Loading...
CC - Item 4B - Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JOINT MEETING April 28, 2015 The meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark at 6:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Mayor Clark, Council Members Alarcon, Low and Ly ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Armenta STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager /Acting Public Works Director Hawkeswodh, Community Development Director Ramirez, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott, and City Clerk/Director of Communications Molleda, 1. WORKSHOP A. Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study City Manager Allred introduced the item indicating the Development Impact Fee Study was completed in accordance with the City's Strategic Plan. The purpose of the study was to calculate fees that would enable the City to maintain its public facility standards as new development creates impacts. He introduced City Planner, Shen Bermejo and Carlos Villarreal from Willdan Financial who made a PowerPoint presentation. Ms. Bermejo and Mr. Villarreal provided an in depth report on the impact fee study and the Methods used to develop the proposed impact fees for the City of Rosemead. The Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study (DIF) proposes four fee categories: traffic facilities, public safely facilities, general government facilities and park facilities By implemeniingthe DIF study and the collection of fees through the year 2025, traffic fees were projected to generate close to $1.2 million;, the public safety facilities fee was projected to generate $97,000; general government facilities fee_ was projected to generate $673,000; and the park facilities fee was projected to generate $3.2 million. Ms. Bermejo noted that the City currently only had a park fee of $800 per unit which has been in effect since 1993. Ms. Bermejo pointed out a table of the proposed fee schedule contained in the study were broken into two categories residential and non - residential and each fee category was broken out by the type of fee: traffic, public safety, general government and park. The residential fees for net new development were charged by unit. Non - residential fees for new development were charged per 1,000 square feet. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes oJApril 28, 2015 ITEM NO. 4.13 Page I of 19 In response to a question posed by Council Member Low, Ms. Bermejo responded that when an existing dwelling on a lot that met the square footage requirements to allow for two dwellings on the lot was demolished; and two new dwellings were built, only the second dwelling would be charged a fee. She confirmed further that an existing dwelling that was demolished and rebuilt would not be charged an impact fee. The next step in the process was the implementation of an ordinance based on the City Council's direction. The DIF ordinance would contain regulations and standards on how to charge the fees. Staff was suggesting that the fee be calculated at the issuance of the building permit, which was standard, and the fees would be due prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. City Planner Bermejo informed the City Council that an evaluation and survey of several cities' impact fees was completed. As a result, staff analyzed the City's fees against other cities' fees by using a prototypical development. The prototypical development was a single family unit, multi - family project consisting of 20 units and 29,000 square feet; a retail development consisting of 50,000 square feet of retail, and an office prototype project consisting of 50,000 square feet. She reviewed the PowerPoint slide that summarized the impact fees comparisons with other cities for a single family project and advised that if the DIF study was implemented, the fee per unit would be $8,082 compared to the existing fee of $800. Council Member Ly pointed out that the City of Pasadena's fee was $26,000 and asked what the average would be if Pasadena was removed from the survey. Thereafter, followed a brief discussion on the selection of cities surveyed. Ms. Bermejo informed Council that staff submitted the survey to several cities but only the cities that responded were included in the survey. Mr. Villarreal advised the Council that the response to Council Member Ly's question about removing the City of Pasadena from the survey for single - family prototypical project was $6,206 per unit. Council Member Low asked whether Rosemead could charge other fees and whether those other special fees had to go the approval process. City Attorney Richman explained other fees such as fees for a landscape maintenance district or a special business improvement district would each have their own approval processes wherein Council would have to establish the area, the property owners have to agree to it, there would be an election and the process would have to be followed. She explained that those funding sources were not fees that the Council could just adopt. Council Member Ly acknowledged the City received a letter from the Building Industry Association (BIA), Southern California Chapter, noting their concerns with specific fees and asking the City to consider a phase in approach; he asked for staffs opinion on a phase in approach. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015 Page 2 of 19 City Manager Allred responded that the BIA requested a five -year phase in period and staff felt that was too long of a period of time since the Development Impact Fee was only for ten years. He suggested a three year plan, if that was the direction Council wished to go. Council Member Ly asked about the BIA's position of eliminating the general government fee. Ms. Bermejo explained that new development would place greater demand on existing inventory of vehicles, buildings and equipment and in order to serve the new development the City would need to fund new vehicles, buildings, and the improvement of the new public facilities yard on River. Council Member Ly mentioned the BIA's letter also discussed the park fee should be recalculated based on the master plan which was the current system of the City. Mr. Villarreal responded that using a system standard to calculate the park fee would be used to raise the standard. The Park Master Plan predominately focused on rehabilitating existing park facilities in order to maintain the City's existing standard of park facilities; however, there still needed to be more facilities identified to benefit new development. Council Member Ly confirmed with Parks and Recreation Director Montgomery-Scott that the City's current ratio of park space is 0.64 acre per 1000 residents; and the recommended ratio should be 6 to 10 acres per 1000 residents. Council Member Ly then pointed out the shortfall in impact fee revenue to the total cost of street maintenance