meeting The City Council will consider the cancellation of its regularly scheduled meeting of March 24, 2026, due to a projected lack of quorum. Should the March 24 meeting be cancelled, the next regular meeting of the City Council will be held as scheduled on Tuesday, April 14, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. Recommendation: That the City Council cancel the regular City Council meeting of March 24, 2026. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 8 of 33 5. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Athletic Field Use and Allocation Policy Staff will present a revised Athletic Field Use and Allocation Policy to the Rosemead City Council that establishes fair, transparent, and equitable access to municipal sports fields for all user groups and organizations. The revisions incorporate feedback from the Parks Commission, including an increase to the minimum residency percentage required to qualify as a Resident Non -Profit Organization. Recommendation: That the City Council review and provide direction on the Parks Commission's recommendation to increase the minimum residency requirement to 3 5 % for an organization to qualify as a'Resident Non -Profit Organization. Staff also seeks guidance on whether to maintain the current 25% residency requirement for existing organizations that are currently utilizing the City's'athletic fields. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking stated that staff presented an updated Field Allocation Policy in November to formalize the use and allocation of City fields and open space facilities. He noted that one comment was received regarding the inclusion of the Alhambra Unified School District as a priority district, which has since been incorporated into the current policy. He continued to explain that the City Council also directed staff to return the policy to the Parks Commission for additional input, including consideration of increasing the minimum percentage of Rosemead residents required for nonprofit organizations to qualify for the Rosemead resident nonprofit organization rate. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking stated that staff presented the updated policy to the Parks Commission on February 3, including the current 25 percent resident requirement. The Commission recommended increasing the requirement to 35 percent for new qualifying organizations while allowing existing user groups to remain at the current 25 percent requirement through a grandfathering provision. He provided an overview of the organizations currently using City facilities. Staff identified traditional Rosemead nonprofit youth organizations, including Angel Softball and Baseball Academy of Rosemead, Lady Hawks, Rosemead Youth Association (RYA), AYSO Region 40, and the Rosemead Rebels. Staff noted that Angel Softball and Baseball Academy and RYA have not been active users of City facilities for several years, while AYSO Region 40, Lady Hawks, and the Rosemead Rebels remain current facility users. He reported that residency rates among current facility users ranged from 25 percent to 54 percent, with an overall average residency rate of approximately 35.57 percent across participating organizations. Council Member Ly asked how staff calculated the percentage rate? Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 9 of 33 Recreation Supervisor Chu clarified that the average residency percentage was calculated by adding the residency rates for each organization and dividing by the total number of organizations, resulting in an average of approximately 35 percent. Mayor Armenta inquired whether residency calculations account for participants who reside in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, such as South San Gabriel, but use a Rosemead zip code due to proximity to the local post office. She noted that many participants in the Rosemead Rebels Football program reside in these areas and asked whether those addresses are included in the residency percentages. Recreation Supervisor Chu stated that staff reviewed the rosters provided by the Rosemead Rebels Football and Cheer organizations. He explained that participants were counted as Rosemead residents based on the address information listed on the rosters, provided the address reflected residency within the City of Rosemead. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking stated that, following City Council direction, staff surveyed surrounding cities regarding their field allocation policies and minimum residency requirements. He provided an overview of neighboring agencies' requirements, noting that residency thresholds vary by jurisdiction, ranging from no minimum requirement to 60 percent. He stated that several cities have established minimum residency requirements, including Alhambra at 50 percent, Diamond Bar at 40 percent, Duarte at 51 percent, La Verne at 51 percent, Monterey Park at 60 percent, Pasadena at 51 percent, South Pasadena at 60 percent, Temple City at 51 percent, Walnut at 51 percent, and Whittier at 51 percent. He noted that some cities use alternative methods, such as discounts for nonprofit organizations, participant allocation formulas, or waiver processes for programs that provide broader community; benefits. He stated that the average minimum residency requirement among the surveyed cities is approximately 49 percent. In addition, he spoke about the City's current field use fee schedule, including resident and non- resident rates and non-profitorganization rates. He explained that nonprofit team rates are generally waived, with the exception of gymnasium use at $39 per hour, staffing fees of $17.50 per hour when required, and a $100 deposit. He further explained that if the City Council adopts a higher minimum residency requirement, such as the 35 percent recommendation from the Parks Commission, some existing community organizations may no longer qualify for the nonprofit resident rate and could be subject to applicable facility rental fees based on their residency percentages. Mayor Armenta inquired if the cities on the list surveyed charged fees. Recreation Supervisor Chu explained that organizations are required to meet the established thresholds (e.g., 5 1 % or 49%) at some cities. If an organization does not Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 10 of 33 meet the required percentage, fees are assessed. He further noted that certain fees may be waived by the Commission or based on specific program requirements, depending on the circumstances. Jonathan Loc referenced discussions at the previous two Parks and Recreation Commission meetings regarding increasing the minimum percentage of Rosemead residents required for organizations to qualify for the nonprofit rental rate and the potential grandfathering of existing organizations. He suggested that, in addition to a residency percentage requirement, the City consider establishing an alternative eligibility pathway based on the total number of Rosemead residents served by an organization. He noted that some organizations have relatively few participants while others serve significantly larger groups. He stated that the two largest organizations would incur higher fees without a grandfathering provision, despite serving between 40 and 49 Rosemead residents, and expressed concern that those additional costs could ultimately be passed on to Rosemead families. He also recommended adopting a policy that would allow both existing and future organizations to qualify for nonprofit rates by meeting either the required residency percentage or a minimum number of Rosemead participants, with the specific threshold to be determined by the City Council. Council Member Clark asked Mr. Loc to elaborate what he was suggesting. Mr. Loc suggested that organizations with a large number of participants be allowed to qualify for nonprofit rental rates based on serving a minimum number of Rosemead residents, even if they do not meet the required residency percentage. He stated that using a minimum participant threshold would provide a more equitable standard by recognizing organizations that serve a greater number of Rosemead residents overall. Robert Bernal, President of the Rosemead Rebels Football and Cheer Organization, stated that the organization has experienced steady growth in registration while maintaining the same registration fees for the past three years despite increasing operating costs, including insurance, equipment, uniforms, and field use. He noted that the organization's nonprofit rental rate has helped keep participation affordable and expressed concern that additional field rental and lighting fees would require an increase in registration costs. He stated that the Rosemead Rebels have served the community since 1960 and draw participants from both Rosemead and neighboring cities. He reported that the organization met the current 27 percent Rosemead residency requirement last year but indicated that meeting a 35 percent requirement would be difficult. He also highlighted the organization's outreach efforts, including participation in City events and promotional activities, to increase Rosemead resident enrollment, and requested that the City consider the potential financial impact of a higher residency threshold on the organization and participating families. Mayor Pro Tem Low stated that balancing support for youth sports programs with Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 11 of 33 the responsible use of public funds was a difficult decision. She acknowledged the value of recreational programs in providing positive opportunities for youth but emphasized that the City has a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer funds primarily benefit Rosemead residents. She expressed support for increasing the minimum Rosemead residency requirement, suggesting a threshold of 