Loading...
CC - Minutes - 04-28-20MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL, SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SPECIAL JOINT MEETING APRIL 28, 2020 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Armenta at 6:01 p.m., in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Mayor Armenta, Mayor Pro Tem Low, Council Members Clark, Dang (teleconferenced), and Ly ABSENT: NONE 17 91:x.. 1 A. Budget Workshop Discussion and update on the City Budget for Fiscal Year 2019-2020. Dr. Scott Miller, Finance Consultant, stated Rosemead continues to provide essential basic services amid the COVID-19 emergency while evaluating the City's Finances to preserve the economic viability of the City - both currently and in the future; shared the following overview of what has happened to the economy nationally, in the State of California, and in the County of Los Angeles/City of Rosemead. What has happened to the economy nationally? • Stock Market values decreased by 17%-21%. • Federal Debt increases to almost $3.7 Trillion. • Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts national economy to shrink by 5.6% over the course of this year with an uptick when businesses re -open. • CBO also estimates a national unemployment rate of 12% by end of 2020. What has happened to the economy in the State of California? • Nearly 3M people filed for unemployment benefits which represents 17% of the State's workforce. • In March, according to the CA Dept of Finance, unemployment rate in California is at 5.3%. • State sales and use cash receipts were an average of 7.7% below estimates in January, February, and March 2020. • Southern CA home sales have dropped 54%; but price data is limited. • State of CA started January 2020 with reserves of $21.3 billion, but its predicted 65% gone due to COVID-19 related expenses. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page I of 28 What has happened to the economy in the County of Los Angeles/Rosemead? • Less than half of Los Angeles County residents — 45% compared with 61% in mid-March — still hold a job, a decline of 16 percentage points, or an estimated 1.3 million jobs, according to Los Angeles Times. • As of March 19th, an estimated 54%-60% of retail/restaurant/lodging businesses in Los Angeles County had to close or significantly reduce operations due to the Governor's Stay -at -Home Order. • Rosemead's sales tax receipts, permits fees, and other sources of General Fund revenues will decrease in the 4th Quarter of FY 19-20. • Rosemead's Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) receipts for 4th Quarter of FY 19- 20 are estimated to drop significantly by as much as 75% due to the closure or limited occupancy of the City's lodging establishments. • Rosemead's Property Tax receipts will remain stable since property tax assessments for the FY 19-20 were set on January 1, 2019. Finance Consultant Miller asserted that FY 19-20 budget was set at 9.7 million dollars and will end the fiscal year around 9.6 million dollars; the total General Fund revenues for FY 19-20 was estimated at $21,264,900 and was amended to $24,080,800; and the total General Fund expenditures was estimated at $23,910,100, which was not amended and does not include reserves or CIP. Dr. Miller indicated the good news is current departmental expenditures are within budgetary controls; many service demands are directly related to revenues (i.e., parks and recreation; building inspections; etc.); the City has very stable business base — no reliance on one industry or a few sales tax producers; Rosemead shares with other cities all the pooled sales tax funds the state collects from internet sales (i.e., Amazon, Walmart and Walgreens); and Rosemead's largest General Fund revenue is stable property tax. However, he noted the not so good news is the continued decline in sales tax and TOT will continue on into FY 20-21; depending on unemployment and economic recovery, California as well as Rosemead will continue to suffer an economic shrinkage; opined no one knows how many businesses will never re -open after the Stay -at -Home Order is lifted or if a 2nd wave of COVID-19 will occur and how it will affect the future of business, government, or the community as a whole. Dr. Miller explained we can prepare for the City's economic future by making current operations as efficient and effective as possible — use technology and data applications to support current processes and citizen/business City transactions/ interactions; exploring ways to expand General Fund Revenue Base with options to help shield against sudden and declining revenue; conducting a Formal Fee Study to assess where Rosemead's Fees stand against industry standards; and exploring ways to save expenses by partnering with other municipalities and government entities on programs and projects to share the fixed costs of basic services. He reiterated staff understands that the FY 19-20 ending and FY 20-21 will be fiscally challenging years as Rosemead is not immune to local or global pandemics or economics; the City is controlling expenditures and constantly evaluating current and new revenues while striving to achieve the goals and priorities the City Council has set in FY 19-20 and Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 2 of 28 maintaining the safety and security of Rosemead's citizens, businesses and staff, the City will recover and prosper by continuing best business practices, not panicking, working with the community and the businesses, at the direction of the City Council, and dealing with issues intelligently as they come forward. Council Member Clark stated property tax being paid in December and April, there were a lot of people that probably did not pay it in April due to the financial burden of the pandemic; inquired why the City would not be affected by that. Finance Consultant Miller responded the dollar amount that we would expect would not change because the assessments are completed in January; we may be affected short-term, but we are guaranteed to receive those property taxes at some point. He checked with the Los Angeles County Assessor's Office who confirmed that in general, they have not seen a huge amount of people not paying their property taxes. Mrs. Clark asked if the pooled sales tax is based on what City the resident making the Amazon order is from, and if that City receives the sales tan. Dr. Miller replied no, all the sales tax that Amazon collects goes into this statewide pool and is distributed based off population; indicated Rosemead has a decent population so we will receive a decent cut of the pool. Mayor Pro Tem Low asked if the next assessment of property tax will occur in the beginning of the year. Dr. Miller affirmed state law says that the assessment should be completed January 1St of every year. Last year the County Assessor's Office reviewed all the property values which is transmitted to the tax collector, then the tax bills will be distributed around August or September and must be paid by October. Mrs. Low clarified will the COVID-19 pandemic affect the assessment value for the following year. Dr. Miller responded the County Assessor will determine if property sales are significantly down as a direct result of COVID-19; if so, the Assessor can decide to implement a 1% increase rather than the maximum 2% increase per year; noted the final determination will be made January 1, 2021. Mayor Armenta inquired if being a Proposition 13 city contributes to our steady property taxes as the City receives $0.07 on the dollar. Dr. Miller opined property taxes have always been a steady revenue; explained Proposition 13 places a limitation that the state is not allowed to raise the annual property tax over 2%; stated in 2008-2009, property taxes did dip due to the economic downfall, resulting in the Assessor's Office lowering the assessment to 1/2 or 1%. He emphasized if the whole pie shrinks, then the City would be affected. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 3 of 28 Council Member Clark asked if the percentage has gone down that much because of COVID-19. Finance Consultant Miller replied they can call higher interest bonds and pay us what we invested and do more bonds but at a much lower rate. We have had an unusual amount of called bonds, which they can legally take back. He shared the three rules of investing — safety, liquidity, and yield. Mayor Pro Tem Low asked how the low or no property tax rules apply to Rosemead. Dr. Miller explained in 1959, the city was only allowed to incorporate under the low or no property tax rules. Council Member Clark shared that our lobbyist, Gonsalves & Son, explained when Proposition 13 was passed, the high property tax cities like San Francisco were allowed to keep their level. Council Member Ly clarified the reason we were able to incorporate is because we agreed to be a contract city, so part of the allocation went to County, which meant the fees for the Sheriff and Fire services were already assessed and built in; noted whereas the City of El Monte decided to join and had to shift their amounts from property tax over to pay for the County services instead. Mayor Pro Tem Low ascertained so we did not have a choice, that was the stipulation for us to incorporate as a city. Dr. Miller affirmed that Council Member Ly is correct. Mayor Armenta recessed the meeting to Closed Session at 6:51 p.m. City Attorney Richman announced that any reportable action by the City Council would be reported at the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. 2. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: 2501 San Gabriel Blvd., Rosemead CA 91770 City Negotiators: Gloria Molleda, City Manager, Ben Kim, Assistant City Manager Negotiating parties: Ardith M. Easley; Loretta I. Corrigan; Louis V. Martel; David A. Martel; Norman C. Martel; Devisees of Debora C. Larson; Sunshine Carter; and Gregary G. Martel Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Government Code Section: 54957 Title: City Clerk Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 4 of 28 City Attorney Richman reported out of Closed Session for the Public Employee Performance Evaluation for City Clerk. City Clerk Hernandez received a 4.9 out of five performance evaluation, which exceeds expectations. As a result, her contract would be brought back to be amended for a compensation increase. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Low to approve a 4.9 performance evaluation, which exceeds expectations. A motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low, Ly ABSENT: None Mayor Armenta adjourned the special meeting to the regular meeting at 7:43 p.m. RECONVENE TO REGULAR MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Mayor Armenta INVOCATION was led by Council Member Dang STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Molleda, Assistant City Manager Kim, City Attorney Richman, Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo, Director of Public Works Daste, Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking, and City Clerk Hernandez PUBLIC COMMENT There being no speakers, Mayor Armenta opened and closed the Public Comment period. 3. PRESENTATIONS — None 4. PUBLIC HEARING — None 5. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Armenta noted for Item 5C, that it was brought to her attention that the SB 1 Funds may be delayed, which will help cities during this economic distress as it requires cities to add their General Funds to SB 1 funding. Mayor Pro Tem Low expressed concern about sharing this information in this forum when it has not been confirmed. Mayor Armenta responded she is sharing so that the City is aware; stated an update will be provided once the Governor's Office confirms the details with Senator Rubio's Office. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly and seconded Mayor Pro Tem Low to approve Consent Calendar Items A through D. Motion was carried out by the following vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low, Ly ABSENT: None Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 5 of 28 A. Claims and Demands • Resolution No. 2020-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $619,751.96 NUMBERED 106169 THROUGH NUMBER 106291 INCLUSIVELY Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2020-14. • Resolution No. 2020-04 RHDC A RESOLUTION OF THE ROSEMEAD HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $85.00 NUMBERED 1617 THROUGH NUMBER 1618 INCLUSIVELY Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2020-04 RHDC. • Resolution No. 2020-08 SA A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $96,311.17 NUMBERED 10290 INCLUSIVELY Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2020-08 SA. B. Approval of Minutes Recommendation: That the City Council approve the special meeting minutes of March 30, 2020. C. Resolution No. 2020-15 Approving the Maintenance of Traffic Control Signs, Stripping, and markings Projects Funded by the Road Repair and Accountability Act On April 28, 2017, California Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 was signed into law to address basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety needs on both the state highway and local streets Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 6 of 28 road system. A percentage of the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) funding will be apportioned by formula to eligible cities and counties pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 2032(h) for projects that meet the RMRA program requirements. Prior to receiving an allotment of RMRA funds from the State Controller each fiscal year, the City must submit a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds pursuant to an adopted resolution to the California Transportation Commission. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2020-15, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 FUNDED BY SB 1 THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 Approving the use of Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funds for the following projects: a. Maintenance of Traffic Control Signs, Striping, and Markings Project in the amount of $192,000; and b. Walnut Grove Avenue Resurfacing Project in the amount of $332,000; and 2. Approve a budget appropriation of $57,000 from the General Fund unassigned fund balance to meet the MOE requirements for FY 2020-21. D. Approval of the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan, CDBG and HOME Programs Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 A Consolidated Plan is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a condition of receiving federal funding. The City currently receives funding under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program. The 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan is required to include an Annual Action Plan for the period of July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, which covers the first year of the five-year plan. The Annual Action Plan includes a list of the activities the City will undertake to address priority needs and local objectives with anticipated program income and funds received during the next program year for meeting housing and community development objectives as outlined in the Consolidated Plan. Federal funding awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-21 have been announced and it is estimated that the City of Rosemead will receive $754,219 in CDBG funds and Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 7 of 28 an allocation of $356,716 in HOME funds. It should be noted that under the CDBG program eligible projects must either provide benefits to low- or moderate -income persons, eliminate slum or blighted conditions, or is an urgent need. In addition, at least 70 percent or more of the FY 2020-21 entitlement total must be used for activities benefiting low- and moderate -income residents of Rosemead. Of the HOME funds received, funds can only be used for housing activities benefiting low -or moderate -income persons. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Approve the 2020-2025 Consolidated Plan and FY 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan including CDBG and HOME funding recommendations and authorize the submittal of the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2. Authorize City Manager to execute all appropriate and necessary documents to receive funding and implement approved use and make necessary budget adjustments based on HUD's final allocation amount. 3. Award the following public service agencies with CDBG funds and authorize the City Manager to execute agreements: • Family Promise of San Gabriel Valley - $5,000 • Southern California Housing Rights Center - $10,000 • Senior Nutrition Program - $60,000 • Summer Youth Employment Program - $35,000 6. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Information on Garvey Avenue Regional Access and Capacity Improvement Project Grant Awarded to the City of Rosemead from 2015 LA Metro Call for Projects Rounds Recommendation: That the City Council to provide direction to staff whether to move forward with the Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvement Project. Staff is requesting direction from the City Council on whether to proceed with the Garvey Avenue Regional Access & Capacity Improvement Project and referred to as the "Garvey Avenue Capacity Improvement Project". If the City Council decides to move forward with the project, staff would seek Council approval at a later time to amend the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for the inclusion of this project and begin its implementation. If the City Council decides not to move forward with the project, the awarded funds by Metro would be de -obligated. