Loading...
CC - Item 5A - Discussion of the Rosemead Park Walking Trail and The Parks Commission Recommendations from the March 2, 2021 MeetingROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: GLORIA MOLLEDA, CITY MANAGER ,�A . DATE: APRIL 27, 2021 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF THE ROSEMEAD PARK WALKING TRAIL AND THE PARKS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE MARCH 2, 2021, ` PARKS COMMISSION MEETING FOR ROSEMEAD PARK WALKING TRAIL SUMMARY At the January 26, 2021, City Council Meeting, the City Council discussed the recently completed replacement of the Rosemead Park Walking Trail. The City Council was responding to a petition (Attachment A) filed at the City of Rosemead. After discussion, the City Council directed staff to provide two (2) potential alternatives to the newly installed trail surface and to provide cost estimates for the alternatives. The City Council also directed staff to take the options to the Parks Commission and for the Parks Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council for discussion at a later date. The Parks Commission recommended Option 2 which would add an additional one -inch layer of Rubberway Pervious Pavement (PP) 3000 (a porous material) atop the recently completed non -porous surface. The Parks Commission recommended item would cost approximately $163,649 to complete. DISCUSSION The Parks Commission was presented with two alternatives to the newly installed replacement surface of the Rosemead Park Walking Trail. There were three options presented to the Commission by the project design engineer: Option 1: Acceptance of the Completed Surface.................................................................$0.00 Overview. The City may choose to accept the recently completed surface as it is resilient and rebounding while being compatible with the existing subbase. Cost Impact. As indicated in the Contract Change Order Memorandum prepared by others, the project was completed without a net change order impact. Acceptance of the new surface will not represent any additional cost impacts. AGENDA ITEM 5.A ►� O O C n O CD N rr cD n O c° 5 CD CD o m o CD CD CD �' O CD C)lorD CD 42D' OQ d ¢ D CD W CD ft CD p CD CD Q (71 CL CD � N 3 �' b N " 3 (D •i w A A� O Q• v' CD O p �C O CD O CD 0 CD �- C7 C CDO N O cr CAD O - w � CD CD f r CD �. O --CD p '+ ft 0- CD CD CCnD Cn CD CD CD Cw0 �71 CL SD ''o (Ai ~ CD 1p. AO O S]. CD �' o p Q - CD CD P, CD C -D C7 6' ` suq CD CD r CD CD CL w CD CD CD CD CD CD CD w CD c* ¢' CD' p' O CD 0 CD 0 CD �h 00 CD CD CD C. .� CD y '* CD CD w rr _ CCD O CD C O O O '9 �- O 0CD 0 nCD UQ CD C7 0 C1' � W UQ `CCD�. . CD ►� `� w Q. UIQ 'C7 ¢, O `C7 Q,, CD CD CD CD lc OUQ UCD IQ �- CD UQ A b n Cn CSD O 0� CD rD tz CD ~ N + Q. (Iq I, CAD CCD CCD cn 12 7 7 , 7 City Council Meeting April 27, 2021 Page 3 of 4 Demolition and reconstruction of the Trail allows consideration of a wide variety of porous surface materials and the base would be designed to be compatible with the porous material. Accessibility. The newly constructed trail would be constructed to the prevailing California Building Code and its accessibility provisions. Aesthetics. The aesthetics of the existing trail may be maintained or enhanced. Community meetings may be held to receive input prior to selection of a new surface. Cost Impact. A breakdown of the rough order of magnitude cost can be found in Attachment C. The cost estimate is based on the construction of a half -mile trail. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council provide direction to staff to proceed with one of the following options: • Option 1: Acceptance of the Completed Surface for which there would be no cost impact • Option 2: Additional Layer Over Completed Surface for an estimated cost of $163,649 • Option 3: Demolish and Replace Rosemead Park Trail for an estimated cost of $984,463 FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of the subject item is dependent on the selected recommended course of action taken to address the existing newly replaced surface of the Rosemead Park Walking Trail. The approximate costs associated with each option is listed below: Option 1: No Cost Option 2: $163,649 Option 3: $984,463 STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT This item is consistent with the City of Rosemead's Strategic Plan of improving the City's public infrastructure and public right of way to enhance roadway and pedestrian safety in the City. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. City Council Meeting April 27, 2021 Page 4 of 4 Prepared by: ez_ Chris Daste, Director of Public Works Attachment A: Petition Letter Attachment B: Additional Layer for Rosemead Park Walking Trail — Cost Estimate Attachment C: New Rosemead Park Walking Trail — Cost Estimate Attachment D: Draft Minutes of the Rosemead Parks Commission Regular Meeting — March 2, 2021 Attachment A Petition Letter Rosemead City Hall 8838 E Valley Blvd. Rn -,emend- CA 91770 Y� 112-"/ 0L.) To whom it may concern, 5EIVE® CITY OP�ROSEMFAD JAN 14 RECD CIT CL' iKOFFICE We are writing you in regards to the newly paved walkway at Rosemead Park (4343 Encinita Ave., Rosemead, CA 91770). As a resident of Rosemead City, we utilize this walkway everyday for our daily exercise. The new walkway was not paved well, poses a safety concern, and affects our feet and back immensely. There are parts of the new walkway (between the 4200 and 4300 block) across Encinita Avenue that is very sticky. There are also uneven parts of the walkway as well as no padding on the walkway. The previous walkway had the rubber patch which was taken away. We would like to petition to have the city fix the issues as soon as possible. As taxpayers we would like to request that the city utilize our tax dollars to benefit the city's residents. Sincerly; Rosemead Resident and Taxpayer C cl j• jO AA aM CA r I� ... • .. ._. , _., Vin. _.