40 percent or 51 percent, to ensure that waived facility fees serve City residents. She stated that fee waivers represent a subsidy funded by Rosemead taxpayers and questioned whether it is appropriate for the City to subsidize organizations with a relatively low percentage of Rosemead participants, citing the Montebello Baseball Association and Monterey Park Baseball as examples. Council Member Ly stated that he understood both the importance of supporting youth sports programs and the City's responsibility to ensure taxpayer resources benefit Rosemead residents. He expressed support for increasing the residency requirement from 25% to 35%, stating that it was a fair and reasonable goal. He also expressed interest in considering an additional qualification based on the total number of Rosemead participants served, as suggested during public comment, but noted that it could be discussed at a later time. He stated that he did not support permanently grandfathering existing organizations but would support allowing a temporary transition period for current organizations to meet the new requirement. Council Member Ly recognized the benefits of youth sports programs in encouraging outdoor activities and keeping youth engaged. He also noted that Rosemead's parks serve residents from surroundingcommunities and referenced the City's recent State grant for Rosemead Park as an example of the regional value of the City's recreational facilities. He stated that organizations serving participants from outside Rosemead demonstrates the regional value of the City's recreational facilities, which could strengthen future grant applications. ' He expressed support for increasing the minimum Rosemead residency requirement from 25 percent to 35 percent, noting that it represents a significant increase. In addition, he supported providing existing organizations with a phased > transition period to meet the new requirement and acknowledged the efforts of organizations, including the Rosemead Rebels, to increase Rosemead resident participation. He further expressed interest in revisiting the suggestion to consider the total number of Rosemead participants served, in addition to the residency percentage, as part of a future policy discussion. Council Member Clark expressed support for grandfathering existing organizations that have been serving the community for many years. She emphasized the importance of encouraging youth participation in outdoor activities and recreational programs. She suggested considering a provision similar to one used by Temple City that would allow flexibility or waivers for organizations that provide a significant overall community benefit. She noted the contributions of organizations such as the Rosemead Rebels and expressed concern that increased fees could create financial barriers for families due to rising costs. She recommended further consideration to Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 12 of 33 ensure that long-standing community organizations and participating families are not adversely impacted. Council Member Dang reviewed the residency participation data and noted that the average Rosemead resident participation rate is approximately 35.5 percent, while the regional average is approximately 49 percent. He expressed support for using a residency percentage as a baseline requirement but suggested that the requirement includes a maximum participant threshold to account for differences in organization size. He explained that applying a percentage requirement alone may create an unfair burden on larger organizations, noting that a 49 percent requirement for an organization with 150 participants would require a significantly higher number of Rosemead residents compared to smaller organizations. He suggested considering a cap, such as requiring a maximum of 49 Rosemead participants, as an alternative approach. This approach could provide a fairer: standard while encouraging organizations to actively recruit and engage Rosemead youth. He emphasized that the requirement should be viewed as an incentive for organizations to increase local participation rather than as a punitive measure. Mayor Armenta emphasized the importance of preserving Rosemead's long-standing youth sports organizations and shared her personal experience with the City's Parks and Recreation programs. She explained that the current residency requirement was established due to concerns`regarding misuse of nonprofit rates by organizations that did not primarily serve Rosemead residents. She expressed support for grandfathering legacy organizations, including Rosemead Rebels Football and Cheer, Lady Hawks, and RYA, by allowing them to remain under the existing 25 percent residency requirement. She noted the significant volunteer efforts and community contributions of these organizations and expressed concern that higher requirements and increased fees could negatively impact youth participation. She recommended that staff identify qualifying legacy organizations while ensuring responsible use of City resources. Council Member Dang thanked Mayor Armenta for her comments and acknowledged the importance of legacy organizations that proudly represent Rosemead through their participation in regional and out -of -area competitions. He stated that the discussion provided additional perspective on the value of these organizations to the community. He proposed that designated legacy teams maintain the existing 25 percent Rosemead residency requirement, while non -legacy organizations be subject to the regional average residency requirement of 49 percent identified by staff. Council Member Ly stated that he was moved by Mayor Armenta's comments and recognized the historical and cultural importance of long-standing community organizations. He emphasized, however, that the City has limited park space and must balance preserving existing programs with providing opportunities for future recreational needs. Rosemead 04) Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 13 of 33 Council Member Ly noted that recreational interests change over time, using pickleball as an example of a growing activity that may require additional park space. He stated that the City must evaluate how facilities are allocated to best serve current community needs while also maintaining legacy programs. Council Member Ly expressed support for maintaining a 35 percent residency requirement for all organizations, consistent with the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation, while allowing existing organizations to remain at the 25 percent requirement through a temporary grandfathering period. He suggested that legacy organizations be given a set timeframe, such as three to five years, to reach the new requirement. He also expressed support for considering a minimum number of Rosemead participants as an alternative qualification measure. He stated that organizations serving a significant number of Rosemead residents should be recognized, even if they do not meet aspecific percentage threshold. He noted that establishing a minimum participation number could provide a fair approach while ensuring that City -subsidized programs continue to provide meaningful benefits to Rosemead residents. Mayor Armenta asked staff for information regarding the length of time that Inspire and Rise Soccer and Monterey Baseball Association have operated in Rosemead. Recreation Supervisor Chu stated that Inspire and Rise Soccer is a relatively new organization and has been operating in the City for approximately one year. He also noted that MontereyBaseball Association is a`newer organization with less than one year of operations in Rosemead. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking added that Rosemead Pony Baseball began operating in the City in 2019. , Mayor Armenta;explained that her questions regarding the organizations' history in Rosemead were intended to help determine which groups should be considered legacy organizations eligible for grandfathering. She stated that she did not believe all organizations on the current list should automatically be grandfathered, particularly newer organizations that have only operated in the City for a short period of time. Mayor Armenta expressed concern that organizations may be benefiting from the current 25 percent residency requirement without necessarily having a significant history or connection to the Rosemead community. She noted that, based on her experience with youth sports, residency requirements may be met through roster participation, and emphasized the importance of ensuring that City subsidies primarily benefit established Rosemead organizations. She suggested that organizations with a longstanding history in the community, such as Rosemead Rebels, Lady Hawks, RYA, and AYSO-40, be considered legacy organizations. She Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 14 of 33 stated that she was supportive of increasing the residency requirement overall but wanted to ensure that established Rosemead programs are protected. She also mentioned that on previous discussions regarding prioritizing field allocation when only one organization represented a specific sport and asked staff whether that policy consideration should be revisited. Council Member Dang stated that he reviewed the participation numbers and suggested considering a requirement of either 40 percent Rosemead residency or 40 Rosemead participants, whichever is lower. He noted that under this approach, most legacy organizations would meet the requirement, with the exception of Lady Hawks Softball, which would need to add one additional Rosemead participant. Council Member Dang stated that this approach would align with the goal of recognizing legacy organizations while encouraging increased Rosemead participation. He added that newer organizations, such as Monterey Park Baseball and Softball, would need to increase their Rosemead participation under this standard. Mayor Pro Tem Low stated that the Rosemead Rebels would not be able to meet the new percentage. Council Member Dang explained it would be 40 percent or 40 players that would be needed. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking explained that the figures presented were based on data from previous seasons. He noted that the numbers and percentages fluctuate from year to year depending on seasonal conditions. For example, he stated that the current figure of 40 may be lower or higher in future years. He emphasized that the figures are subject to annual variation and should be viewed as estimates based on historical seasonal trends. Council Member Ly suggested that the Council first evaluate the proposed participation thresholds without considering the individual organizations. He recommended focusing on what would constitute a fair standard, including both the percentage of _participation and the minimum number of participants. He offered examples, such as a 40 percent threshold with a minimum of 40 youth participants or a 35 percent threshold with a minimum of 35 participants and encouraged the Council to determine an appropriate benchmark before applying it to specific organizations. He stated that this should be the starting point for the discussion. Council Member Clark stated that returning to the legacy participation standard of 25 percent would apply to the three long-established organizations: Lady Hawks, Rebels, and AYSO. She stated that she believed this approach was more fair because those organizations had been serving the community for many years and would help Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 15 of 33 prevent new organizations from taking undue advantage of taxpayer -funded facilities. She added that this concept generally reflected the intent of the initial motion. Council Member Ly clarified that no motion had been made. Council Member Dang clarified that there was no motion currently on the floor. He acknowledged the importance of maintaining a legacy organization representing the City of Rosemead and stated that his comments were consistent with the Mayor's remarks. Mayor Pro Tern Low stated that she supported grandfathering in the legacy organizations. She sought confirmation that the three organizations identified on the list are AYSO 40, Lady Hawks, and the Rosemead Rebels, had each been established in and serving the Rosemead community for more than 10 to 15 years. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking replied yes to Mayor Pro Tern Low's comments. Mayor Pro Tem Low reiterated that, because the organizations had served the City for many years, she supported grandfathering the legacy organizations into the program. She added that she did not believe these organizations had taken advantage of the City and indicated that she was comfortable supporting that approach. Council Member Ly clarified that the discussion involved four rather than three organizations, noting that the Rosemead Youth Association (RYA) would also remain included. He stated that he considered these four organizations to be legacy programs and supported allowing them to qualify under a 25 percent participation threshold. He further stated that he would encourage the legacy organizations to work toward achieving a 35 percent participation level. For all other organizations, he expressed support for requiring a minimum participation threshold of 35 percent. Mayor Pro Tern Low expressed support for Council Member Ly's proposal and suggested providing the legacy organizations with a transition period, such as three to five years, to achieve the proposed 35 percent participation threshold. Council Member Ly suggested amending the proposal to allow the legacy organizations a transition period to work toward meeting the participation threshold without being immediately penalized for falling short. He recommended that the matter be revisited after three or four years by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council to evaluate each organization's progress. He explained that the review would provide an opportunity to determine whether the organizations had made a good -faith effort to increase participation and meet the established benchmark before any future action was considered. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 16 of 33 Mayor Armenta asked for clarification on whether organizations would still be required to meet the 25 percent participation threshold in order to avoid additional usage fees. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking stated currently that is the policy. Mayor Armenta clarified that her recommendation was to maintain the threshold at 25 percent while acknowledging the discussion regarding providing organizations with time to improve without penalties. She emphasized that the 25 percent participation requirement would remain as a safeguard, meaning that organizations falling below 25 percent participation would still be subject to field usage fees. Council Member Ly agreed that the clarification was reasonable and returned to his previous analogy regarding future participation levels. He explained that, even if an organization maintained the minimum 25 percent threshold, a decline in participation numbers over time would indicate a negative trend. He emphasized that the goal is to maximize the use of Rosemead fields by Rosemead youth. He reiterated that the proposal was to establish a 35 percent participation goal while grandfathering the four identified legacy organizations at the 25 percent threshold, with a future review period of approximately three years to evaluate whether participation numbers had improved. Mayor Pro Tem Low stated that the intent of the proposal is to encourage organizations to increase participation among Rosemead youth. She noted that the approach would provide an incentive for organizations to actively recruit and engage more Rosemead residents in their sports programs. Mayor Armenta noted that since leaving the classroom approximately seven and a half years ago, she has observed declining school attendance and a decrease in the number of children participating. She acknowledged that multiple factors contribute to these trends and expressed her agreement with the proposal. Council Member Dang expressed support for the proposal, stating that setting a goal of 35 percent or 40 percent participation was a positive objective. He noted that maintaining 25 percent as the minimum threshold without penalties could provide an incentive for organizations to increase participation and promote growth. He requested clarification regarding the structure of the proposed threshold and incentives. Council Member Ly explained that the proposed accountability measure would involve a review after three years to evaluate each organization's progress. He stated that if an organization demonstrated positive growth and was trending in the right direction, the grandfather provisions could remain in place. However, if an Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 17 of 33 organization failed to improve participation levels or appeared to be acting in bad faith, the City Council at that time would have the authority to consider amending the policy. He noted that such policy adjustments would remain within the Council's discretion. He asked staff for clarification regarding the appropriate next steps and requested guidance on whether the Council needed to take formal action through a motion to adopt the policy with amendments or provide direction in another manner. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking requested that the City Council provide clear direction through a motion and vote to ensure staff accurately incorporates the Council's intent into the policy language. He clarified that the action would be a motion for direction. He also asked the Council to consider the implementation timeline for the revised policy and participation percentages. He explained that staff would like to provide organizations with sufficient time to make any necessary adjustments, including potential fee changes, and recommended implementing the new policy in January 2027. He further stated that, if the Council approved a three- year grandfather period for the 'Rosemead legacy programs, staff would return to evaluate the program in 2030. ACTION: Motion by Council Member Ly, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Low to direct the Parks and Recreation Department to adopt the revised Athletic Field Use and Allocation Policy, incorporating the Parks Commission's recommendation with amendments. The motion designated AYSO 40, Rosemead Lady Hawks Softball, Rosemead Rebels Football and Cheer, and the Rosemead Youth Association as legacy Rosemead organizations, requiring them to maintain a minimum 25 percent residency 'participation rate, with a Council review after three years. All other organizations seeking nonprofit status would be required to meet a minimum 35 percent residency participation standard. The revised policy would take effect January 1, 2027. Motion was carried out by the following votes: AYES: ARMENTA CLARK, DANG, LOW AND LY NOES: NONE 6. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL A. Discussion on Assignment of San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments' (SGVCOG) San Gabriel Valley Forward Project Proposal on Garvey Avenue to the Legislative Committee Council Member Ly requested a discussion on assignment to the Legislative Committee the task of engaging with San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments and adjoining cities on the San Gabriel Valley Forward Project. Recommendation: That the City Council discuss and provide direction to staff. Council Member Ly clarified the purpose of the agenda item. He stated that the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments has proposed a San Gabriel Valley Forward Project bus rapid transit line along Garvey Avenue, extending from Atlantic Station Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 18 of 33 in Monterey Park to Santa Anita Station in El Monte. He noted that the proposed route would traverse four cities, Monterey Park, Rosemead, South El Monte, and El Monte. He expressed the importance of coordinating among the four affected cities to discuss the proposal collectively and develop a unified approach, rather than addressing the project independently. He noted that the Monterey Park City Council had already agreed to establish a subcommittee and proposed that Rosemead establish a similar subcommittee. He explained that, if the other affected cities also formed subcommittees, the representatives could meet jointly to review the proposal and develop recommendations for consideration by each respective city council. Those recommendations would then be communicated to the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments. Council Member Ly concluded by requesting the formation of a City Council subcommittee for this purpose. Brian Lewin expressed opposition to the proposed San Gabriel Valley Forward Project. He stated that, in his view, the proposal was premature and that referral could be interpreted as the City's support for the project. He questioned whether the need for the project had been adequately demonstrated and urged the project sponsors, Metro and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, to conduct additional public outreach, traffic and ridership analyses, and parking impact studies before seeking City consideration. Mr. Lewin expressed concerns regarding the potential loss of on -street parking, impacts on businesses and residential neighborhoods along the corridor, and the City's limited public parking resources. He also stated that previous public outreach efforts, including a recent town hall meeting and community survey, were insufficient and did not adequately inform or engage residents. Additionally, Mr. Lewin raised concerns about the potential land use and development implications associated with the proposed transit corridor, including the possibility of increased residential density under applicable State laws. He stated that these potential impacts should be clearly communicated to the public. He further noted that the proposal did not accommodate planned bicycle lanes along Garvey Avenue and suggested that bicycle infrastructure be considered in any future iterations of the project. Mr. Lewin concluded by reiterating that Metro and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments should demonstrate public support for the project and provide sufficient justification and mitigation measures before the City considers the proposal. Jonathan Loc expressed general support for a well -designed bus rapid transit project along Garvey Avenue. He shared his personal experience relying on public transit and stated that reliable bus service is important for students, working families, seniors, individuals with disabilities, and others who depend on public transportation. He commented that improved transit service could increase ridership, support local businesses, and advance the City's vision for a more walkable Garvey Avenue corridor. Mr. Loc also noted that enhanced transit could improve access to community destinations, employment opportunities, and future redevelopment areas along the corridor. He expressed support for incorporating bicycle infrastructure where feasible and stated that expanding transportation options would benefit the community. He concluded by expressing support for collaboration among the Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 19 of 33 affected cities and agreed that additional public outreach by Metro and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments would be beneficial. Linda Kilpatrick expressed opposition to the proposed bus rapid transit project along Garvey Avenue. She stated that, based on her familiarity with the corridor from Monterey Park to El Monte, she believed removing a traffic lane would worsen existing traffic congestion. She also expressed concerns regarding the potential loss of on -street parking, stating that parking is already limited and that additional parking restrictions could negatively affect local businesses. Ms. Kilpatrick further questioned whether the proposed transit improvements would adequately serve the transportation needs of seniors traveling to medical appointments. Sherman Rourman expressed concerns regarding the proposed project and requested that consideration of the item be postponed 'allowing the City Attorney additional time to review legal matters he believed could impact the project, including referenced pending litigation and bankruptcy proceedings. He submitted documents for the record in support of his comments. Mr. Rourman also raised concerns regarding traffic safety, crime, and public safety conditions along the Garvey Avenue corridor. He stated that these issues should be addressed prior to moving forward with the proposed transit project and emphasized the need for additional public safety and law enforcement resources in the area. Brian Horn, a business owner on Garvey Avenue in Monterey Park, expressed opposition to the proposed bus rapid transit project. He stated that he did not believe enough outreach had been done with businesses along the corridor and that many business owners were not aware of the proposal. Mr. Horn shared concerns that removing on -street parking and changing vehicle access could negatively affect businesses that depend on customer parking. He stated that reduced parking availability could impact the success of his business and other long-standing businesses in the area. He requested that the City Council conduct additional outreach and address business concerns before moving forward with the project. Speaker (no name provided) expressed concerns regarding the proposed formation of amulti-city subcommittee before obtaining input from Rosemead residents and businesses. The speaker questioned why outreach to the local community had not occurred prior to coordinating with neighboring cities. The speaker also expressed concerns that _reducing traffic lanes on Garvey Avenue would increase congestion, negatively affect economic development opportunities, and adversely impact existing and future businesses, including redevelopment of the former auction site. Additional concerns were raised regarding the potential loss of on -street parking and overall traffic circulation. The speaker urged the City Council to prioritize community outreach and public engagement with Rosemead residents and businesses before participating in regional discussions regarding the proposed project. Council Member Ly stated that all public comments had been received and thanked the speakers for their input, noting that the comments raised important questions and considerations regarding the proposed project. He explained that these concerns were among the reasons he brought the item forward, as he also had questions and sought Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 20 of 33 additional discussion. He thanked Council Member Clark for providing a detailed copy of a report regarding the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments' discussions, stating that the report raised several important points and contributed to the conversation. He acknowledged that Garvey Avenue experiences significant traffic congestion and stated that he lives near the corridor and is familiar with the area. He shared his personal experience using public transit, including the bus system along Garvey Avenue, and recognized that the roadway serves multiple users, including motorists, pedestrians, transit riders, bicyclists, and other forms of mobility. He emphasized that the City has an obligation to consider the safety and needs of all users of the roadway. Mr. Ly stated that while public transit provides an important option for many residents, some individuals and families rely on personal vehicles due to time constraints, work obligations, school schedules, and other circumstances. He also acknowledged that some residents do not have access to a vehicle and depend on public transportation options. He also addressed comments regarding his family and clarified that prior remarks regarding his grandmother were inaccurate. He requested that his family members not be referenced in a manner that he felt was disrespectful, noting his grandmother's history, contributions, and longtime residency in Rosemead. He expressed appreciation for residents who continue to participate in City Council meetings and provide public comment, even when differing opinions are presented. He further stated the importance of accessible transportation options for seniors and residents who cannot drive. He referenced programs such as Rosemead GO and public transit services as important resources for individuals with limited mobility. He also shared personal experiences regarding his family's reliance on public transportation due to employment, affordability, and parking limitations, emphasizing the role transit plays in providing access to jobs and essential services. Council Member Ly stated that the goal of the discussion was to identify solutions and avoid creating additional challenges for the community. He acknowledged the concerns raised, by residents and Council Members regarding existing congestion along Garvey Avenue and stated that the City should continue exploring ways to address transportation and mobility issues along the corridor. He referenced points raised by Council Member Clark in her written memo to the