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 8 of 28 Mayor Armenta stated this item has been tabled for a future City Council meeting. Council Member Ly indicated he initially requested this item be placed on the agenda, however, with support of Council Member Clark, he asked the City Manager to withdraw this item from the agenda as it is important for the public to have the opportunity to speak on this controversial item, even if delaying discussion may put the grant in jeopardy. Mayor Armenta asked if everyone that initially submitted a letter or came to share their views, would still be included in the future report. Council Member Ly responded whatever future staff report is done should include all correspondence related to this item. Council Member Clark read the motion from the minutes of the January 26, 2016 Council meeting, "Moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Council Member Low to table this grant and instruct staff to look for grants for improvements on Garvey that don't eliminate parking and revisit the issue only if we can't find any other grants. The motion passed 5-0: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly." Mayor Pro Tem Low expressed concern that by tabling this item we could possibly miss the grant submittal deadline. Mr. Ly affirmed it is a risk, but we as a Council should take that risk; noted if we ever decide to do a project along Garvey Avenue, there are other funds we could directly tap into, for example, part of the funds that go into the high vehicle occupancy lanes/toll lanes, must go towards local communities within that corridor. Mrs. Clark stated it was my understanding that the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GASP) Committee did not want us to eliminate the parking as it would hurt businesses. Council Member Ly clarified that the GASP Committee never brought that up as an issue. Stated if the auto auction site or Sunny Chen's was ever developed into a major project, we would have to create a deceleration lane. Council Member Clark suggested looking at the minutes as elimination of parking was referenced; shared that Javier Hernandez, who worked for Metro, confronted me at a meeting in South El Monte about Rosemead not accepting the grant, which I confirmed since we did not want to take the parking away from our businesses. Mayor Armenta interjected that since this item was tabled, the discussion should be saved for a future meeting. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 9 of 28 City Attorney Richman suggested a motion be taken so that Council's direction is clear to staff. Mayor Pro Tem Low asked if we table this item and Metro does not agree to extend the grant deadline, then will we lose the opportunity. Council Member Ly affirmed that is correct, but we are erring on the side of caution. Additionally, if we do not get the grant money, we could always supplement somewhere else, even if it is from the General Fund. However, if we accept this money, then we are obligated to complete a project; emphasized the last thing we want to do is shove any project down our residents' throats without it being fully vetted from the Council and the public. Mrs. Low inquired what is the grant deadline. Mr. Ly responded I believe the deadline has already passed and Metro has issued us extensions. City Manager Molleda replied the original deadline was January 2020, but we asked for extensions because we were not able to bring it back to Council. Metro has also been reaching out to us to find out what our plans are. Mayor Pro Tem Low posed the question if we are going to ask Metro to issue another extension for us. City Manager Molleda opined it is very likely that Metro will not issue us another extension. Mayor Armenta expressed concern that we are continuously requesting an extension because the motion is very clear about finding other alternatives for street parking. Correct me if I am wrong but this grant requires no street parking during specific hours because they wanted to create a 6t' lane to have three lanes going in each opposite direction. That was the stipulation for us to get the money. City Manager Molleda read the motion from the minutes of the November 24, 2015 Council meeting, "It was stated that this item be brought back to the agenda." Council Member Ly concurred that was before he got back from training, (then) Council Member Armenta requested the item be tabled so that he could speak on the matter upon his return; reiterated the motion that Council Member Clark read, there was no consensus one way or another on parking or no parking and it simply states that the item would be brought back. Mayor Armenta reminded the Council that there two grants that were brought up at the same time — this Garvey Avenue one and the one on Valley Boulevard, which Metro wanted to install a median to beautify the area. Both grants had the same Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 10 of 28 requirement of making a 6th lane to have three lanes going in each opposite direction. Stated staff applied for this grant without asking the Council if this was something that we wanted to take on because it was only going to be in Rosemead for a small section. Reiterated further discussion can take place when this item is brought back. Council Member Ly made a motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Low, to table this item until City facilities open and allow for public comment. Council Member Clark emphasized that she will not vote yes for this motion unless it clearly states that this item should be tabled until we are able to hold a normal in person public meeting; opined it is not fair to make the residents submit their concerns via email, especially over such a controversial issue. I stand by our decision back then to find other grants to fit our needs. Mayor Armenta responded we cannox delay business simply because we are not able to conduct an in person public meeting. We are policy makers and must keep things moving forward. Suggested once the Governor authorizes in-person meetings, we can hold a public meeting in the Council Chamber or at the Community Center, while adhering to the 6 feet physical distance. Council Member Ly stated he understands that Council Member Clark wants to ensure that individuals have an opportunity to attend a Council meeting and voice their opinions within the public comment period. I would like to amend my motion to, "We table this item until a time when residents and business owners are able to come to a Council meeting and participate fully during the public comment period." Explained we do not have to put any specifics in the verbiage as we can determine that when we are able to hold public meetings and ensure that it still fits within the State's parameters at that time. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly and seconded Mayor Pro Tem Low to table this item until a time when residents and business owners are able to come to a Council meeting and participate fully during the public comment period. Motion was carried out by the following vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low, Ly ABSENT: None B. Discussion of Interest in Potential Future Action to Allow the County of Los Angeles' Temporary Prohibition on Evictions of Residential and Commercial Tenants Arising from Financial Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic to Apply to the City On March 26, 2020, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance providing certain eviction protections for residential and commercial tenants as a result of financial impacts resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The City's ordinance was similar to the County of Los Angeles' order providing protection for tenants in the unincorporated portions of the County. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes ofApri128, 2020 Page 11 of 28 Recommendation: That the City Council discuss and provide direction on whether it wants to consider at an upcoming meeting having the County's eviction moratorium apply in the City by repealing the City's current eviction moratorium ordinance and provide any other appropriate direction on the topic. City Attorney Richman stated on April 14, 2020, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted a revised eviction protection moratorium order, providing additional protections not set forth in the existing County order. Of significance, the new County regulation provides tenants up to 12 months to repay rent not paid during the eviction moratorium period (the prior order and City ordinance provided 6 months). More importantly, the new County order applies in all cities of the County that do not otherwise have their own eviction protection moratorium. The City Attorney is looking for direction as to whether the City Council would like to place an item on an upcoming agenda to repeal the City's ordinance and allow the County's to apply in its place or if the Council wants to continue with its existing ordinance. Council Member Ly stated whatever the County brings up and adopts, Council should discuss it to see whether we want to fall in line with it. However, the City decided to incorporate in 1959 because we no longer wanted to be under an unincorporated status and wanted Rosemead to have its own identity. Emphasized we should have our own ordinance because at the end of the day, our residents and business owners follow the guidelines that we create for them because they elected us to represent the community to the best of our ability. Council Member Clark inquired if we have received any comments from renters or landlords regarding the ordinance. Mayor Armenta responded I personally have a received a lot of kudos from renters expressing appreciation that we are looking out for them. I have not heard negative or positive feedback from any property owners. City Manager Molleda affirmed the City has not received any negative or positive comments from owners. Mayor Armenta shared that our ordinance helped the Community Development Department facilitate a renter's concern regarding eviction, and it was understood that this moratorium was not a grant or a forgiven of unpaid dues, simply an extension of 6 months. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 12 of 28 City Attorney Richman shared from a City Attorney perspective, one of the perks of adopting the County's ordinance is that if someone were to have issue with not paying back, we would be able to point to the County's authority and not the City's. Mayor Armenta inquired if the City Attorney feels that the City would be more protected if we followed the County's ordinance. Council Member Ly stated if we adopt County's ordinance, then if an issue arises, we will basically be giving our responsibility to the County by telling our residents and business owners to check with County. Council Members Clark and Ly, and Mayor Pro Tem Low, indicated support to keep the City's current verbiage. Council Member Dang stated he supports the City's current verbiage as is; emphasized you have to remember that County represents different demographics, larger densities and what not, so their perspective may not align with ours since we are a smaller community. City Attorney Richman stated there is no need to take a vote since the Consensus is to maintain the City's current eviction moratorium ordinance. C. COVID-19 and 2020 Summer Recreation Programs Update The Parks and Recreation Department is preparing for summer programs, classes and special events. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the department has been forced to reduce the number of programs, classes and special events offered during the summer of 2020. Recommendation: That the City Council received and file. City Manager Molleda stated there are many unknowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a Safer at Home Order that is in effect until May 15th, which will most likely be extended. There has been discussion that the Order will slowly be lifted while social restrictions will stay in effect. These restrictions can limit the social gathering size and require social distancing between individuals. These types of unknowns make it very challenging to plan programs, classes, and special events. The normal summer schedule is a 10-12 week and would traditionally begin in mid-June and conclude at the end of August. The adjusted schedule for summer 2020 will be 6 weeks in length starting on July 13th. The 4th of July celebration has been cancelled, however the concert in the park series is tentatively scheduled throughout the summer. Council Member Clark stated we should begin the process of the fireworks stand as we should have enough restrictions where they must stay within their backyards. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 13 of 28 I would rather with the money we save from canceling the 4th of July festivities, have more Sheriffs and Code Enforcement staff to patrol the community and cite for illegal fireworks. City Manager Molleda affirmed we will have the Deputies and Code Enforcement Officers provide extra patrol on the 4th of July to monitor fireworks. Mayor Pro Tem Low opined it is important to be safe during this pandemic so that we can fully enjoy ourselves next year. I understand that a lot of vendors rely on those fireworks stands to make money, but this year we need to encourage people to stay home as their health is more important. By having the fireworks stands, we are not only allowing but also encouraging people to get together. Suggested doing virtual concerts. City Manager Molleda stated we are planning for the concerts in the park, but if we are not open by that point, then we can hold the concerts virtually. Mayor Armenta stated she received a phone call from Robert Gonzales, newly elected Mayor of Azusa, suggested cities across the San Gabriel Valley have a united front so that people are not going to other cities that are holding public events. Also shared she received a letter expressing they look forward to the City's fireworks show every year because they cannot afford fireworks, however, this year is different because our health needs to take priority. Council Member Ly stated he understands Council Member Clark's concern; opined since we cannot conduct a parade for them, we need to trust our community that they will buy sound and sane fireworks to safely enjoy on the 4th of July. Mrs. Low suggested waiting another month to see if the overall numbers decrease, then proceed with fireworks stands, etc. Mr. Ly inquired when does the fireworks stand start? City Manager Molleda responded we start selling the permits the first week of May. We can extend the deadline from when the vendors purchase the permits for their stands to June or we can allow them to continue purchasing permits beginning in May with added verbiage advising them depending on the pandemic, we may need to return the fees to those already purchased. City Attorney Richman expressed in addition to the concern of social distancing and gathering, another component is if stands will be considered a retail business and if they will be allowed to be open. Ms. Molleda stated staff will work with the City Attorney to draft the application and include special verbiage for this year so that we are protected and can just refund the money, if needed. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 14 of 28 D. COVID-19 Update This is a recurring item that will be on the agenda to update the City Council on items related to COVID-19. Recommendation: That the City Council discuss and provide further direction. Council Member Ly inquired what the City's perspective is on the State and County discussing opening back up — how are we preparing for the reopening of City Hall specifically; are there any changes needed to our urgency ordinances that we have adopted thus far during the pandemic; at the earliest and safest time possible to reopen City Hall so that our residents and businesses can receive full service. City Manager Molleda stated we are tentatively scheduled to reopen on May 15th, however that date will most likely be extended; we are working towards reopening by having staff come back in phases with staggered schedules, ensuring staff can work six feet apart, and we will be providing masks, gloves, and sanitizer. We will bring back a plan once we have one in writing. Mayor Armenta stated neighboring cities have received CDBG funding to address COVID-19 by facilitating food drives or testing sites; indicated Rosemead, as well as San Gabriel and Temple City are the only neighboring cities that do not offer a testing site. Mrs. Armenta asked staff to look into that as Council from different SGV cities would like to partner up in COVID-19 efforts. Stated she reached out to County to offer the auto auction site that is vacant, but unfortunately was told by County thank you for offering but we are going with Monterey Park. Indicated Alhambra is putting funding towards providing more senior meals. City Manager Molleda indicated our normalcy of the amount of seniors participating in the lunch program has increased; we have a drive-thru for the seniors, so it is very popular; I have directed our Parks and Recreation Director to purchase more meals so we do not have to turn away any seniors; we will charge these expenses to FEMA to get money back that way; we contract with the County for food boxes once or twice a month, which is shared with the seniors. We also have staff calling a list of seniors who might need assistance. The word is getting out about our services. Mayor Armenta asserted that she would like to see a food drive open to all residents, not just seniors as there are other families that need assistance as well. We need to push for food distribution for families. The County is contracting with taxis for people who are food deprived due to a lack of transportation. We need to look into that as it is a great way to take care of our residents. Emphasized we need a testing site, we could use CDBG funding to partner up with organizations — 1,000 tests in 3 months duration around $300,000. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 15 of 28 Mayor Pro Tem Low asked if the cost for the testing site would be shared with other cities. Mrs. Armenta yes because Temple City is eager to partner up. If it is not run by the County, we can ensure it is only offered to Rosemead residents; if our city is paying for these testing sites, we can require they show ID to prove they are a Rosemead or Temple City resident. Mayor Pro Tem Low asserted the test site in El Monte is County run, so they pay for everything. Council Member Ly asked if it is a drive thru testing facility. Mayor Armenta confirmed yes. Alhambra was looking for ways to get residents to the testing sites that lack transportation. Suggested we could use our Rosemead Explorer to ensure they are six feet apart. City Manager Molleda stated we will be bringing to Council at the first meeting in May a report of what we can do with the CDBG funding such as food banks; we can look into adding a test site if Council so desires. Mayor Pro Tem Low asked staff to gather information to bring back to Council. Mayor Armenta stated Council Member Cynthia Sternquist, Temple City, suggested if the auto auction site does not work, then we could also use the Kmart building in the plaza; recommended Rosemead High School since it is closed down right now. City Manager Molleda affirmed they will add these requests to the report for the May 12th Council meeting. Council Member Ly inquired about a Rosemead based stimulus plan for our businesses. Mayor Armenta it is my understanding that the CDBD funding can be used for that as well. Council Member Ly stated there is a need for us to look at how we can help our businesses, especially our Mom and Pop places. 7. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL A. Resolution Calling on State Electeds to Urge the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Board to Ease MS4 Permit Requirements Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 16 of 28 The purpose of the resolution is to implore the Governor and the City of Rosemead's ("City") State legislative representatives to impress upon the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Board ("Regional Board") the need to spare the City and others from complying with the with requirements that are not required by federal law. These include: (1) participation in an Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP); (2) the metals Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) that did not apply to the City. Further, the City and others that drain to engineered channels are not required by State regulation to comply with the bacteria TMDL. Both of these TMDLs account for about 95% of EWMP costs. The Resolution also asserts that the City has been misassigned to the Upper Los Angeles River EWMP Group and instead should be in Reach 2 of the Rio Hondo, which avoids significant TMDL compliance costs. Recommendation: That City Council adopt Resolution No. 2020-16, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL CALLING ON THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, AND STATE LEGISLATIVE ELECTEDS REPRESENTING SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MUNICIPALITIES TO URGE THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD TO EASE MS4 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY Council Member Clark stated as you know with the COVID-19 crisis, all cities including ours will be facing financial challenges and will need to be frugal wherever we can. We have been concerned with the stormwater regulations, our City was misassigned to the Upper Los Angeles River EWMP Group and instead should be in Reach 2 of the Rio Hondo River, which avoids significant TMDL compliance costs. The EPA has clarified that we are not subject to the TMDLs, so we will potentially be able to save approximately $4 million per year by being correctly reassigned to Reach 2 of the Rio Hondo River. Mrs. Clark indicated she is respectfully asking for the Council's support of this resolution. The state did an audit requested by Assembly Member Al Muratsuchi, a lot of mistakes were found in not looking at the cost of the effect on low- income residents; the Gardena and Duarte lawsuits that ruled in our favor; the state Commission on Mandates stated the Water Board went beyond the federal EPA standard and because they mandated regulations more stringent than the federal, it was an unfunded mandate. Council Member Ly asked if this resolution applies to the current MS4 permit that we are under or if we are trying to influence the next round of MS4 application. Council Member Clark responded both — I hope we can work this out as the environmentalists were suing based on the former permit, it was not cost effective or satisfactory to the community. There is no way we are going to be able to afford any of that. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 17 of 28 Mayor Pro Tem Low read the Fiscal Impact from the Staff Report, "The Resolution is aimed at reducing the City's MS4 Permit compliance costs to the extent of avoiding the use of General Funds." Asked if we approve this resolution, is there any chance that additional cost would come to the city. Michael Ackerman, City Engineer, Transtech Engineers, concurred with Council Member Clark that the Resolution is a good message to send to the leaders making the rules and regulations, asserted that the resolution itself will not raise the cost of the fees; stated these are unfunded mandates, there are several other options that we looked at; the city is currently part of the Upper Los Angeles River' Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) group but we can look at joining individual watershed management plans, however there are associated costs with that; the city is obligated to meet and monitor water quality objectives. We do not necessarily have to remain with our current group, we can do our own plan, which we would have to evaluate the pros and cons associated with changing groups. City Manager Molleda opined I do not see an issue with approving this resolution as we are simply doing our part but it is up to Council how they would like to proceed. Council Member Ly stated this resolution will only help our efforts; Clark is simply trying to put in writing what the City's position is and to save us money. City Attorney Richman noted for the record that she did not draft this resolution. Council Member Clark indicated she drafted it along with Ray Tahir, an Engineer, Tecs Environmental. City Attorney Richman stated the resolution has no sort of binding; referenced the last "Whereas" of the resolution, recommended removing mention of the other cities so we avoid speaking on their behalf or indicating they were also mistakenly assigned; clarified we were not assigned, rather we selected our EWMP group. WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead is mistakenly in the Upper Los Angeles River EWMP Group that includes the following non -San Gabriel River cities: San Fernando, the City of Los Angeles areas that are located in the San Fernando Valley; Burbank; and Glendale. Council Member Clark responded she would be okay with removing that "Whereas". Council Member Ly suggested changing the verbiage to, "Whereas the City of Rosemead is mistakenly in the Upper Los Angeles River EWMP Group." City Manager Molleda interjected to note the phone lines dropped and staff is working on reconnecting it. Mayor Armenta stated a two -minute recess will be taken. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 18 of 28 City Attorney Richman suggested also correcting the verbiage in Section 2 under the actions "2. Inform by official notice that the City was mistakenly assigned is mistakenly in the Upper Los Angeles River EWMP group are at liberty to withdraw from it and be reassigned to Reach 2 of the Rio Hondo in accordance with the State's 303(d) list." Mayor Pro Tem Low stated it was her understanding that ordinances and resolutions are written or at least reviewed by the City Attorney. City Attorney Richman responded the resolution was provided to me for review and these are my comments. Mayor Armenta stated she appreciates when the resolutions come from our City Attorney as you are protecting the City. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Clark and seconded Council Member Ly to adopt Resolution No. 2020-16, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL CALLING ON THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, AND STATE LEGISLATIVE ELECTEDS REPRESENTING SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MUNICIPALITIES TO URGE THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD TO EASE MS4 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY Motion was carried out by the following vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low, Ly ABSENT: None B. Citation and Parking Matters Discussion This item is presented to the City Council at the request of Mayor Sandra Armenta. She would like to discuss the issue regarding citations and parking enforcement matters. Recommendation: That the City Council discuss and provide further direction. Mayor Armenta read an email that was sent to her, "Dear Mayor, I doubt you'll read this, let alone even receive it, but I am so angry I have to vent. So we will pray someone will see this. On March 31, 2020, we received an unfair parking citation and decided we would definitely appeal it. My husband is 89 years old and I am 69 years old and completely disabled, so appearing isn't even an option, so we opted to go online and submit an appeal because there are so many extenuating circumstances as to why we should have never been cited in the first place. Gathering the proof of information has taken us much longer than expected. Writing the response was difficult and time consuming. We received a first notice on April 8, 2020, making the due date for an online appeal April 20, 2020, not much time. The pressure to get this has put so much stress on Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 19 of 28 both of us but the necessity of proving the citation's unfairness is overwhelming. Today, I finally finished the explanation for appeal and finally had all the photos ready to back up what I had to say. I tried to put it online but found my explanation was way too long and that I could not load all my photos, there was too many. There is no way to shorten the explanation, every word is necessary to our defense and every photo is needed. So now what? I am so stressed, so angry, and so hurt. I have no option but to pay the ticket, time has run out. Not fair. Rosemead always cheats the people. I lived here all my life since 1951, it's just not fair. I can't even send the response by mail anymore because it's too late now even for that. We've lost and it's so unfair." Mayor Armenta read the resident's appeal response: "I am writing in response to a citation we received recently March 31, 2020, involving our vehicle partially blocking the sidewalk at the end of our driveway. This is the second citation for the same offense, and it needs to stop. All of these citations are neither fair or just and absolutely not the fault of us, the vehicle owners, but the City of Rosemead itself. Bear with me as I explain. My dad built this house in 1952 and you can see by the photos enclosed, it had a large driveway with ample space for two cars, a large flat area and a long down slope to Marshall Street. In 1983, the City of Rosemead made it mandatory that curbs and sidewalks would be added to our area and each homeowner being responsible for the cost. During construction, our home ended up encountering several problems that had to be rectified at cost to the city for errors made during the excavations. Our property sat high from the ground and the cutbacks left the yard and driveway with no natural slope but a dead drop-off. A small retaining wall was finally built to remedy the yard, but the driveway was a different matter. There will be no more flat surface, only a sharp angled slant from the garage to the street, which shortened the driveway so much. It was horrible, it was however the only solution. By mistake, Rosemead had cutback too much property and a dispute arose. Ultimately, they made a threat that we either deed the questionable sidewalk back to the city or keep it ourselves and be liable for the person having an accident on it. We had no choice but to deed it back and live with the ugly inconvenient changes. A year later in December 1984 because of my increased disability in walking due to a disability, we had to purchase three ford ton van that could hold my electric cart and ramp. Unfortunately, even when the van is pulled up as close to the garage as possible, hung over several inches into the sidewalk. There is no remedy for this; I need this vehicle and I can no longer walk and need the use of my cart. A smaller vehicle is not an option. Obviously, I cannot move my garage nor lengthen my driveway. And parking anywhere else on my property is forbidden by law; I can't leave my van on the street as it has already been involved in a hit and run at night from trying that option. So what else is there left to do? It's my driveway and I have the right to park my vehicle there — It's where it's supposed to be and think about this — The same van that has been parked in the same driveway, the same one that Rosemead ruined, for over 30 years has not once ever been in an accident involving a pedestrian being hurt because they have had to travel a bit off the sidewalk around my van. It's not a danger because Marshall Street is wide and has no lane markings, which allows vehicles to utilize the whole street and therefore never ever get close to anyone walking or playing off the sidewalk. The City of Rosemead has never cited us in all these 30 years for this infraction until suddenly now. Again, it's not a danger and it's not our fault." Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 20 of 28 Mayor Armenta noted she responded, "Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I can assure you that I read and respond to all my emails. I wish you would have emailed me sooner in order to remedy this without causing this frustration. I will immediately send this to our City Manager to look into the citation. I can also assure you that the city does not always cheat its residents as you indicated. I have had residents reach out to me on many occasions and I have been able to assist them. We need an open communication with city and residents. Thank you for your pictures and documents, they were very helpful. I will follow-up with you as soon as possible." The resident's response to Mayor Armenta's email: "Dear Mayor, I am literally sitting here so surprised at receiving a response from you, something I never expected even in my wildest dreams. I submitted that email only because I was feeling so helpless, hopeless, and frustrated because time had run out on me and I had no options left and I just needed to vent. I was so shocked to see your response and in such a short time. Please forgive me for some of my statements which were made in anger. I feel ashamed now and hope you accept my apology." Mayor Armenta displayed the photos that the resident attempted to submit with their appeal; pointed out if the resident parks on the street on trash days, she would not be able to place her trash cans outside for pick-up. Indicated when this matter was brought to the City Manager's attention, she was told that the citation is valid due to ADA violations. As a result, Mayor Armenta asked if it could be suspended so this item could be added to the Council agenda for further discussion. The City Manager then indicated she could not help further as no individual including the City Manager has the authority to waive a citation per the Municipal Code. However, in the beginning of March we waived 17 to 18 citations due to street sweeping because even though the City advertised that we were not going to cite for street sweeping, we gave out 17 to 18 citations which were waived. Error on the City? Yes. That is why I wanted to bring this to the Council. Mayor Armenta clarified she is not asking for the citation to be waived, simply for it to be suspended since it was due that day and because the resident did not want to incur any more penalties; indicated she never received a response back from the City Manager. So she brought this matter to the Assistant City Manager and his response was that there is an appeal process. She followed up with the Assistant City Manager via email and asked him to please confirm receipt of this email or if you were able to contact the resident regarding this matter. — Never heard anything from the Assistant City Manager. Expressed she is hoping that directive is not given to our directors to not to speak to City Council. Mayor Armenta followed up with the resident to see if she was contacted by City staff; noted the resident was only sent a link to file an appeal. How are we going to do this to our residents that have lived here before Rosemead even became an incorporated city? Mayor Armenta understood the resident's frustration of not receiving a solution, so she told the resident not to worry that she would pay for the citation. During the safer routes to school, the City installed sidewalks on all the houses along Rio Hondo Drive, except the one pictured and was informed simply because that resident did not want a sidewalk in front of their house. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 21 of 28 Mayor Armenta asked if Council Member Clark could share about the previous administrative process that used to be in place. Council Member Clark explained there was Building Rehabilitations Appeals Board, where if someone had an issue with their house or was issued a citation, it provides the public an opportunity to share their concerns or extenuating circumstances. Indicated this Board dissolved around 2006; stated she has been wanting to bring this back for years and she would volunteer to serve on the Board with one other Council Member to ensure we are still compliant with the Brown Act. City Attorney Richman stated it is common when property owners are disabled to ask the city if they have a large van and cannot properly park in the driveway shared a long- term solution typically for ask for an accommodation with the Planning Division; shared another city she works for a resident had an autistic child that was a flight risk, so they requested their driveway be closer to the front of the door. Mayor Armenta shared another email from a resident, "Good Afternoon Mayor Armenta. As you know these are very uncertain and hard times we are going through. We are all being affected in some way or another by COVID-19. While I do appreciate what the state and local officials are doing to keep us all safe, I find it very cruel and unjust what parking enforcement did to me and I am sure to other families that are following the Stay -at -Home Order. I was given a ticket for violation Code 225028 for parking more than 18 inches from the curb. In a time where I am staying home in doing my part and have only moved my car for street sweeping, I get punished." She stated when this was brought to the Assistant City Manager, he indicated it was unsafely parked away from the curb and creating a hazard. Mayor Armenta indicated she was not even aware that we have a Rosemead Parking Administration and only found out since she was copied on the Assistant City Manager's response to the resident providing the details of the appeal process. Council Member Ly stated he respects Mayor Armenta's passion of putting the resident first and research into this matter; however, with the state that we are in during this pandemic, sometimes the way we present certain items can be colored and sometimes even take away from the actual content of the item, so we have to be cautious of that; opined in your discussion, I feel a lot of the criticisms that were levied towards staff make it seem like staff was not working towards finding a resolution, even if that resolution was not a good resolution for what we wanted at that time. I truly believe our staff as a whole has been incredibly diligent in trying to solve the problems of our residents, businesses and this Council. I think you brought up some good points here, however I understand where staff's perspective is in regard to the liability issues such as ADA compliance. There are a lot of litigators and attorneys out there that take joy in finding these types of violations and that part of the apron is city owned but if it goes over that means the city is liable for that ADA violation. That does not mean we cannot find win- win situations; indicated support for City Attorney Richman's suggestion. Emphasized when we present and discuss these items that we do so with the due respect that we give Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 22 of 28 each of our colleagues but also to those that serve us on the Council. I believe everyone has the best interest of Rosemead. Opined the Rehabilitations Appeals Board seems as if it would put Council Members in a dangerous situation of having to essentially choose between residents on which point of views or concerns are more important and we need to administer it as fairly as possible otherwise it will create the perception that we are picking sides. We take that risk as Council Members and whoever we delegate that responsibility to if they do not administer the Municipal Code as most as possible between all parties involved. We represent all members of the community. I respect and value your opinion on this, but I have to disagree with its approach. It is important we need to have more conversations that moves away from emails and texts. Urged everyone to find ways to be more understanding with one another, if there is conflict with our residents, staff, or Council to resolve those matters with more empathy. Mayor Armenta responded she appreciates and values Council Member Ly's input, however during this course of interaction the reason she now resorts to emails and texts is because many times I verbally ask for a status on items and the response I receive is "I don't recall." So I have no other choice but to put it in writing via email or text. Concurred with Mr. Ly about the professionalism, however opined she also finds it disrespectful that calls, emails, and texts are not being responded to. Stated perhaps my approach was wrong, but I am seeking Council's help since I was not offered that when sought out. Mayor Pro Tem Low expressed confusion if Mayor Armenta is seeking Council's help with how to address these two cases presented or how to assist her with getting help from staff; agreed with Council Member Ly that Mayor Armenta always wants to help the residents, but I am a black and white person. Looking at this, he violated the Code and that's why we have the Code so there is consistency. Stated if we make an exception for this case to void the ticket, then I can see every time someone gets a ticket they are going to come to Council and ask them to void their ticket — exactly what we don't want. I am sorry that the resident received the ticket, but we have to follow the code. Emphasized in order to be fair, we have to be consistent. Rehabilitations Appeals Board will create a perception that if a resident knows someone on Council then they can get away with whatever and we don't want that. If Code Enforcement goes out there and does their job, if we override them, it sends a negative message to staff. In regard to the first case, it is trickier since it pertains to ADA compliance. City Attorney Richman stated if someone is in a wheelchair and trying to cross through the sidewalk, the City would not be liable, but we do have the obligation to enforce the ADA compliance by not allowing blocked sidewalks to the best extent we can. And from Code Enforcement's perspective, that is a clear safety violation. Asserted it is within their rights as a property owner to take the initiative to approach the City to assist them with another alternative. Noted City Manager Molleda also suggested another option is to evaluate if a blue curb could be painted in front of their sidewalk. Mayor Pro Tem Low ascertained if we are following the Code, I have to be honest, I myself would not have another way to help with this matter. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 23 of 28 Mayor Armenta clarified the intent is to see what we can do when situations like this occur through an appeal process — it does not have to be Council, just administrative. These appeals submitted online are through Citation Processing Center, which are routed to Newport Beach, so we do not know what or how they are determining the results. Mayor Pro Tem Low asked if there was another way to submit an appeal if someone did not have access to the internet. City Manager Molleda responded appeals can also be submitted by mail; noted if that appeal gets denied, there is a second step that can be appealed to the Appeal Officer, which is the City Manager or its designee. Mayor Pro Tem Low inquired if the resident was informed of both appeal processes. Assistant City Manager Kim affirmed both of the appeal processes are on the City's website where the resident would go to download the appeal form; indicated both of these residents never contacted staff directly regarding the appeal. In the email stated the resident tried to submit the appeal online, but for some reason they were not able to successfully. Stated if an individual reaches out to us, even on the 21" day in which the appeal is due, we will work with them if we are aware extra time is needed to submit the appeal. Mayor Pro Tem Low stated that she did not know what the problem was. On this case, we can reach out to the resident and see how we can help the resident. City Attorney Richman advised to let the resident know that she would need to apply to make a request with the City. She reiterated that City staff cannot advise on what the resident needs. The resident would have to ask for that accommodation on what options there are. Mayor Pro Tem Low stated that Assistant City Manager Kim could contact the resident to notify that during City Council meeting that if they want to that, she would need come to the City and apply for her request. Mayor Armenta stated we as Council advocate for the residents to speak on their behalf, it doesn't negate the fact that the resident reached out to her. As a result, I brought it to City staff s attention and this is why she felt the need to have brought it to a Council meeting as a discussion. She stated her recollection on the specifics of the difficulties the resident was going through on the appeal process. She noted that it shouldn't matter what avenue the issue went to staff, it was brought up to staff. Assistant City Manager Kim stated he recalled describing of the proper protocol. If a resident receives citation, the person that received the citation, needs to submit an appeal. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 24 of 28 Council Member Clark asked in a situation like this, is our process to have Code Enforcement leave a warning such as please move your vehicle by today otherwise it will be cited tomorrow or do they automatically site without a warning. Mayor Pro Tem Low clarified that this was not the first time as the resident's letter stated this was their second citation. Council Member Clark asked if staff reached out to the resident prior to issuing the first citation. City Manager Molleda responded this was the first time this matter was brought to our attention, so we did not know what reasoning for the first citation. City Attorney Richman stated in regard to parking citation do we issue a warning prior to issuing a citation. Assistant City Manager replied generally no. Mayor Pro Tem Low emphasized if you issue one warning letter, then you have to be consistent and start doing warning letters for all citations. Council Member Clark stated this is a unique situation because those who park on the street when they know it is street sweeping day, that is their fault. Mayor Armenta clarified I am not disputing they are in violation, however, you can clearly see the resident was trying their best to park within their driveway and clear the sidewalk; opined there are certain situations that warrants a judgment call. Council Member Ly interjected but whose judgment call? Mayor Armenta responded that is why I am asking to look into an administrative process. Mayor Pro Tem Low asked if there are areas with short driveways and have their cars parked with their tails out. Mrs. Armenta responded do we ticket people that do not have sidewalks and are parked at the base of their driveway? Mrs. Low stated we don't; asked is that the Code now that people with short driveways can park on the sidewalk. Mrs. Armenta noted they just redid her driveway and they were not allowed to pave the base of the driveway because it is part of the sidewalk that belongs to the City. Mr. Kim clarified both of those citations are in violation of the California Vehicle Code, so it is a State Code, not the City's Code. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 25 of 28 Council Member Ly inquired if that is the case, let's say we create an Appeals Board, do we have the authority to remedy a State code since it is out of our jurisdiction. City Attorney Richman responded that we adopted the California Vehicle Code to be part of our Code, so we can't change the inches; we cannot pass a law that allows people to block sidewalks because that will be an ADA violation. What are the facts you are deciding it is appropriate? It's not liability that we are going to be sued, it is more concern of setting a precedence to a slippery slope. Mayor Armenta stated the reason for the appeals board is not to waive it 3 inches, it is a place to have an opportunity for a win-win situation. For instance, if someone needs additional time for the appeal process or to pay the ticket. Council Member Clark indicated she had a similar situation that a resident emailed me as they thought they were not being ticketed for street sweeping during COVID. I would like to have a workshop with Code Enforcement to relay we are here to serve the residents kindly. Mayor Armenta painting a blue curb in front of the property will not work because the resident's van was already hit once from parking it on the street. Council Member Ly stated I do not feel Code Enforcement staff should be placed in a situation where they have to make judgment calls where people will be upset with them. We have the Code for a reason and that is what Code Enforcement's job is to enforce the Code. Mayor Pro Tem Low gave kudos to our Code Enforcement because they work very closely with residents and businesses; emphasized we have to back our staff and recognize their efforts. Council Member Dang stated he had a similar experience of people blocking the sidewalk, but his was from the opposite perspective; there is an Army veteran that is in a wheelchair, and every time he gets to a particular portion of the block, he has to go off the sidewalk and then get back up to the sidewalk. He stated the veteran must have got frustrated and found a new route because he didn't see him after awhile. The reason I am sharing this story is because there is always two sides of a story otherwise we would not be in this predicament. Looking at it from an Engineering perspective, it looks like the van can park parallel to the garage door. Accommodation facilitation, he needed a handicap ramp in his front yard, so they gave him a waiver; someone has to draw the plans and submit it to Planning; even though the mechanism is there, it is not as easy as it sounds as there is a due process of achieving these alternatives. As far as the blue curb, they can go through the Traffic Commission to make that request. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 26 of 28 Council Member Ly asked Council Member Clark if her desire for the Appeals Board was to go through a Council level, a Commission, Administrative Officer designated by the City Manager? Council Member Clark responded once the City reopens from the pandemic, she would like to try a two Council Members along with staff. Mayor Armenta expressed concern if Council would be involved in the Appeals Board because we don't want to create a perspective of favoritism. City Attorney Richman stated there is already a process, so the question is do you want Council to be a part of that process? Council Member Ly recommended placing an item on a future Council agenda how our appeals process works as well as some ways to make it City friendly. Mayor Pro Tem Low echoed it is a good idea to bring back the appeals process for review. Council Member Clark shared an instance where there was a Public Safety Connections meeting, a person who was voluntarily serving the City, received a ticket for being two feet over the red curb; expressed frustration that instead of Code Enforcement trying to issue a warning, they just gave them a ticket. City Attorney Richman asked how Code Enforcement would know that individual was participating in the meeting. Mayor Armenta responded the staff was asked if he knew that individual was part of the meeting and indicated yes and still issued a citation. Council Member Ly opined we have to be careful what authority we give our front-line staff because sometimes those calls may backfire. Council Member Clark shared that at a past 4th of July parade, a member of the public that was not a member of Council parked in a designated Council parking spot; noted she observed staff nearby ask that person to move their car so that they do not receive a ticket; indicated she was happy how staff handled the situation and emphasized open communication can go a long way. City Manager Molleda reiterated the direction is that Council would like a full report of how the appeals process works, and to bring back solutions to make it City friendly. C. Council Comments Council Member Ly stated it's important to do our best and seek to understand and then be understood. It's also important to strive for a win, win opportunity whenever possible. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 27 of 28 He shared that he had a misunderstanding with a friend over a text and hopes to resolve the matter face to face conversation in the future over the comment made. He noted that reading a comment is only ten percent of the actual value statement and sometimes hard to interpret correctly. He clarified that everyone in the City works for the City and the residents, businesses, and all have the same goal to make the City better. Council Member Clark stated she sits on the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Task Force and asked the City Council to send a letter supporting SB 1191, which gives credit for cities for good faith efforts on their organics recycling. She urgently requested the letter be sent, since there was only one hearing scheduled. Mayor Pro Tem Low agreed with Council Member Ly's comments and stated she commends City staff for their work and the City Council needed to support them and work together. Mayor Armenta disagreed with Council Member Ly and Mayor Pro Tem Low's comments and did not negate that the City staff does work hard. She expressed there have been situations where she felt she was not being heard. She continued with her comments and lamented to adjourn the meeting in memory of Rosemead residents Virginia and Gilbert Quiroz. Both were very involved with the Rosemead community; however, Mr. Quiroz was a member of the Latinos Unidos Club and a spokesperson on other senior clubs. Both Mrs. and Mr. Quiroz passed away days apart and were married for almost 60 years. Thanked the Quiroz family for sharing their parents with the Rosemead community. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Armenta adjourned the meeting at 11:18 p.m., in memory of Virginia and Gilbert Quiroz. The next regular scheduled City Council meeting will take place on May 12, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Co '1 Chamber. Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk APPROVED: Polly, Ld M or Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, and Housing Development Corporation Special Joint Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2020 Page 28 of 28