and pads maintenance over the next 10 years. He expressed his concern about the amount that would be imposed overall, since if Pasadena was excluded, the average rate would be $6,206 whereas the proposed rate would be $8,082 for a single - family detached dwelling. He felt the City needed to continue to be business friendly, and Rosemead's fees should be comparable to those of the neighboring cities. Mayor Clark agreed with Council Member Ly on the City's fees being comparable to those of the neighboring cities. She wanted staff to bring back a study that compared apples to apples, realizing that different cities charge different fees She noted that South El Monte, Alhambra and Montebello who shares borders with Rosemead were not included in the survey. She would not want to see a developer going to a neighboring city because their fees were lower. She did not want the City's fees to have a negative impact on development. She agreed with Council" Member Ly that the City needed to lower what was being proposed and maybe phase the fees in over a period of time, to see how it works. She also stated that she agreed with the BA's letter on charging the fees when the Certificate of Occupancy was issued. She noted that most of the cities that have higher fees were not contract cities. Council Member Low also agreed with what was said by Council Member Ly and Mayor Clark. She felt the City needed to be competitive. She thought traffic fees from new development would be used to purchase land for parking lots or a parking structure. She viewed the work to be done at intersections as maintenance. She did not see parking as one of the goals in the study to accommodate new development. Ms. Bermejo explained that only the Intersections that would be affected by the new development were included the DIF fee. A separate fee would need to be analyzed through another nexus study for parking. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015 Page 3 of 19 City Attorney Richman added the City had to identify facilities under the Mitigation Fee Act; a fee could not be established unless the City identified what the fee would fund. Council Member Low asked about the impact on sewers resulting from new development and asked if the sewer should be included in the study. Assistant City Manager /Public Works Director Hawkesworth advised that Los Angeles County was responsible for the maintenance of the City's sewers but the City was responsible for expansion of the sewers. He indicated that Council Member Low's question was valid and one that was being studied through the Garvey Corridor Specific Plan. One of the issues being looked at in the EIR was the sewer capacity and what could be done because that ultimately effects development and how much development can happen without the sewer capacity to sustain it. He said that sewers would require another separate study because there were other funding options to be considered beside impact fees. Council Member Low then asked about the impact fee for general government. City Manager Allred advised that with new development, the footprint of the City Hall building might need to be expanded to house additional office space. Mr. Villarreal added that vehicles and equipment were also included under general government. Council Member Low asked about placing a cap on the non - residential portion of the impact fees. The City Attorney explained that if that was done then the study would be affected. The law required there be a nexus and the numbers need to add up to what the impact was unless adjustments and assumptions were made. Thereafter followed a lengthy discussion on lowering the fee and the length of time it would take to collect the revenue needed to fund the facilities. Public Comments Ezra Gavle with the Building Industry Association addressed the Council acknowledging staff. He felt some of the points raised by the Mayor and Council were valid and he hoped that the BIA could continue to work with staff to finalize some of those issues. Council Member Low added that she did agree with many of the comments contained in the letter submitted by the Building Industry Association and asked staff to consider the BIA's recommendations, especially the phase in portion. There being no further business to come before Council, Mayor Clark recessed the City Council meeting at 6:49 p.m., noting the City Council would reconvene at 7:00 p.m. for the regular business meeting. Regular Business Meeting Minutes The meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark at 7:04 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015 Page 4 of 19 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tern Armenia INVOCATION: Council Member Alarcon PRESENT: Mayor Alarcon, Mayor Pro Tern Clark, Council Members Armenia, Low and Ly STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager /Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth, Community Development Director Ramirez, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott, and City Clerk/Director of Communications Molleda. Council Member Ly asked that Item 6.A be moved up before the Public Hearings Mayor Clark advised that Item 6.0 would also be moved up before Item 6.A 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE" Lawrence Shih, representative for Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis, First District addressed the City Council announcing that he was the liaison for the City of Rosemead and he looked forward to working with the City on diverse issues in the future. Lanny Aplanalp asked the City Council to do something about having the picture of a convicted felon removed from the City's wall. Brian Lewin addressed the City Council regarding Southern California Edison's issue with public notification. He advised that Edison posted "no parking" signs on his street but neglected to notify the residents and the trash company that the street would be closed down. He asked if Council could request that Edison notify the residents and the trash company when it intends to close a street. Staff was asked to make a note of the issue. ITEMS MOVED FORWARD 6. C. Armenian Genocide Resolution This item has been placed on the agenda by Council Member Armenia to commemorate the 100th anniversary of this tragedy. City Manager Allred introduced Dean Trachodny who addressed the Armenian Genocide Resolution on behalf of the Armenian National Committee of the San Gabriel Valley. He advised the Importance of the Resolution to Armenian Americans as well as all Americans. It was their hope that the Federal Government would take heed of the numerous cities and the 42 states that have passed resolutions, and ultimately recognize the Armenian Genocide. He urged the City Council to adopt the resolution and thanked the Council for its consideration. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015 Page 5 of 19 Mayor Clark advised the audience that she, and Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, attended the 100th Anniversary Commemoration of the Genocide at the Montebello Monument. She advised the members of the audience that 1.5 million people in Armenia were killed by the Ottoman Turks one hundred years ago simply for being Armenian. She advised the President has not acknowledged the genocide; and it needed to be acknowledged, because of the saying, those that Ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta advised she has close friends that were survivors of the Genocide and it was not appropriate for the President not to acknowledge it. She said history is history and the proof was there. She expressed her views on the President's failure to acknowledge it was genocide and not the result of war between the two factions. Council Member Ly concurred and stated the definition of genocide was the attempted destruction of a whole culture of people. It has been going on for a long time in many different cultures and it was time that it be called what it was — genocide. Council Member Low commented that history was history and it needed to be recognized. ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Armenta moved, and Council Member Ly seconded, to approve the Resolution. The motion unanimously carded by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly. 6. A. Skate Plaza Development Update Recommendation: That ttt the City Council provide direction regarding the award of contract for the design of a skate plaza at Rosemead Park. Assistant City Manager /Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth reminded the City Council that it had discussed the idea of a skate plaza in October, November and December of 2014. During those discussions various locations and design concerns were discussed and significant input was received from residents and non-residents that use the City's parks and facilities. After lengthy discussions and consideration, staff believed the best resolution was to work with a professional that has intimate knowledge of the skate park industry. An RFP was sent, seeking firms with specific experience in skate plaza designs and a proposal that could help identity whether the site was sufficient, if the many concerns previously raised could be addressed, and if a suitable and sustainable skateboard plaza could be developed within the parameters identified. He informed Council that the City received four excellent proposals from qualified firms and it was recommended that Spohn Ranch Skateparks be awarded the contract. This contract would include an evaluation of the site, outreach through social media and public workshops, a final design and the development of construction documents. Once all of the work was completed the full report would be brought back to the City Council to evaluate the findings and Council would determine if all of the concerns and objectives could be met. If the Council was pleased with the outcome and wanted to move forward with construction of a skate plaza at Rosemead Park, bids for actual construction would be sought. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes m April 28, 2015 Page 6 of 19 Council Member Low confirmed that the cost for the contract was $22,000 for the design and outreach. She asked once the design was approved what the cost to build the skate park would be. Mr. Hawkesworth advised a cost range of $400,000 to $450,000 was set. Council Member Ly remembered voting in December 2014 to authorize the site location at Rosemead Park, and what he was hearing from staff now was uncertainty about where the skate plaza would be built. Assistant City Manager /Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth clarified that the intention of this contract would be to design a skate plaza that can be built. The "ifs' were the number of concerns that were raised by Council Members and residents at the various meetings in 2014 regarding the dangers of the skate plaza being next to the jogging trail, and skateboards impeding an the jogging trail, the joint use, and where the Tai Chi people would be able to use the pads. He advised those were the kinds of issues that staff would work through with the designer, along with taking input from all of the skateboarding community as to the features, and the types of things they would like to have access to. He advised that staff was definitely going to bring back a project that could be built; however, staff wanted all of the issues taken into consideration as it was being built, to make sure as many of the concems as possible have been addressed. Council Member Ly expressed his concerns with staffs uncertainty in the report about where and if the skate park could be built. It was his recollection that the City Council had voted in favor of a skate park in Rosemead Park. Thereafter followed a discussion among Council regarding the issue and what was actually voted on in December. In response to Council Member Alarcon's question as to whether staff was looking at other sites besides Rosemead Park, Mr. Hawkesworth advised that Council had determined that Rosemead Park was identified as the only potential site that could be used for a skate park in Rosemead. That is why staff has focused on this site when seeking proposals from the architectural firms. Public Comments Jean Hall spoke in favor of the Skate Board Park and advised the City has made improvements to various facilities in past and she strongly supported activities for Rosemead's young residents. She acknowledged; staff for their hard work. Gloria Brill was in support of a skateboard park because it would bring more commerce, safety to residents, and reduce property damage to the City of Rosemead. She requested the Council select a design company that was reputable and who would design a great skate park that offers street transition, vertical skate boarding and be challenging. Alex Arango addressed Council in support and expressed the importance of having a skate park for the youth of the community who love to skate. Manny Solis addressed Council in support and advised he has been skating since he was 10 years old and a skate park would provide a safe place for the youth to skate. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes ofApril28, 2025 Page 7 of 19 Jeremiah Gdzzelle addressed Council in support of the skate park Eddy Magdalen o spoke in favor and thanked the Council and Council Member Ly for considering the skateboard park. He advised Council that the skateboarders were a community and not just a group of kids that skateboard. Shardee Galveston was in favor of building a skate pads in the City of Rosemead because it would prevent people from skating through other areas. It would be a good alternative to other activities that young people get Involved with such as drug use or gangs. Allan Rosso addressed Council indicating that skateboarding was a way of life and was what kept young people going. He suggested the cost of the skateboard park would be offset by the cost of dispatching police for trespassing. -- Darlene Izsuierdo addressed Council in support of the skate park and asked if Council heard the need of the youth in the community. She mentioned that a skateboard was a form of transportation for the young people and there was a need for more activities for the youth. Phillip Hermann was in support of a skate park so the skaters have a safe place to skate. Jacielle Velasco addressed the City Council in support of a skate park stating that there is no place for the youth to skate in Rosemead. She has to drive to Los Angeles and other cities to take her nephew to a skate park. Isaac Castillo addressed Council in support of a skate park comparing it to playing basketball without a court. By building a skate park the Council would be giving the skaters a place to learn, progress and build friendships. Council Member Ly „after having an opportunity to look at the Minutes from the November 10, 2014, Council Meeting pointed out that his exact motion, seconded by Council Member Armenta, was to proceed with Option B and direct staff to bring back a continued design. He described the Option B design to Council and asked if Council was thinking about changing its mind on the location or whether Council was still set with Option B. Mayor Pro Tern Armenta read the Minutes from the December 9, 2014 Council meeting regarding the update on the skate plaza development. The Minutes reflected that staff was working with the Street League Foundation, a non -profit corporation, to assist in funding and development of the plaza. The Minutes reflected the Street League Foundation and its partner California Skate Parks were developing a proposal for the design, construction, and management services for the construction of the project. City Manager Allred explained to the City Council that the City did not have an agreement with California Skateparks at that time. The City merely had a conceptual plan; and, therefore, the City had to go out to bid to identify a design company that could provide designs for the City and that was what was before the Council. He noted California Skateparks was one of the proposers and its bid was third lowest. Staff was recommending the low bidder, Spohn Ranch. Rosemead City Council and the Succ rAgency to the - Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015 Page 8 of 19 Mr. Hawkesworth advised Council one reason for the delay in bringing this back was the previous designer staff had been working with and the non -profit corporation they were partnering with in funding, did not come to fruition. The company made a lot of promises about what they could do, but they could not produce anything. They had made promises of $100,000 to $150,000 in contributions through a grant. When staff tried to negotiate the contract and get it in writing, they could not produce anything and that is why the project got delayed. Thereafter followed a lengthy discussion between Council Member Ly and Parks and Recreation Director Montgomery-Scott regarding the extended use of Rosemead Park and the park being at capacity. The discussion also focused on where, in the City, skaters could go to skate and the need for a skatepark. Parks and Recreation Director Montgomery-Scott, in response to Council Member Low's question as to whether the new contractor bring a new design back, advised that when the contract was awarded, that contractor would bring some conceptual designs and element ideas and meet with skaters to make sure the elements the skaters are most interested in would be included. He explained it would take some time for the company to come back with a design and it could be similar or very different. Council Member Low advised she has received many phone calls from residents with their concerns. She also went to Montebello to observe its skatepark. She was disturbed at what she saw noting there was graffiti all over the outside and inside of the skatepark and trash all over the place. She indicated she has been working very hard to clean up graffiti in the City of Rosemead and when she saw the skatepark in Montebello she was heartbroken because she would not allow the skatepark in Rosemead to have graffiti. She said at this point, after thinking about it for a long time, she doesn't know how to vote on this project because while she wants the youth to have a skatepark she doesn't know what will happen to it in the future. She reiterated her understanding that the action before Council was to approve the design and outreach for a contract cost of $22,000. A general discussion ensued regarding the issue of graffiti being a community wide problem on various recreational facilities in Rosemead as well as other communities and it could not be attributed to one segment of the community, ACTION: Council Member Ly moved, and seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, that the City Council still supported the skatepark; and the Council will still move forward with the skatepark idea at Rosemead Park; and authorize staff to enter into an agreement with Spohn Ranch.Skateparks in the amount of $22,000; and authorize the City Manager to sign the contract. Further discussion ensued about finding a contractor as soon as possible and the outreach to be done by the Spohn Ranch Skateparks on the design of the skatepark and the skaters taking responsibility to maintain the skatepark and help prevent graffiti. The previous motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, Council Members, Alarcon, Low and Ly. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015 Page 9 of 19 The City Council concurred to move Item 5.B forward and then recessed at 8:29 pm. The City Council reconvened at 8:40 p.m. 52 Selection of a Building and Safety Division Contractor Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a new three - year agreement with Willdan with the option to extend the agreement for up to two additional years, consistent with the City's purchasing policy. Community Development Director Ramirez presented the report indicating at the October 28, 2014 City Council meeting direction was given to staff to initiate a request for proposal for building inspection and plan check services, which was released on November 10, 2014. The City received six proposals of which four companies, Charles Abbott Associates, Infrastructure Engineers, Transtech Engineers and Willdan were invited to a formal interview with City staff that included the City Manager, Jeff Allred, the Assistant City Manager Matt Hawkesworth, and her. Based on the Interviews, an RFP addendum: was distributed to the four firms clarifying the services the contractor was expected to perform on the City's behalf. The addendum required all four