City Council and noted that Garvey Avenue has long been recognized as an area requiring improvements. He stated that the City must evaluate potential solutions to address traffic conditions and improve the corridor. Council Member Ly explained a prior City Council action approximately 11 years earlier regarding a proposed Metro grant opportunity for bus lane improvements along Garvey Avenue. He noted that the City Council at that time, including then Council Members Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, and Ly, chose not to pursue the grant due to concerns related to potential impacts, including the elimination of parking. The Council instead directed staff to seek grant funding for Garvey Avenue improvements that would not remove parking and to revisit the bus lane concept only if alternative funding opportunities could not be identified. He noted that, after approximately 10 years, the City had not identified additional grant opportunities for Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 21 of 33 similar Garvey Avenue improvements and stated that it was reasonable to revisit the discussion and consider available options to address conditions along the corridor. He agreed with residents that Rosemead residents and businesses should have a significant role in any future discussions regarding improvements to Garvey Avenue. He stated that regional coordination through the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments would be necessary and questioned whether sufficient opportunities had been provided for local input. Council Member Ly continued stating that Council Member Clark had served on the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments for approximately 20 years and had previously held leadership roles, including serving as past president and participating on the agency's executive committee. He stated that, despite her involvement and efforts, the proposed project had continued to move forward and was now before the City for consideration. Mr. Ly stated that the City's participation in discussions regarding the proposed project would allow Rosemead to provide input and advocate for the concerns of its residents and businesses. He emphasized the importance of _obtaining additional information regarding current ridership patterns, including whether Rosemead residents utilize the existing Route 70 bus service, whether the proposed improvements would meaningfully reduce congestion, and whether the project would provide measurable benefits to local transit users. He agreed with concerns raised by speakers regarding the need to evaluate potential impacts, including traffic, parking, bicycle facilities, and other mobility improvements. He stated that these questions should be addressedbefore any decisions are made and noted that he attended public meetings in both Rosemead and Monterey Park regarding the proposal, where he felt these issues had not been fully addressed. He stated that regional coordination among the affected cities, Monterey Park, Rosemead, South El Monte, and El Monte would provide an opportunity for the cities to collectively review the proposal, communicate community concerns, and ensure that local priorities are considered. He expressed concern that, . without coordination, decisions regarding the project could move forward without sufficient input from the affected communities. Council Member Ly explained that his request was not intended as an endorsement of the proposed project, but rather as an effort to establish a forum for discussion, review information, and ensure community concerns are considered. He stated that his initial preference was to hold a joint meeting among the four affected city councils, but acknowledged that each city operates independently and that the participating cities had instead considered forming individual subcommittees that could work together. He stated that the purpose of the proposed subcommittee would be to improve communication among the participating cities, coordinate outreach efforts, and ensure residents are informed and engaged throughout the process. He explained that an alternative option would be to refer the matter to an existing standing committee rather than establishing a new subcommittee. Council Member Ly identified the City's existing standing committees, including the Commercial Task Force, comprised of Mayor Pro Tem Low and Council Member Dang, and the Advocacy Committee, comprised of Mayor Armenta and Council Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 22 of 33 Member Ly. He stated that one of these committees could potentially be utilized to continue discussions on the matter. He emphasized that his intent was to identify the most efficient approach while considering the workload, priorities, and existing responsibilities of the City's committees. He noted that the Commercial Task Force may have other ongoing matters to address and stated that referring the item to an existing committee, such as the Legislative Committee, could avoid creating an additional subcommittee. Council Member Ly clarified that he would support the creation of a new subcommittee if that was the direction preferred by the City Council and reiterated that his goal was to identify the most effective method for advancing the discussion. He reiterated that the City Council has an obligation to represent all members of the community, including transit users, motorists,pedestrians, and bicyclists. He stated that transportation decisions should consider the needs and experiences of all residents who rely on different modes of transportation. He shared his personal experience using public transit, including relying on the Route 70 bus and connecting transit services to attend school and access educational opportunities. He stated that his experience highlighted the importance of maintaining and improving transportation options for residents who may not have access to a personal vehicle. Mayor Pro Tem Low stated that, during a workshop regarding the proposed project, she expressed to a Metro representative that any improvements along Garvey Avenue should not result in the loss of parking or a traffic lane. She emphasized that maintaining parking and roadway capacity are important considerations for the corridor and stated that she remained open-minded to reviewing potential solutions that address these concerns. She stated that she supported collaboration with the other affected cities, noting that neighboring communities, including Monterey Park, may share similar concerns regarding potential impacts to parking and traffic lanes. She acknowledged the importance of maintaining transit services but expressed concern that dedicated bus lanes could create significant impacts to the surrounding community. Furthermore, she stated that a coordinated approach among the affected cities would provide a stronger regional voice and help ensure that decisions are not made without sufficient local input. She expressed support for the formation of a subcommittee and indicated her willingness to continue evaluating the proposal while maintaining the concerns she previously identified. Council Member Clark clarified that the proposed project had previously been brought forward by Metro and that the City Council had declined to pursue it at that time. She stated that neither Metro nor the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments could require the City to proceed with the project if the City did not support it. She explained that the proposal was being reconsidered because an alternative transit route had not moved forward and expressed concern that the project was being redirected to Garvey Avenue as a result. Council Member Clark stated that the prior proposal required a significant financial contribution from the City and that the City Council had previously determined that pursuing the project was not in the City's best interest. She emphasized that the purpose of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments is to support member cities and stated that she would advocate strongly against any effort to advance a project that did not have local Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 23 of 33 support. She expressed concerns regarding the creation of a subcommittee, stating that its formation could be interpreted by Metro and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments as an indication that the City was considering or supporting the project. She stated that she did not want to send that message and reiterated her opposition to potential impacts associated with removing parking or traffic lanes along Garvey Avenue. She expressed concerns regarding impacts to local businesses, residents, traffic circulation, and roadway safety. She referenced previous concerns raised by the business community, including the Chamber of Commerce, regarding potential negative effects on businesses if parking were reduced. She also discussed potential safety concerns related to passenger loading and unloading along the corridor. Council Member Clark further expressed concerns regarding the structure of a City Council subcommittee consisting of elected officials, noting that participation by a limited number of Council Members could restrict the ability of other Council Members to provide input due to Brown Act requirements. She suggested that an alternative committee structure involving non -elected representatives may allow for broader discussion while avoiding those limitations. Council Member Clark referenced the City's previous action to decline funding for the project and direct staff to seek alternativegrant opportunities for improvements along Garvey Avenue that would not eliminate parking. She questioned whether additional grant opportunities had been pursued and expressed concern that the item was returning for