�-,.,�'...�,._ . ,... - . _-. .. _ .. _ _ , ., _. _ .,� .,:. .._.�,._.. _..., ...c... * , -.-, _ _ .>-.._ _w . ; . � t� � �1 FFA • - A' � - : � � '' . �.,.s_. mak,. �, 7~„_.,.�i. • L.,.. ��� ..- _. .: ` ._ . _........_-... ... _. ._ ....� _ . .__ _ ..,. .. .._>. .: �...:...._. _, ......>..._.. ._ _ _ "'.�i _ �r: , ...' - ,�1`._ >...... .=. _._ :` ,_ ._ ... -, _ .. ...._..;. ,._.. .. «p;-,. - ,_ n,; ,.. _ , _epi. iKT•.1 -- Attachment B Additional Layer for Rosemead Park Cost Estimate ; m � o ± , \\\§\g }})\\D tc�s$ ;R>&m ;/2a= %§\ § -Z3 « \ \ 7d3 CD »(f \ \a a -Z3 (D m y Cbba m \�\k /%}\� 'a>so �»«Z_ ® &�>{Z3 . /(\a 7R2 §\\p <m\@ Co &®\ moa; }\}{ § UU) Z3Z3 z C) ID\\§ Z3 G) f2/» §M ( n § a / j{/\ \�\\ 3 C: � 0 D � � X k ƒ-0o § \ CL > ƒC� 0 E ƒ \ k CD ƒgin to CD l< 0 \ ] CD / \\ �w e ƒ <g0w 0z$ goEg� j k j\\ k\ k\ ®§%\w X \G.«� /\> \ E 5 n t 0&¥ ©m C" §\ m a Z, = e m g -e o J &° T 2z\Eg / zc « m o cn _ ° ® O 22� e�-m \ /\ 0n0 0� /\ 3 o- = o» 0 0) - % = 4 ) cl/® $&\ e ® s °\/ Z3g E$ G � E \ M.® 0 E %e e a .c ƒ « ee. E 0 // 6E 0 0 - 0 e 2 r O k � ¢\ \\ _\\ \ \ / o K � £ 0 0 0 Roo+ «_ o«+ _ _ / ƒ g g 0 ƒ ƒ Cl) � & \ / / \ w H Cr=o 00 Cr a o m °D -3/ p /$ / / m /<\ S // \/ / / ' 11 « #«#«_ # + cn rO��- e w e e 0 w -A po-4� CO o cn w w o 0 0 ow e o o e ## o 0 0 0 Clo w o o w w w P g g 9 9 9 g 9 L 0 M o 0 0 0cn 0 0 oe« 0 0 0 0 (DIC 0 0 0 0 3 C: � 0 D � � X k ƒ-0o § \ CL > ƒC� 0 E ƒ \ k CD ƒgin to CD l< 0 \ ] CD Attachment C New Rosemead Park Walking Trail Cost Estimate arriao�i- m Zara C7 c Z a o ° O rr1 m (n CZ (n o A v m .6lD xca 5 Cn Cb 0 Z o' CD O CD N 3 oCD sz iV to N (D N O ^- aj 3 a C, m Q (o 4 G y CD xp Q o A m ]• (D a CD 0 CD Z3 a < O O O 0) = S a 3: a CD Cn Z (Q y m O -moo. CD Q j O. Z3' CD C) (u a o y 0 y O (n t vi d C7 n O� 0 o ;2: ( Z y G) 3 ~ c a° rri 0 Cb rL N ^_. o' a Z (D N 0 Z y O I71 0 v o- o m o ° y v O (7 a (DO [U 03 D O C2 . y ^ O 3 3 C O it O O C = (Q W 3 cDD CL C O �, c (D C4 CD 3 C sv � �O (A m N to 3 O (D 1 1 OCO 1 1 O 1 OO CO (b -I W Ut •A W N O O C; O D TI n C7 C7 O O O N 0 0 0 Z n 0 O O �' CD CD o O N � (Q• Vii O N n z vii �: Q 3 3 =ri 0 0 N (D X n (D n 3 0 � � Gi (D - � � '"' � (D ai �_ v (1) w 0)0. v D � 3rQ _r N. CDD 3 (D Q7_ QCD 0 n 0 O. O.O'CD n= (D o :03 n _- O 3= (3) X Z 1 1 2) 0 3 O 3 fl7 CD G) G) (D (D O :3 cnw (Q v x° == =QL 2: -n ° Cl) (z q � � W � po x. w X. 0) (D o (n (s � (n 0 3 C 3 '<(n CD s � r cQ cs? cQ co 0 3 Pcn 0 o � CD( (O 6 O r N (0 O 0 3 00 3 N N(D 3- C2 v �. 3 3 O O �, O � C 0 3 c cn N (D o CDD n V) C 3 :3 CD 3 CA W cD CD CD vOi z � sz 1 2 1 1 1 1> • OD 1 C: cn N cn co cn 00 1 1 1 1 1 C CD O O O CD O0 0 O O O O O CO CO O C D • O N O • r' NJD W + r rrrr Cnr 0 00r— r r r r w cn (n cn (n m -n< w (n (n (A (n O O Cn fua to 0 0 0 N -69 -69 to to 0 tfi to to to to Efl to to to to N to N C�A/� F/�!� D) O /V / V/ Ul (T N f2 = C C ()I Ui O Cil O C —0) O O CTI W Ui -� � 3 a Cr o OOoo cr 1 "o 0 0 o w =. Oto CD O O O O O O O O N -4 1 N 0 O O O �I C) a% 7 '•. '+ O O 6 O 6 O O O (� � (:) O 1 � (P 6--4 W O 6 O O O 0) CD O C) CD 0 Cl O O N O cn O O O O �I to tf9 to to toEA 1.9-o to to to tfi to to to .69CO 1 co V — co co N ZA CO — A 1 1 1 a) 1 N W m CT Ui Ui N co 0 N OD (7) (YlCn U7 O Ui O -L CO 1 00 A M O O Un W M O P. -D. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O -� O 0) CA 1 0 O O O W � o) O Cfl O Cl O O O O cn m A W -I v O O O O v W OD Cn O O O O O O CN (T O Ui O —1 O O O O 0)t0 W CA O O O O O O m O O CD Cn O CO CO O C D O A O O CO O CO O O O �I 3 C O it O O C = (Q W 3 cDD CL C O �, c (D C4 CD 3 C sv � �O (A m N to 3 O (D Attachment D Draft Minutes of the Rosemead Parks Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - March 2, 2021 MINUTES OF THE ROSEMEAD PARKS COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 2, 2021 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Parks Commission was called to order by Vice Chair Lin at 7:01 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Chair Lin, Vice -Chair Nguyen, Commissioners Ruvalcaba, Sornoso and Tocki ABSENT: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tocki INVOCATION was led by Commissioner Ruvalcaba 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Chair Lin opened the Public Comment period. Speaker Vanessa Oceguera submitted a public comment via email expressing her concern about the holes in the grass at Rosemead Park, which she stated are a potential danger. She mentioned she walks her dog daily and has tripped twice while walking. Ms. Oceguera commented that the holes are not easy to see as the grass has overgrown. She also added that there are numerous holes that someone might fall into and therefore suggested that the City fill the holes with dirt to avoid someone getting hurt. Ms. Oceguera mentioned she could provide pictures of where the holes are located. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking stated there would be follow up with Ms. Oceguera regarding her concern and it would also be relayed to members of the maintenance team. There being no further speakers, Chair Lin closed the Public Comment period. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of minutes — December 1, 2020 Chair Lin motioned the approval of the meeting notes at 7:05 p.m. ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Tocki and seconded by Commissioner Ruvalcaba to approve the December 1, 2020 minutes: Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Lin, Nguyen, Ruvalcaba, Sornoso and Tocki 3. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. Rosemead Walking Trail The Director of Public Works, Chris Daste, provided a background on the walking trail. On the January 26 City Council Meeting, the council members asked to add the walking trail to the agenda in response to a petition that had been submitted by residents that were unhappy with the walking trail. After discussion from the City Council, they asked for staff to come up with two solutions for the trail. The first solution was to place a surface on top of the current surface and the other was to determine the cost for reconstructing the entire walking trail. There are three options that will be presented, and City Council has asked for recommendations from the Parks Commission regarding the walking trail. There was originally $285,000 allocated for the walking trail which was held in the CIP budget; however, due to inflation, another $150,000 had to be added. The replacement surface was selected after looking at alternatives. The walking trail is made up of a solid concrete subbase and contains curbs that are an inch high above the side of the subbase, which causes the trail not to drain when water is on it. The previous surface was a porous surface causing water to drain through the surface and onto the concrete subbase. The attachments illustrate how the water was trapped. The previous trail lasted approximately ten years and made up of a pliable surface alike what you can find on a playground. Unfortunately, the company went out of business. Director of Public Works Daste mentioned that the challenge was to get a surface for the trail that can be warrantied, which would need to be non -porous so when it rains the water can drain out to the sides and not go inside. A surface was selected from Rubberway that is non -porous, which is not as soft as the previous surface, as previously stated, it was a playground surface and the new one is specifically for walking trails. A comment was made that the trail has the ability to have bicycles or wheeled devices on it; however, it does not mean that it is allowed. Director of Public Works Daste noted that it was important to have a surface that had the ability to withstand wheeled objects whether legal or illegal. Staff awarded the contract to Access Pacific, Inc. for $376,000. During the construction period, the construction was inspected twice a day during installation to ensure the surface was installed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. Once it was completed, there was a thorough walk-through, and it met all specifications. The trail was installed exactly as it was designed; and therefore, the project was accepted. There were comments from the public mentioning they were unhappy with the trail because it was too hard. The material on the trail has warranty for 5 years. Director of Public Works Daste presented three options for the Parks Commission to consider and make a recommendation to the City Council. The first option is an acceptance of the completed surface as it is resilient and rebounding while being compatible with the existing subbase. There is no cost impact with accepting the project as is. Option two would be to add an additional layer over the completed surface. The added surface would be porous; however, would have the ability to drain out. The approximate cost would be $163,000. Option three would be to completely demolish and replace the walking trail for a cost of approximately $984,000. Other trails in Rosemead have a dirt surface or decomposed granite and 2 the porous surface is added over it giving it the ability to drain water. There are other trails which are softer, but it is due to having a different subsurface. Commissioner Tocki asked if option two was a viable option and whether it would void the current warranty. Brian Nieckula responded that the second option was provided by the current company meaning it would not affect the warranty. Commissioner Tocki also asked whether the second layer would be covered. Mr. Nieckula stated it would. Chair Lin opened the Public Comment period for the Rosemead Walking Trail. Speaker Barbara Murphy submitted a public comment via email regarding the walking trail. First, she indicated the background states a small number of residents are not happy with the new surface. She believes there are many residents and walking trail users who would have signed the petition if not for Covid-19 and social distancing. There were 400 signatures in 2008 to have a trail installed. Second, she listed that the staff statement in background paragraph 3 states- while softer, the previous existing surface was incompatible with the solid non -draining concrete base it was installed over, allowing water to collect under the surface. Water NEVER penetrated the original surface nor puddled on top of the trail. Ms. Murphy stated she knows this as she has walked that trail daily for 12 years. Third, she references paragraph 5 stating that the replacement surface selected is designed for walking trails while also being compatible with wheel sports. She mentioned that for 12 years there were large signs in the park that said walking/jogging only, no bicycles, no skateboards, no rollerblades. Those signs were removed when the new surfacing started. Ms. Murphy asked whether the City Council approved the change of use for the Walking/Jogging trail to allow wheel sports? She also added that she spoke with her brother, who lives in Brooklyn, NY, who shared that the trails in the parks (in New York) allow bikes causing accidents with bikes hitting walkers. Ms. Murphy stated that perhaps the city needs to increase their liability insurance. Speaker Nancy Eng, Rosemead resident since 2000, submitted a public comment via email regarding the walking trail. Ms. Eng thanked the Parks Commission for their time, care and service to the residents and community. She also gave a shout out to the Parks and Recreations staff for their creative efforts and hard work in delivering activities in this COVID-19 social isolation style of living to families. Ms. Eng stated she did not know why public comments from residents at the January 26 City Council meeting were not included as part of the staff report. She mentioned it concerns her that the "voices of a small number of residents" is being discounted/dismissed