companies to resubmit their proposals on a!City- created compensation proposal form. She noted that based on the review of the RFPs, staff interviews of each firm, and the review of the RFP addendum, staff was recommending the City Council award a new three year contract with the Option to extend the agreement for two additional years to Willdan. Public Comments Alvaro Hiiar, representing Transtech Engineers addressed the City Council indicating that Transtech responded to the staff report with a letter that was sent to staff and the City Council; and representatives from Transtech was present to answer any questions. Daniel Chow, President and CEO of Willdan Engineers and Jim Guerra, consulting Building Official and Deputy Director for Binding and Safety Services representing Willdan Engineers addressed the City Council stating that Willdan has served the City for the last 34 years. Mr. Chow advised that Willdan would like to continue its service with the City and the citizens of Rosemead. Alex Ma, an architect requested the City Council continue to use Willdan's services. He indicated he has worked with other cities and the people in the building department were not professional, nice or patient. The Building Department officials in Rosemead work with the people, and are patient and nice. Helen Hu a, CEO and Executive Director of the Rosemead Chamber of Commerce, representing the Chamber's Board of Directors, requesting Willdan Engineering be retained for Building and Safety services. She advised Council that the customer satisfaction feedback has been very positive. Long lasting partnership and customer satisfaction were compelling enough for the Chamber Board to ask the Council to retain Willdan's services. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015 Page 10 of 19 Brian Lewin addressed the City Council stating he wasn't supporting any specific candidate but expressed his views regarding the request for proposal which he felt sent mixed messages and it appeared to assume the non - mastery of the HdL software was a specific problematic disadvantage. He also felt the RFP neglected to seek expertise in mixed use projects. TimTiet who has been a contractor in the City of Rosemead for over 15 years expressed support for Willdan stating each time he goes to building and safety he receives very good help from Jim Guerra whereas in Monterey Park he does not get good service. Mayor Pro Tom Armenta stated the City Council received a letter from Transtech addressed to City Manager, Jeff Allred concerning the bidding. She felt there were several issues raised by Transtech that needed to be addressed. She then asked the Community Development Director series of questions related to the issues in Transtech's letter. Ms. Ramirez responded to all of the questions asked by Ms. Armenta relating to the issues raised in Transtech's letter. Ms. Ramirez advised the Council that Transtech did not provide an alt- inclusive fee schedule in their proposal and because of their responses during the interview staff felt an addendum was necessary to clarify whether or not the proposal was all inclusive. The addendum was sent to all four companies who were required to respond to the addendum Staff specifically outlined everything the City wanted so there was no confusion and there would be an even playing field to compare apples to apples. Council Member Low suggested Transtech be given an opportunity to respond to the comments from staff. Neville Pereira representing Transtech Engineers addressed the City Council indicating he would like to mitigate the "he said, she said." He realized that three staff members were present and were attesting to what happened, specifically: relating: to the interview process. He stated Transtech's recollection of the question was what happens on a regular basis to cover lunches for staff. Mr. Pereira said that Transtech's staff on site would cover each other for lunches and other times that occur on a regular basis. The question was then expanded to ask about ad hoc absences such as illnesses at which Transtech advised they do have otherstaff in the region that Transtech can use to fill those positions on an immediate, emergency basis. A discussion between the City Council and Transtech continued on the staffing levels proposed by Transtech: Mr.. Pereira confirmed for Mayor Pro Tern Armenta that the person involved in the interview did not state that Transtech would share personnel from other cities; the additional services included in the addendum and the additional charges for those services. Mr. Pereira clarified that whenever a contractor responds to an RFP there is a subjectivity that was brought to the response no matter how much it was articulated in the RFP. He said there is a certain amount of historical knowledge brought based on the fact that other people believe, including the incumbent, responded the same way by providing an hourly rate sheet with their all- inclusive percentage. Ms. Ramirez explained that from time to time the City may request the consultant to perform a service that was outside the normal scope of services and provided an example of what she was talking about. When the RFP was written, staff asked for an hourly rate sheet for items that were outside of the scope of work. Ms. Ramirez added that the other two companies also had things missing from their proposal advising Council of what those items were. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015 Page 11 of 19 Mayor Pro Tern Armenta continued to seek cladfication from Mr. Pereira as to what the justification was for the 1 % percentage rate increase in the addendum when all of the items in the addendum, but one, were included in the original RFP. Mr. Pereira responded that he didn't have the information in front of him, but it was primarily the plan check issue. Council Member Ly noting that there was enough inconsistencies among the bidders to issue the addendum, asked why staff did not include those issues in the RFP to begin with. Ms. Ramirez responded that except for the "no -fee and the city projects," staff felt in was all- inclusive in the RFP. Council Member Ly compared the proposed fees of both Willdan and Transtech and confirmed with staff that even though Willdan's fees were higher and the additional revenue the City would receive with Transtech, staff felt it was worth the higher fee to award the contract to Willdan. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the proposers' references, specifically Transtech, and the results of the reference checks performed by staff as well as individual` council members. Also discussed was the importance of having a company that was easy to work with. Mayor Clark expressed her view that the higher cost of the contract was miniscule compared to the integrity factor. She acknowledged that Mayor Pro Tem Armenta brought up several issues that she agreed with. She mentioned that she was offended by the letter received from Transtech because the tone was unfriendly and it was not the type of letter that should be sent from a company that wanted to get along with the City's staff. She felt the letter accused staff of not being truthful, which she could not fathom. She expressed her opinion that the City had a wonderful staff and the City was working very well and she could envision chaos if the City changed because of the lack of trust. ACTION: Moved ;by.Mayor Clark moved to retain Willdan to perform building and safety division services because of the continuity factor, and because there was so much support from the community who appreciates what they are doing and how they reach out to the customer. Mayor Pro Tern Armenta suggested opening discussion with Willdan before making a decision, and questioned Jim Guerra representing Willdan regarding Willdan's fee percentage split, the reason for it being lowered in the addendum, and the criteria in the RFP. Mr. Guerra responded to those questions and explained the split was a combination of Willdan's history and knowledge of the City on the level of service that was required'. it Was also based on previous revenue the City has received versus the cost of providing service and some forecasting as to what Willdan thought the future development would be. The intention of the retention percentage was to cover the cost of the consultant and the portion the city retained was to cover the cost of managing the contract and other associated costs. He further explained the percentage rate was lowered in the addendum as a result of looking at the rates during the interview process. Mayor Pro Tern Armenta stated the reason for this line of questioning was because she did not want it to appear that City staff was only working with Willdan and that was why Willdan was the only company that specifically addressed all of the requirements in the RFP. Mr. Guerra stated that Willdan shared her concern with the City and the City kept the RFP completely separate from Willdan's staff, kept the entire Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes ofApril 28, 2015 Page 12 of 19 review process separate without Willdan's staff and Willdan received the same notices and information that everyone else received. Willdan stressed to its staff that the process remain impartial. Willdan had been with the City for a long time but it was really important at the end of the process to be able to answer that question. Mr. Guerra confirmed that Willdan received no information separate from any other consultant and all they relied on was 34 years of service to the City. Council Member Low asked if because of Wllldan's years of experience with the City it had more of an understanding of what staff was looking for. Mr. Guerra said absolutely, any consultant working in a City during the RFP process has that knowledge to offer it. The service level that Willdan has provided over the past 34 years has evolved and changed as the needs of the City has changed and that was brought into their process. Thereafter followed a brief conversation on the use of additional staff that were brought in occasionally on an as needed basis as well as the percentage fee split. Mr. Guerra advised that the City emphasizes customer service and Willdan's percentage intends to coverall the work that needs to be done before the City sees any revenue. Discussion continued regarding the HdL software and the need for City staff to be trained on its use. ACTION (continued): Mayor Clark stated her previously was seconded by Council Member Alarcon, to and safety division services because of the co was so much support from the community wh and how they reach out to the customer. The following vote: AYES: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pr, Alarcon,: Low and Ly. The City Council recessed at 9:58 pm and reconvened at 10:02 pm PUBLIC HEARINGS Garvey Del Mar Plaza .- Design Review 12.05, General Plan Amendment 12 -02, Zone Change 12-02, Tentative Tract Map 72529 - - 7801.7825 Garvey Avenue, 3012 Del Mar Avenue, and 3017 Brighton Street ads motion stands. The motion atain Willdan to perform building ttnuityfactor, and because there appreciates what they are doing otion unanimously carried by the Tern Armenta, Council Members A. Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Conduct a Public Hearing and receive public testimony; and (n Approve Resolution No. 2015.01, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 12.05, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 12.02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 72539, AND PROPOSED ALLEY VACATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIALICOMMERCIAL MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 15,553 SQUARE FEET OF RETAILIRESTAURANT SPACE AND SIXTY (60) RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR A TOTAL BUILT AREA OF 70,162 SQUARE FEET. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 7801.7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE, AND 3017 BRIGHTON STREET IN THE C -3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) AND R -2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015 Page 13 of 19 RESIDENTIAL) ZONE (APN'S: 5287. 039.001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 011); (3) Introduce for First Reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 942, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 12.02 CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF SIX PARCELS FROM C -3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) AND THE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE R -2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) TO C3 MUDO -D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A RESIDENTIAUCOMMERCIAL MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND DESIGN OVERLAY). THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 7801.7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE, AND 301TBPJGHTON STREET (APN'S: 5287. 