consideration without sufficient justification. She also raised concerns regarding potential impacts to bicycle infrastructure, noting that previous discussions indicated that dedicated bus lanes could affect planned bicycle paths. She questioned whether the proposed project would be consistent with the City's Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and requested information regarding the resources and staff time invested in developing that plan. She urged the City Council to reconsider establishing a subcommittee related to the proposal, stating that she believed it could send an unintended message of support to regional agencies. She expressed support for continued discussion through appropriate channels while maintaining the City's ability to evaluate and implement its own priorities for Garvey Avenue. Mayor Armenta provided clarification regarding the history of the proposed project. She stated that approximately 10 years ago, the City applied for a Metro grant related to improvements along Garvey Avenue and was awarded funding; however, the grant included requirements and conditions that raised concerns, including potential roadway changes similar to those currently being discussed. She explained that, after receiving community input and considering the potential impacts, the City Council decided not to accept the grant funding. She clarified that the $1 million amount referenced by Council Member Clark represented a required local match associated with the grant. Ultimately the City informed Metro that it would not proceed with the grant and would maintain existing conditions along Garvey Avenue. She reiterated that City staff had pursued the grant in response to prior Council direction to seek available funding opportunities, but after the grant requirements became clear, the Council reconsidered and declined the funding. She stated that she had voted against Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 24 of 33 accepting the previous grant and wanted to ensure the discussion accurately reflected how the matter originated. Council Member Dang thanked Mayor Armenta for providing clarification regarding the history of the matter, stating that the explanation helped provide a better understanding of the issue. He clarified that the item before the City Council was whether to establish a City Council subcommittee, with Council Member Ly coordinating with the other affected cities regarding further discussion of the proposed project. Council Member Ly replied correct. Council Member Dang stated that he believed forming a subcommittee would allow for a more thorough discussion and developmentofrecommendations that could provide a clearer and stronger message to the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments. He expressed his opinion that establishing a subcommittee would not weaken the City's position or automatically signal support for the proposed project. He acknowledged the concerns raised by the public, including potential impacts related to parking, traffic congestion, and the loss of a travel lane. He stated that these concerns had been clearly communicated during the discussion and expressed confidence that Council Member Ly would ensure that residents' concerns were conveyed to the regional agencies involved. Mr. Dang expressed support for Council Member Ly taking the lead on the formation of the subcommittee and coordination with neighboring cities. He noted Council Member Ly's interest and commitment to the issue and stated that he and Mayor Pro Tem Low had existing responsibilities related to the Commercial Task Force. Council Member Dang concluded by expressing his support for establishing the subcommittee and for continued coordination with the affected agencies and jurisdictions. Mayor Armenta stated that Council Member Ly had previously brought the matter before the Advocacy Committee, where various issues were discussed, including parking impacts and the potential effects of reducing roadway capacity from two lanes to one lane. She also addressed Mr. Lewin's comments and stated that she had requested the City's lobbyist review the potential implications of establishing a transit stop in relation to Senate Bill 79. Mayor Armenta : also expressed concern regarding the spread of inaccurate information and emphasized the importance of ensuring that the public receives complete and accurate information regarding City matters. She referenced previous community discussions where misinformation contributed to heightened public concern and stated that the City Council's role is to gather facts, consider community input, and provide accurate information to residents. She stated that public comments and differing opinions are an important part of the process but emphasized that discussions should remain focused on the issues rather than personal disagreements. She reiterated her longstanding concerns regarding potential impacts to parking and roadway capacity, stating that she remained opposed to eliminating parking or reducing travel lanes unless additional information demonstrates a need or provides appropriate mitigation. She acknowledged concerns raised by residents and Rosemead 00) Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 25 of 33 businesses regarding potential parking impacts, including the possibility of overflow parking into residential neighborhoods. She noted that some areas of Rosemead, particularly in the southern portion of the City, have limited residential parking availability due to smaller driveways and garages, resulting in increased reliance on street parking. Mayor Armenta emphasized the importance of maintaining local control and stated that participation in regional discussions allows the City to advocate for the needs and concerns of its residents. She stated that forming a subcommittee would provide an opportunity for Rosemead to work with neighboring cities and communicate concerns, potential alternatives, and community priorities to Metro and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments. She clarified that the proposed committee would not constitute support for the project or represent a commitment to proceed with the proposal. She stated that the purpose would be to gather information, ask questions, and ensure that Rosemead has a voice in regional discussions. She expressed support for collaboration among the affected cities, noting that a unified approach would provide a stronger opportunity to address local concerns. Mayor Armenta reaffirmed the City's commitment to protecting local businesses and residents, noting that the City has consistently raised concerns regarding potential impacts from the proposed transit project, including parking loss, traffic congestion, circulation, and roadway safety. She clarified that the Council's action was not to approve the project, but to consider establishing a committee to further evaluate the issue and ensure Rosemead's concerns are represented in future discussions with regional agencies and neighboring jurisdictions. Council Member Ly stated that one of the concerns regarding the proposed project is the potential for inconsistent implementation among the four affected cities. He explained that if some cities proceed with the project while others do not, the result could be a piecemeal system that creates additional challenges. He provided an example in which one city, such as Rosemead, chose not to participate while another city, such as Monterey Park, proceeded with the project. He stated that differences in implementation could create traffic congestion, vehicle queuing, and impacts near city boundaries, particularly for businesses located along shared corridors. Council Member Ly emphasized the importance of coordination among the four affected cities Monterey Park, Rosemead, South El Monte, and El Monte, to ensure that there is a consistent approach. He stated that the cities should collectively evaluate the proposal and determine whether to move forward with improvements or communicate a unified position to the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments that the project should not proceed. Council Member Ly referenced the timeline of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments' study related to potential transit improvements along Garvey Avenue. He stated that the study was initiated by the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments in July 2021, with the first phase consisting of an initial feasibility analysis and draft vision plan identifying potential corridors for transit improvements. He noted that the second phase began in October 2022 and concluded Rosemead 00Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 26 of 33 in December 2023. He explained that the purpose of establishing a committee was to ensure that Rosemead's concerns and interests are represented during ongoing regional discussions. He expressed concern that the City's representation on the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments had not prevented the proposal from continuing to advance. Mr. Ly continued that, in his view, prior City representation on the Council of Governments had an opportunity to influence the direction of the project and expressed frustration that the proposal remained under consideration. He emphasized that his intent was not to prematurely support or oppose the project, but rather to evaluate what improvements may be feasible and determine whether the project should proceed based on community concernsand available information. He stated that, regardless of the outcome, the City should ensure that residents' voices are represented in discussions with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments and other regional agencies. He reiterated that the purpose of the proposed committee would be to review the project, advocate for Rosemead',s