as "small". These small voices represent hundreds of residents and walkers/joggers that have enjoyed and utilized the path over the last twelve years, and took the time, care, and effort to bring to the City's attention by having to submit a signed petition for their serious concerns about the resurfaced path to be heard. Many of these residents are seniors and individuals with various health challenges that live close to the park who have relied on having a safe, comfortable, and non -strenuous venue for their exercises. What was originally designed as a walking/jogging path only suddenly may be turned into a trail to accommodate "wheel sports" like skateboards, roller skates, and bicycles, providing collision opportunities between bicyclers, skateboarders, walkers, and joggers. Ms. Eng asked if this was wise. A photo was included by Ms. Eng to show the unevenness and water puddling from the sprinklers on the new resurfaced trail. She also mentioned that the issue of cost is not within the jurisdiction of the Parks Commission. The situation with the resurfaced trail is poor execution and management of the project contract. Sadly, the likely ultimate cost and consequence is a diminished quality of life for many residents that have benefitted from and relied on a safe and comfortable walking/jogging trail in their neighborhood. Speaker Sandra Armenta provided a public comment via phone call and mentioned she would be speaking as a resident as well as referring to items that were presented to the City Council. She stated her concerns on the lack of institutional knowledge regarding the walking trail at Rosemead Park and why the commission is tasked with giving their recommendations to the City Council, which could cost anywhere up to $984,463, and could have all been avoided. Ms. Armenta mentioned that staff will say that the material that was used was chosen due to non -draining concrete base shown on image two; however, it is not accurate. She noted speaking to Chris Marcarello, former Public Works Director, at the time of the build. He said all drainage of the subbase was completed, which can also be seen in image one and two. The breaks between the subbase were completed for drainage. Mr. Marcarello also told Ms. Armenta that the subbase was on a slight slope for subbase drainage. She asked the design engineer regarding this and there was no knowledge that the subbase was on a slight slope. Ms. Armenta urged the commission to watch the previous Council Meeting on January 26,2021. She stated that drilling holes was not required because the drainage was already taken care of. She specifically asked if the release retention was paid, and she was told it was paid on January 12, 2021 and it was not true. She asked because that is the time to have contractors address any issues such as uneven areas. In fact, not only was the release of retention not paid, but it was not obtained until late Thursday, January 28, 2021. A city cannot move forward with the release of retention without the notice of completion and is extremely concerning as it was set by the project manager. Image three shows a child on a bike and the walking trail was never ever to be used for wheeled sports activity or occasionally. Ms. Armenta wanted to know who authorized the usage and the removal of the signs that stated no wheeled objects to be used. Those signs have been there since Ms. Armenta was elected in 2009 and the trail was built in 2008, 12 years ago and not 10. Therefore, Ms. Armenta stated that the slight variation in accuracy is concerning. The walking trails have a longevity of anywhere between 10 to 12 years and the City's trail lasted 12 years since it was built in 2008. Ms. Armenta asked the commission to do their research, watch the video (City Council Meeting) and pay attention to the questions that she asked and the answers that were received. Speaker Robert Spadero provided a public comment via phone call and mentioned he is a 75 -year-old, Air Force Veteran, and resident of Rosemead for 31 years. He stated he has a lower back problem and always uses the trail every morning. If he does not use the trail, it affects his back and knees. He said the previous trail was a sound trail without any problems, but the replacement synthetic fabric is uneven 4 and affects a person after walking on it. Mr. Spadero provided photographs to show the unevenness and how apparent it is. He asked why the sound trail was removed, which has forced himself and other walkers to use the sidewalk instead. Mr. Spadero asked that an alternative material be used as leveling the surface is not enough. There being no further speakers, Chair Lin closed the Public Comment period for the Rosemead Walking Trail. He thanked the residents for speaking on behalf of this issue and wanted them to know that the commission takes these issues very seriously. The commission appreciates residents for taking the time, effort, and care by reporting back to the City, City Council and Commissioners. Vice -Chair Nguyen agreed that the surface is harder; however, feels that the surface is not too bad and can be alleviated by wearing proper shoes. He looked at option two and three and mentioned three is outrageously expensive. He said he cannot justify going for option three. He recognizes the residents' concerns and knows that the surface is harder and understands how this can be a problem for seniors or older adults. Commissioner Sornoso asked the engineers what the lifespan would be for the different options. Mr. Nieckula replied that the replacement is expected to last as long as the previous one, which is about 10 years. Mr. Sornoso asked if it would be the same with adding the 1 -inch covering as well. Mr. Nieckula stated it would; nonetheless, the concern with overlaying it is the weaknesses of the edges and the interfaces between the new added layer and the