039.001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 011); and (4) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and file the Notice of Determination for the project:; Associate Planner Lily Valenzuela provided the agenda report explaining that Gerard Ngo submitted entitlement applications requesting development of a new residential- commercial mixed use development consisting of sixty condominiums units and 15,553 square feet of commercial space. She described the project and location to Council. She clarified that the project was only proposing nine affordable units rather than 12, and advised staff wished to modify condition No. 85 to state that permanent, physical barriers shall be installed to restrict left turn access on Del Mar Avenue going south. She advised that staff would like to add four conditions that relate to CC &Rs since the project was now a condominium project. She advised Council regarding the recommended actions to be taken. In response to Council Member Ly's question regarding the amount of open space being provided as part of the project, Ms. Valenzuela responded 9,510 square feet of common open space, and 5,915 square feet of private open space. Mayor Clark opened the public hearing Michael Lewis addressed the Council on behalf of the applicant and offered to answer any specific questions the Council may have. Thereafter followed a brief discussion regarding the common open space area. Michael Hastings with Direct Point Advisors on behalf of the applicant addressed Council and offered to answer any questions. Joseph Babakitis whose property was adjacent to the project expressed several concerns about the project including the restricted left turn onto Del Mar; the common open space area; the above ground transformers being next lo home; the trees that would block his line of sight; and SB 1818. Gerardo Hi r addressed the Council in opposition to the project due to the height of the project, the restricted street access, and the increased traffic and parking on Del Mar and Garvey. He submitted pictures to the City Council. Ar adne Hi r addressed the Council in opposition to the project stating that Brighton Street was too small to have a building of this size; and in addition she was concerned about safety, rodents and other issues that would increase as a result of this project. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes mrApril 28, 2015 Page 14 of 19 Alvaro Hiiar expressed his opposition to the overdevelopment of an area that was already saturated with traffic, density and the volume the intersection already has to deal with. There being no further comments from the public, Mayor Clark closed the public hearing. Michael Hastings on behalf of the applicant addressed the issues raised during the public comment period explaining how the concerns would be mitigated. Thereafter, Mr. Hastings clarified some additional issues raised by the City Council relative to the businesses to be located in the mixed use portion, the removal of the alley that was currently there, and the parking issue. Mayor Clark asked Mr. Hastings if it would be a problem if, and only if, the residents wanted permit parking on that street so only they and their guests could park there. Mr. Hasting did not think that would be a problem. Council Member Ly asked if the developer would be willing to add a condition that requires the developer to look for a national or regional retail tenant. Mr. Hastings said that they would welcome that opportunity and would also like to keep some local business tenants as well. Community Development Director Ramirez advised Council that staff could add some language to that effect as Condition 28 to the Conditions of Approval. Phil Martin of Phil Martin & Associates the environmental consultant hired by the City to prepare the Mitigated Negative Declaration responded to Council Member Anneota's question relative to the installation of a traffic signal at Brighton to ease access onto Garvey. A lengthy discussion ensued between the City Council, Mr. Martin and Mr, Rutherford, a registered California Traffic Engineer with VA Consulting regarding their analysis which indicated the level of service at all of those intersections did not change with the project and was acceptable within the urban standard. In order to justify a traffic signal at that location, signal warrants would have to be completed Mr. Rutherford explained to Council the threshold calculation for a level of service and the accepted urban standard. The area in question was at Level D, which was an acceptable level, and it would not change with the addition of the project. Further discussion regarding traffic impact, continued. Mayor Clark indicated she would like a condition added to the project, that if it were determined that the traffic counts warranted a traffic signal after the project was completed, the developer be required to pay its fair share of the traffic; signal. After lengthy deliberation, the City Council determined that the condition for a traffic signal was not a prerequisite at this time. However, Mr. Hastings affirmed that the developer would be willing to contribute to a traffic study at a later date as part of a comprehensive study of the Garvey Avenue corridor and also would be willing to use graffiti resistant paint on the ground floor level of the development. Staff was directed to add the graffiti resistant paint as Condition 29 in the Conditions of Approval. ACTION: After expressing his views regarding the positive impact this project would have on the community, Council Member Ly moved, and seconded by Council Member Low, to adopt Resolution No. 201501 as Amended to include and reflect the additional Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015 Page 15 of 19 Conditions of Approval, and direct the City Manager to sign an agreement with the Developer regarding the contribution in the amount of $20,000 for the traffic study. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, Council Members Alarcon, Low, Ly. Council Member Ly moved, and seconded by Council Member Low, to introduce by title only Ordinance No. 952. City Attorney Richman read the title of the ordinance into the record as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 12.02 CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF SIX PARCELS FROM C -3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) AND THE SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE R -2 (LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL) TO C -3 MUDO -D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A RESIDENTIALICOMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND DESIGN OVERLAY). THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED. AT 7801.7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE, AND 3017 BRIGHTON STREET (APN'S: 5267. 