priorities, and determine the appropriate path forward. Council Member Clark clarified that the proposed; project had not been presented to the full Board of the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments in detail and stated that, to her knowledge, the matter may have only been discussed through the Transportation Committee or placed on a consent calendar. She stated that the City had previously declined participation and expressed that any lack of communication regarding the project was the responsibility of the Council of Governments. She stated that she had previously expressed her concerns regarding the proposal at a workshop and provided documentation, including City Council meeting minutes, reflecting the City's prior position. She expressed frustration that the project continued to move forward despite the City's previous concerns. Mrs. Clark expressed concern that Council Member Ly had placed the item on the agenda without first contacting her, stating that her comments regarding being offended were related to the lack of communication and not a lack of trust in Council Member Ly. She clarified that her concerns were based on the process and her belief that additional Council Members should have the opportunity to provide input. She also explained that her concerns regarding a Council subcommittee were related to Brown Act requirements, which could limit participation by other elected officials if the matter were discussed by a committee composed of Council Members. Council Member Clark objected to statements suggesting that she had provided inaccurate information and requested clarification regarding any specific information that was considered incorrect. She stated that she was passionate about protecting the City and ensuring that potential impacts of the project were fully considered. Mayor Armenta stated that, pursuant to City protocol, the Mayor is responsible for setting the agenda. She explained that Council Members may request items be placed on the agenda, but absent the Mayor's approval, an item would require a two-thirds vote of the City Council for consideration. She stated that the City has historically allowed Council Members to bring forward items of interest and emphasized that she Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 27 of 33 supports placing items on the agenda when Council Members are passionate about addressing issues affecting the community. She expressed disagreement with the concern that Council Member Ly should have consulted individual Council Members before placing the item on the agenda, stating that the process does not require prior approval from other Council Members. Mayor Armenta stated that she values the input and perspectives of all Council Members and supports open discussion of issues before the City Council. She clarified that her earlier reference to the Maryvale matter was intended to address concerns regarding the spread of inaccurate information and was not directed as a personal comparison. She stated that her intent was to emphasize the importance of ensuring that residents receive accurate information regarding City matters. Council Member Clark stated she had nothing to do with that. Mayor Armenta stated that she was familiar with the individuals involved in previous matters and the relationships among the parties involved, and she indicated that she could provide additional clarification if necessary. She stated that her earlier comments were intended to address concerns regarding the spread of inaccurate information and the resulting community response based on incomplete information. She reiterated that the City Council was not taking action to approve or deny the proposed project at this meeting. She clarified that the purpose of the discussion was to consider establishing a process for continued review, communication, and participation :in regional discussions. Mayor Armenta further stated that Council Members have established procedures for placing items on the agenda and reiterated the importance of following the City's agenda -setting protocols. Council Member Ly clarified that he was not offended by the comments made but stated that he was deeply hurt by the reference to his family during the discussion. He noted that he had not spoken with Linda Kilpatrick in approximately five to six years and was unsure whether she was aware of his grandmother's passing. He stated that he may have previously shared personal family information with Council Member Clark, including that his aunt uses public transportation because she no longer drives, in the context of discussions regarding the importance of transit services. Mr. Ly expressed concern that information about his family may have been shared with a member of the public in connection with encouraging participation at the meeting. He stated that his concern was not related to disagreement over the project, but rather to the use of personal family matters in the discussion. Council Member Clark apologized for making a personal reference during the discussion and clarified that her comments were focused on the history of the project and the City Council's prior direction regarding Garvey Avenue improvements. Council Member Clark stated that, when the matter was previously considered, the City Council directed staff to pursue alternative grant opportunities for improvements along Garvey Avenue that would not require the removal of parking, and to revisit the issue only if those opportunities were unsuccessful. She stated that she was not aware of any applications for such grants and requested clarification regarding Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 28 of 33 whether those efforts had occurred. She stated that, while the matter could be brought back for discussion by a future Council, she believed the previous Council direction reflected significant concerns regarding potential impacts of the proposal. She referenced prior discussions regarding potential projects on Valley Boulevard and Garvey Avenue and stated that the City Council had previously expressed opposition to impacts such as loss of parking or roadway changes. Council Member Clark clarified that her comments regarding public transit access were not intended to disregard the needs of transit users. She stated that she was concerned her comments had been interpreted as a lack of support for residents who rely on transit and reiterated that her opposition was based on concerns regarding the impacts of the proposed project on the community. Mayor Armenta stated that, based on her participation on the Advocacy Committee, she did not believe that Council Member Ly's actions' indicated support for advancing the project without considering community concerns, She stated that Council Member Ly had consistently raised questions and sought additional information from City consultants, legislative lobbyists, and federal lobbyists regarding potential impacts to residents and businesses. She noted that, due to Brown Act requirements, not all Council Members are able to participate in certain committee discussions. She stated that she had personally observed Council Member Ly's participation and efforts to ensure that questions regarding the needs of residents and businesses were addressed. Mayor Pro Tem Low clarified that the materials provided for the item were identified as a transit feasibility study and explained that the information was intended to evaluate the potential feasibility of the project and was not an indication that the City had approved or supported implementation. She noted that in her interpretation, establishing a subcommittee would provide the City with an opportunity to communicate its concerns and positionregarding the proposal to the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments and Metro. She explained that the purpose of the subcommittee was to further evaluate the matter and advocate for the City's interests. Mayor Pro Tern Low expressed concern that some members of the public may have received incomplete or inaccurate information suggesting that the City Council was moving forward with approving the project. She stated that this misunderstanding contributed to public concern and emphasized the importance of ensuring residents receive accurate information regarding City actions. She acknowledged the concerns expressed by residents and businesses and stated that the City Council shares an interest in protecting the community's needs and addressing potential impacts. She encouraged residents to seek clarification from City staff or the City Council when questions arise regarding City projects or proposals. Furthermore, she would continue to express concerns regarding the project to Metro and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments and noted that other Council Members had also raised concerns. She reiterated that the purpose of the discussion was to ensure the City's concerns are heard and considered. Council Member Clark stated that she appreciated the clarification regarding the Rosemead 00) Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 29 of 33 City's position and expressed that her primary concern was ensuring that the City's actions were not interpreted by the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments or Metro as support for the proposed grant or project. She reiterated that her concern with forming a subcommittee was that regional agencies could interpret the action as an indication that the City was interested in pursuing the project or coordinating toward implementation. She stated that, based on her experience, actions taken during the political process can sometimes be interpreted differently than intended. Mrs. Clark clarified comments regarding the City Council's prior consideration of the matter approximately 10 years earlier. She stated that