pathways that cut perpendicularly to the existing trail. That would cause an unsupported beveled edge making it weaker with added stress and not as durable as the current trail. Commissioner Sornoso also inquired about the water damage to the concrete, which happened before the surface was replaced, and whether there was viable damage which would justify redoing the entire trail. Mr. Nieckula mentioned there were areas that contained water damage. Mr. Okan Demirci, with the engineering department, replied that the inspection team observed the construction to ensure that work was done according to plans and specifications as well as manufacturer recommendations. He stated there were a few areas where the underlying concrete was damaged, and as part of the construction, those areas were addressed by the contractor. Commissioner Sornoso wanted to confirm there was no further damage to the concrete to narrow his recommendations and see whether option three was justifiable. Commissioner Tocki wanted to address the issue of safety. He mentioned the pictures show an uneven surface and puddling of water. He asked whether the material becomes slippery when wet as the previous one was not and due mostly to the surface being porous. The beveled edge is something of concern and commissioner Tocki asked whether that was also a slipping hazard. Director of Public Works Daste addressed the concerns regarding the water on the trail and said that it was not a slipping hazard due to the rubbery surface; however, depending on the amount of water slipping could be possible. Due to the type of surface, it is not a slipping hazard. As for the picture with puddling, the trail was hand troweled and not rolled by a machine, and by industry standards, it is quite normal to have something like that. As far as the beveled edge, Director of Public Works Daste checked with Building and Safety to ensure it was acceptable and ADA compliant. Commissioner Tocki also asked how well the material aged and whether there were other projects from the chosen company, with this particular material, to use as reference of how it will look 8 years from now. Mr. Nieckula mentioned he would follow up with the manufacturer to get some specifics regarding the installation. Commissioner Ruvalcaba understands that this issue is a big concern for the community, especially to all of those that walk the trail daily. She expressed that providing a recommendation on a quick turnaround was quite difficult and she bases her opinions on the voice of the community. She mentioned wanting to hear the voice of the community through a survey and was not quite sure whether it could be offered as an option. She felt this gives more insight as to what people want and involves them in the decision making. She stated the third option is not reasonable as it is a high cost. Chair Lin mentioned that there are a few issues that are coming up from residents, such as a preference for the old surface, as everyone's health and abilities are different. There are also concerns about transparency, how decisions were made, as well as fiscal responsibility. As representatives of the City, Chair Lin mentioned wanting to spend the budget wisely and putting forth the best amenities for residents. Chair Lin asked regarding the budget cycle for 2020-2021 big ticket items, such as the walking trail, and wanted to know whether proposals are submitted for approval. Director of Public Works Daste mentioned that the City Council allocates a certain amount of money and approves projects. Refurbishing the walking trail was approved a couple years ago and $285,000 was allocated into CIP projects. Due to the proposal being a few years old, the cost was bumped up to $385,000. The project was then taken to City Council with the new cost, which was approved. The projects then went up for bids, with two bids being presented, and then accepting the lower bid. It is a formal bid process and completely transparent. Chair Lin asked what caused the increase in the budget to $385,000. Director of Public Works Daste mentioned that after having Mr. Nieckula inspect the construction of the trail and the subsurface, while also learning that the company was no longer in business, the parameters of the project changed. Chair Lin mentioned that the report provided also stated that the old trail's top surface was incompatible with the subsurface, the porous material on top sitting over a non- porous material and inquired if it was based on the specifications of the original manufacturers. Mr. Nieckula replied that he could not speak to the rationale behind the decision in part due to staff changes and paired with the manufacturer no longer being in business. With finding a replacement surface, given the existing conditions, and knowing that non-moving water from irrigation would be sitting on top of the subbase, then it would not be warrantied given that condition. A surface was found that could shed the water over the top. Chair Lin asked whether there was no chance at looking at the original surfacing for potential recourse before the actual repair. He also asked if the manufacturers were also the installers of the trail. Mr. Nieckula said he could not speak to it; however, the City has the original specifications from the manufacturer. Chair Lin inquired as to whether this project C.1 could be funded through other resources such as grants. Director of Public Works Daste mentioned there are no grants available that he is aware of. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking also added that there are no grants for this type of project at the current moment but could change in the future. Chair Lin asked if the top surface of the third option was equivalent to the material in terms of its cushioning. Mr. Nieckula responded that the unit cost for the current project was used to generate the budget, but if the trail was completely replaced, because there is the option to specify the subbase, then there are many options that are possible. Therefore, the total replacement would allow for the subsurface to be completely compatible with a cushioned top material. Since the previous subsurface appears in other parks, Chair Lin asked whether this could become a problem in other trails. Director of Public Works Daste mentioned that repairs are made regularly and there are issues with the softer trail that the department works through. With the solid concrete base and surface that is there, it appears it will be durable. Chair Lin mentioned the commission is tasked with looking at all three options and making a recommendation to City Council. Vice -Chair Nguyen stated that option three was not justifiable and option one will not please anyone, therefore he selected option two. Commissioner Ruvalcaba hoped to have heard from the community through a survey but felt comfortable with option two. In conjunction with Commissioner Ruvalcaba, Commissioner Sornoso felt comfortable with option two as it provides a softer surface for residents. Commissioner Tocki echoed option two as the compromise which would satisfy the most amount of people; however, he mentioned it was disheartening that it was not sent out to the public beforehand to get their opinion. He recognizes that Covid was an issue and presented as a problem. As a commissioner representing the City, Commissioner Tocki feels that option two is the most fiscally responsible. Chair Lin selected option two as option one is doing nothing and option three is too expensive, even though it is ideal. Chair Lin motioned the approval of option two for the Rosemead Walking Trail at 8:02 p.m. ACTION: Moved by Commissioner Ruvalcaba and seconded by Vice -Chair Nguyen to approve option two of the Rosemead Walking Trail for recommendation to the City Council: Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Lin, Nguyen, Ruvalcaba, Sornoso and Tocki B. Dog Park Update Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking provided an update on the Garvey Park Dog Park, which was due to a grant that was awarded in October 2019 with the executed contract in January 2020. A draft of the conceptual design was presented and will go to City Council the following week. The park will be located on the west south -end side of Garvey Park. The dog area is surrounded by the tennis courts. The main entrance will be located on the southside closest to the parking lot with a gated entrance that includes two separate areas. One area is the staging area, which would allow for someone to enter from the parking lot and close the gate to ensure dogs are not running out. There would then be a separate area which would 7 allow access to either the small dog area, located on the westside, or the large dog area, which is closest to the tennis courts. The small dog area would be fenced in with a 4 -foot fence, to protect the little dogs from the large dogs, and would be made up of turf and DG with a shaded area as well as boulders for design. It will also include a drinking fountain and benches. The big dog area, on northside of tennis courts, includes two shaded areas because of the length of the space. It will also consist of turf and DG pathways with trees, benches, a water fountain, and tables. There is a second entrance on the northside which is just for the big dog area. Staff has been hesitant about eliminating that entrance to keep a universal main entrance on one side to avoid having little dogs going through the big dog area to get to the small dog side. With the park surrounding the tennis courts, a decorative fence will be added, which will go around the tennis courts, to obscure the sightline of the dogs, tennis players and tennis balls. Based on the commission's comments, the design will be taken back to the design team to get an estimated cost. The total budget is $580,000 and it is a matching grant; therefore, $290,000 will be supplied by the state and $290,000 will be supplied by the City. Commissioner Tocki questioned the 4 -foot fence as he felt it was short and big dogs may be able to get over it. He also asked if the large dog area had fencing on the inside to get to the entrance. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking mentioned that the pathway would not be enclosed and is only a means of getting to the entrance. Commissioner Tocki was concerned that the small dog area fencing is too short and may need a taller fence. He inquired whether new trees would be added to that space or if existing trees would be included. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking replied that the area is currently bare and therefore new trees will be planted. At the moment, the space is being used as vehicle storage for the City. Commissioner Tocki asked if DG was dirt and gravel. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking clarified that it is decomposed granite. Many walking trails and walking paths are made of DG as it gets little run off from water. Turf in a dog park can be challenging to maintain which would mean that the park would need to be closed for maintenance. Commissioner Tocki asked how DG would hold up with urine. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking mentioned DG drains well and would absorb the urine. Over time it would need to be repacked. DG is commonly used in dog parks. Commissioner Tocki stated this was a great conceptual design and was optimistic it would fall under the budget. Chair Lin shared that there are two types of DG, one that does not include adhesive mixed in and the other one does. He asked if that level of detail was provided. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking responded that he did not have that information but would provide it with the next design. Chair Lin asked about locations for trash cans which he did not see in the design. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking stated he had sent that back to the design team and did not receive the updated design before the commission meeting. Chair Lin asked about the maintenance of the park. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking said he would work with the Public Works team regarding the maintenance of the park and the cost. Chair Lin also echoed the thoughts of Commissioner Tocki regarding the fence for the small dog park being too short. 8 Commissioner Ruvalcaba inquired if there would be a limit to the capacity of the park. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking said he does not have that information at the moment; however, during COVID times there will be spacing restrictions. After COVID, there is no current information, but it can be presented at a later time. Commissioner Ruvalcaba asked if dogs would need to be on a leash. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking said that dogs are allowed to be free and that is why the large and small dogs are kept separate. Commissioner Sornoso commented on the entrance gate at the northside by the tennis courts and added that it should be closed. He felt it would be safer to keep the large dogs from entering through the heart of the park and by the parking lot. He also inquired regarding the turf being used and whether it would be heat resistant as to not hurt the dogs. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking clarified that his referenced to turf is grass. Commissioner Sornoso asked regarding the gates for small and large dogs to ensure there is a bar at the bottom so that dogs do not poke their heads through. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking mentioned another amenity which is the dog wash station. The wash station would be at the staging area to allow dog owners to wash off their dog's paws if they are dirty or muddy. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking announced that the conceptual design would be going to City Council for recommendations and there would also be some options for public outreach. The public will be asked regarding design and amenities. Chair Lin mentioned he only saw one bag dispenser in the design. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking noted there is one in the large area. As part of the initial notes sent to the design team, a request was made for another dispenser in the staging area. Commissioner Tocki noted there was also a dispenser in the small dog area and agreed that there should only be one localized main entrance. Commissioner Nguyen mentioned some people are not responsible in picking up droppings after their dogs and would like to know if there will be an ordinance or enforcement. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking mentioned there is no ordinance but there will be signs posted. This is the type of situation where there is community enforcement, where community members will mention to others that they need to clean up after their dog. Unfortunately, the City does not have the staff capabilities to have someone present at the dog park at all times. The City is relying on the community and for people to be responsible and clean up after themselves. Commissioner Ruvalcaba asked whether there are policies with dogs fighting and how someone should respond to it. She asked whether signs would be posted with a number or information. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking mentioned that a contact phone number would be located on the rules sign. Unfortunately, dogs will get in fights, but with community policing of the area, those things can be averted. 7 Commissioner Tocki asked whether surveillance would be included in the dog park in case there was an event or a repetitive offender that could then be identified. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking mentioned that there are cameras along Garvey Park, and he will make a note to potentially add to the dog park area. Chair Lin suggested using the Parks and Recreation quarterly magazine to inform residents of what to do at a dog park. C. Monthly Parks & Recreation Department Review Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking provided an update on the Rosemead Aquatic Center, which is currently open and hosting the Rapids Swim Team. The aquatics division is preparing for spring water aerobics and lap swim. Aquatics is recruiting for all aquatics positions: Lifeguards, Instructors, Aquatic Attendants, and Assistant Pool Managers. Applications are on the City website. The hope, in preparing for spring and summer, is that programs will be offered for those sessions. Things are moving rapidly, and very soon moving into the red tier which means the department can open more programs. The department is also working on the spring guide which will list special events and classes. Classes will be offered outside as long as they can be socially distant. The centers are closed to the public, but classes and activities can still be held outside. The athletic fields are open for practice, but only to youth sports organizations. Field allocations are done on a quarterly basis and there are organizations using the field. The next allocations will come up in April. The Garvey Center has been busy as the main senior lunch distribution area. They have been working on different areas in the facility and getting it ready to open. The partnership with the LA Food Bank is continuing and over 190 boxes are being distributed per month. The new 2nd Temporary Community Garden officially opened as of February 22. The garden is located at 3224 Del Mar Avenue. As of today, there are only 3 plots still available for lease. The annual fee is $60, but it will be prorated. The department is working on getting a contract with a non-profit who will produce the second phase of the garden which is the educational component as well as the show garden. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking will provide more information next month. The City and local schools are very excited about this partnership. The Parks and Recreation Department is working on special events with the Shamrock Run & Roll Virtual 5k coming in March in honor of St. Patrick's Day. It will be both a run and bike ride. Participants will be able to register for $20.00 and will receive a virtual bib, t -shirt, and a commemorative medal. The department will be hosting a virtual egg hunt as the county has not released in person events as of yet. The virtual egg hunt will begin April 1 through April 3. The hunt will be launched via the City's YouTube channel. Participants will have the opportunity to guess the number of eggs and submit their answers to win a prize. A new program is being introduced; You've Been Egged by Rosemead. Residents will be able to call in and receive free Easter eggs. The bunny helpers will deliver the kits between April 1-3. Residents can sign up and staff will drop off 2 dozen pre -filled eggs, Easter craft, Easter basket and You've Been Egged by Rosemead lawn sign! This program is free on a limited basis. There will also be an Easter Scavenger Hunt 10 around the City of Rosemead from March 31 through April 2. You will find themed inflatables around City facilities and parks. Each of them will have a scan code that will link to a puzzle that will need to be solved to enter a raffle. This event is promoting community and getting people out and involved as much as possible. Youth and Adult Sports Programs have been cancelled mostly due to in-person restrictions. The Youth and Adult Sports division is looking to offer classes, clinics, and competitions, possibly tennis as well, in the spring of 2021. All can be done with social distancing. The Easter Camp in a Box program is also being offered, and has been for a year now, where participants can purchase camp supplies and do at home. Director of Parks as Recreation Boecking provided an update on the Southern California Edison Property located on Rush Street and Walnut Grove Avenue. He was in contact with Edison and found out it is available to lease; however, they were already approach by a water company to put in a water treatment system and give a pocket park to the City. There is a meeting coming up in the next couple weeks to discuss the options. If this goes through, then the City will not have to pay to produce the pocket park. An update on this item will be offered at a later date. An item left off of the updates was Founders Park -Prop 68 Grant with the due date being on March 12. The department will be resubmitting the previous application with a few tweaks for Founders Park. It would be located on the property between Mission and Walnut Grove. Follow-up information will be provided at a later date. Chair Lin shared that his property is located next to the proposed Founders Park. He asked whether he would need to be excused from future conversations regarding the Park. For the sake of transparency and not crossing any boundaries, he wanted to disclose that information. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking, mentioned that to his understanding anytime that there is a discussion for feedback or action on that item Chair Lin would need to step away from that conversation. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking informed Chair Lin he would follow up regarding that item. Commissioner Ruvalcaba mentioned she was glad to hear the promising news about Walnut Grove and Rush especially if it is at no cost to the City. It is great to hear that the City is still staying engaged and sports are opening back up. Commissioner Tocki praised Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking for a job well done. 4. MATTERS FROM COMMISSION A. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Ruvalcaba commented on vehicle charging stations and whether the City had enough stations for the residents to use. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking mentioned it stays busy but sometimes it is rather vacant. He stated if there was a desire to look into the item he could then follow up. Commissioner 11 Ruvalcaba asked whether there was a time limit to the charging stations. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking said he would follow up on that item. Chair Lin thanked everyone for putting in the extra time in the meeting as it was a very engaging conversation. He congratulated everyone for paying such great attention to the residents' needs and collaborate with City staff. Commissioner Ruvalcaba inquired about the garden and asked if non-profit groups would be charged a fee. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking replied they would not especially if they are interested in the educational component. There will be spaces for them to plant gardens as well as be provided with a curriculum. He also mentioned having a site visit at another garden with the non-profit group that the City wants to partner with. Commissioner Ruvalcaba requested for the information and pictures to be shared with the commission. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking stated he was hesitant to share as a contract has not been signed with the organization. As soon as details are finalized, then pictures and more information will be provided hopefully within the next month. Commissioner Ruvalcaba also volunteered for the egg hunt and offered help with anything needed. 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. The next Parks Commission meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 6, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Jennifer Pineda, Administrative Specialist APPROVED: Chen Lin, Chair 12