039.001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 011). The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, Council Members Alarcon, Low, Ly. Council Member Ly moved, and seconded by Council Member Low, to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Notice of Determination for the project. The motion carried by the following vote: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, Council Members Alarcon, Low, Ly. B. The Five -Year Consolidated Plan and Fiscal Year 2015.16 Annual Action Plan Submission' Recommendations That the City Council: (1) Conduct a public hearing and take public testimony on the Five Year Consolidated Plan covering the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2020, which includes the FY 2015-16 Annual Action Plane(2) Approve the CDBG and HOME funding recommendations, authorizing the submittal of the City's Five Year Consolidated Plan of the U.S. Department of Housing and Development; (3) Authorize the City Manager to execute all appropriate and necessary documents to receive funding and implement approved use; (4) Award the following public service agencies with CDBG funds and authorize the City Manager to execute social service agreements: • Code Enforcement - $218,765 • Family Counseling Services- $5,000 • Family Promise - $5,000 • People for People - $10,000 • Southern California Housing Rights Center - $10,000; and also award; and (5) Award $2,000 of HOME funds to the Rio Hondo Community Development Commission to defray certain costs for the operation as the City's Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) and authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary operating service agreements. Mayor Clark opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, Mayor Clark closed the public hearing. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015 Page 16 of 19 ACTION: Council Member Ly moved, and seconded by Council Member Low, to approve the CDBG and Home Funding recommendations; authorize the City Manager to execute all appropriate and necessary documents; award the following CDBG funds and authorize the City manager to execute the social service agreements to the following: Code Enforcement - $218,765,Family Counseling Services - $5,000, Family Promise - $5,000, People for People - $10,000, Southern California Housing Rights Center - $10,000; and also award $2000 of Home funds to Rio Hondo Community Development Commission and authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary agreements. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, Council Members Alarcon, Low, Ly. C. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Conduct a public hearing and take public testimony on the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice covering the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2020; and (2) Approve the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and authorize the submittal of the document to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Mayor Clark opened the Public Hearing. There being no public comments, Mayor Clark closed the public hearing. ACTION: Council Member Ly moved to approve the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, with the caveat that he was not pleased with the indication in the report that the City of Rosemead residents were racists, seconded by Mayor Pro Tom Armenia. The motion carried by the following vote: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tem Armenia, Council Members Alarcon, Low, Ly. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Claims and Demands . !Resolution No. 2015-22 Recommendatiop: to approve Resolution No. 2015 - 22, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,471,003.75 NUMBERED 88361 THROUGH 88572 INCLUSIVELY . Resolution No. 2015 -09 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2015 - 09, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes ofApril 28, 2015 Page 17 of 19 OF $100,899.77 NUMBERED 10125 THROUGH 10126 B. National League of Cities 2015 Summer Leadership Meetings -June P -1P - Salt Lake City Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the attendance, at City expense, of any Council Member that wishes to attend the National League of Cities 2015 Summer Leadership Meetings in Salt Lake City, on June 9'h - June 12th. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly to approve the Consent Calendar consisting of Items A and B, seconded by Council Member Armenia. The motion unanimously carried by the following vote: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tern Armenia, Council Members Alarcon, Low, Ly. 5. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Adoption of Ordinance No. 952 -- Low Impact Development (LID) Standards for Stormwater Management Recommendation: That the City Council introduce for first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 952, entitled AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CHAPTER 12.84 ENTITLED "LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS" OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND INCORPORATING SAID CHAPTER INTO CHAPTER 13.16 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE, WITH AMENDMENTS Brian Lewin expressed his support and thanked the City Council for adopting this ordinance. He hoped staff had a plan for those small projects or new businesses that don't qualify under this code and he asked Council to consider updating the City's Storm Water Code to reflect contemporary standards. Public Works Manager Sullivan advised the City Council that this section added the LID ordinance to the code and staff would review the current Storm Water Ordinance to see if there was room for upgrading the ordinance. Mayor Clark asked staff to look into the issue of the smaller properties as referenced by Mr. Lewin. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Council Member to introduce by title only and waive further reading Ordinance No. 952 and direct staff to do a public notice. City Attorney Richman read the title of the ordinance into the record: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CHAPTER 12.84 ENTITLED "LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS" OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AND INCORPORATING SAID CHAPTER INTO CHAPTER 13.16 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE, WITH AMENDMENTS. The motion unanimously carried by the Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2015 Page 18 of 19 following roll call vote: AYES: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, Council Members Alarcon, Low, Ly. 6. MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL B. Consideration of a Position for Assembly Bill 45 (Mullin) Recommendation: That the City Council provide direction regarding an official position of the City of Rosemead regarding AB 45. Examples of City Council positions on a bill may include oppose, oppose unless amended, support, watch or defer. ACTION: Council Member Ly moved, and seconded by Mayor Clark, to oppose AB 45, unless amended. The motion carried by the following vote. AYES: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tent Armenta, Council Members Alarcon, Low, Ly. 2. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council Member Ly reminded everyone about the Relay for Life. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Clark adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m. The next regular City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on May 12, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber. Carol Cowley, Interim City Clerk APPROVED: Margaret Clark, Mayor Rosemead City Council and the SuccessnrAgency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes ofApril 28, 2015 Page 19 of 19