her concern at that time was that the grant application had been submitted by staff without prior presentation to or direction from the City Council. Council Member Clark clarified that the City Council had not directed staff to pursue a grant that would involve removing parking along Garvey Avenue or Valley Boulevard. She stated that the grant application was submitted by staff without prior Council direction and requested that this distinction be reflected in the discussion. Mayor Armenta clarified that the City Council's prior direction to staff was to seek available grant opportunities for improvements and acknowledged that the direction could have included more specifics regarding the types of projects to pursue. She stated that staff acted in accordance with the Council's direction at the time, but the City ultimately chose not to accept the grant after reviewing the associated requirements and potential impacts. She noted that one of her prior concerns was the potential impact of declining the grant on the City's future ability to obtain funding from Metro. She encouraged residents and interested parties to review the official City Council meeting minutes and public records for the complete context of the prior discussions and the concerns raised by Council Members regarding Garvey Avenue. Mayor Pro Tem Low stated that she disagreed with Council Member Clark's concern that forming a subcommittee could be interpreted as support for the proposed project. She stated that, in her view, establishing'a subcommittee would provide the City with a stronger voice and allow for greater coordination with the other affected cities. She explained that 'collaboration among the cities would strengthen their ability to communicate concerns, evaluate the proposal, and advocate for the outcome that best serves their communities, including the option of not moving forward with the project. Council Member Ly stated that he wanted to provide a final clarification before making a motion. He clarified that the current discussion does not involve a grant application or new grant funding, but rather concerns the potential allocation of existing Metro funds and a proposed project being advanced for consideration. He stated that the City had not applied for funding for the current proposal and reiterated that the purpose of establishing a subcommittee would be to evaluate the project, coordinate with neighboring cities, and develop a unified position regarding potential impacts. Mr. Ly expressed concerns regarding the City's ability to maintain local control and stated that regional agencies have certain authorities under existing agreements that could affect local jurisdictions. He emphasized the importance of proactively engaging with neighboring cities and regional agencies to ensure that the Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 30 of 33 interests of Rosemead residents and businesses are represented. He concluded by stating that the proposed subcommittee would allow the City to better understand the proposal, address concerns, and work toward protecting the community from potential negative impacts. He made a motion that the city council authorizes the legislative committee of the council to manage this issue and to work with our neighboring cities in a cohesive and coherent plan to report back to the council on. Mayor Armenta reiterated that the proposed action was not an approval of the project and did not indicate that the City would accept any proposed changes to the Garvey Avenue corridor without further review and consideration. She stated that she intended to continue advocating for the City's interests in discussions with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments. She acknowledged Council Member Ly's comments regarding the authority of regional agencies and stated that the City should remain engaged in the process to protect the interests of Rosemead residents and businesses. Council Member Clark asked even if somebody isn't a member of the COG? City Attorney Richman stated that regional joint powers agencies have authority similar to cities, including the ability to exercise eminent domain powers. She noted that such authority exists through the joint powers structure. Council Member Clark asked whether cities are required to be members of the joint powers agency in order for the agency to exercise such authority. She further asked whether a city could withdrawits membership if the 'agency moved forward with actions of concern to the City. Mayor Armenta stated that questions regarding agency membership and related issues could be discussed at _ a later time. She emphasized that the discussion highlighted the importance of establishing a committee to ensure that Rosemead has representation and a voice in regional conversations. She stated that the committee would provide an opportunity for the City to communicate the needs and concerns of local businesses and residents and advocate for the interests of the Rosemead community. CouncilMember Clark inquired about how Council Member Ly's motion was worded. She asked if language could be added to the motion. Mayor Armenta stated that "all municipalities" could be added to Mr. Ly's motion. Mayor Pro Tem Low requested that the subcommittee provide quarterly reports or updates back to the full City Council to ensure all Council Members remain informed of discussions and developments. Council Member Ly replied yes and suggested quarterly. Council Member Clark stated that we need to agendize if we wanted to comment on what you came up with? Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 31 of 33 Mayor Armenta stated that the matter would be agendized for future discussion. She explained that a report would be brought back to the full City Council, at which time Council Members and residents would have an opportunity to provide input and discuss the information presented before determining the next steps. Council Member Ly stated that the discussion had identified several key concerns and priorities that should be considered moving forward. He highlighted the preservation of parking, maintaining existing traffic lanes, and ensuring that potential bike lane improvements are not eliminated as important considerations. He noted that additional issues raised by residents should also be evaluated, including whether current ridership along the corridor reflects the needs of Rosemead residents, whether the proposed improvements would meaningfully reduce travel times, and whether the project would result in increased transit service. Council Member Ly emphasized that, at a minimum, any future discussions regarding the proposal should prioritize preserving parking, maintaining traffic lanes, and protecting bicycle infrastructure. Mayor Pro Tem Low stated to also ask the SGV COG if it everhappens, what is the traffic impact if you lose that lane, right? Council Member Clark ask could staff look into the effects on the Garvey specific plan. Council Member Ly stated that the initial list of items for consideration should include the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, potential project impacts, parking impacts, roadway lane impacts, traffic impacts associated with the removal of a travel lane, and potential effects on bicycle infrastructure. He further identified ridership analysis as an important consideration, including whether the proposed improvements would serve Rosemead residents and whether the project would result in measurable traffic improvements along the corridor. He stated that if the proposal does not improve traffic conditions or provide meaningful benefits, those factors should be evaluated as part of the review process. He noted that the list was intended as an initial framework for discussion and that additional concerns or considerations could be identified as the review process continues. Mayor Armenta explained that, in order to comply with the Brown Act, the matter would be formally placed on a future City Council agenda for discussion. She stated that the Council would have an opportunity to provide input, which would then be incorporated into the subcommittee's discussions along with feedback received from the community. Council Member Ly stated that each time the item is placed on a City Council agenda, the public would have an opportunity to provide comments and participate in the discussion. Council Member Ly accepted the comments and suggestions provided during the discussion as friendly amendments to the motion and requested that the item proceed to a vote. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2026 Page 32 of 33 ACTION: Motion by Council Member Ly, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Low to appoint the Advocacy Subcommittee members Mayor Armenta and Council Member Ly to the SGV Forward Project Subcommittee. Motion was carried out by the following votes: AYES: ARMENTA, CLARK, DANG, LOW AND LY NOES: NONE B. Council Comments Council Member Ly requested the Captain Meza provide an updated from Temple Sheriff Station. Mayor Sandra provided clarification regarding the process for placing items on the agenda. She reassured Council Members that they should not feel intimidated or believe that their requested items are not important. She emphasized that agenda items are intended to facilitate meaningful discussion and thorough consideration by the City Council. She noted that, just as items may be tabled when appropriate, Council Members should feel comfortable bringing forward any matters they believe warrant consideration and discussion on the agenda. 7. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Armenta adjourned the meeting at 10:28 p.m. Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk APPROVED Sandra Armenta, Mayor Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of Ma7•ch 10, 2026 Page 33 of 33