CC - Item 6A - Discussion of the Rosemead Park Walking TrailROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BEN KIM, CITY MANAGER
DATE: JULY 12, 2022
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF THE ROSEMEAD PARK WALKING TRAIL
In December 2020, the reconstruction of the Rosemead Park Walking Trail (Trail) was
completed. On January 12, 2021, a community petition was filed at City Hall stating safety
concerns of the newly reconstructed Trail. In response to the community petition, on January 26,
2021, the City Council directed staff to develop options to improve the Trail and address the
community concerns. At the April 27, 2021, City Council meeting, staff presented options to
improve the Trail. However, none of the options were approved by City Council. On September
29, 2021, the City Council directed staff to develop a Trail Subcommittee to assist in identifying
additional potential options for improvements to the Trail. The Trail Subcommittee performed a
thorough evaluation of potential options and has developed a recommended option. It is
recommended that the City Council discuss the options presented in this staff report and provide
direction to staff to proceed with the selected option.
DISCUSSION
In October 2008, the construction of the original Trail was completed. The 3,000 -feet long Trail
consisted of a 6 -feet wide by 4 -inch deep concrete base, approximately 0.5 -inch synthetic layer,
and 3 -inch wide concrete headers, as shown in Figure 1.
3" 6' 3" CONCRETE HEADERS
1
0.5" SYNTHETIC LAYER
4" CONCRETE BASE
Figure l: Existing Rosemead Park Walking Trail Section
AGENDA ITEM 6.A
City Council Meeting
July 12, 2022
Page 2 of 6
In September 2020, the City Council awarded the construction contract to Access Pacific, Inc. of
Pasadena, CA in the amount of $376,182 for reconstruction of the Trail including replacement of
the deteriorated synthetic layer. In December 2020, reconstruction of the Trail was completed.
On January 12, 2021, a community petition was filed at City Hall, stating safety concerns of the
newly reconstructed Trail, including reports of joint pain due to the stiffness of the synthetic
layer. In response to the community petition, on January 26, 2021, the City Council directed staff
to develop options to improve the Trail and address the community concerns. The City Council
also directed staff to present the options to the Parks Commission and for the Parks Commission
to make a recommendation to the City Council.
At the April 27, 2021, City Council meeting, staff presented the Parks Commission
recommended Option 2 and additional options as follows:
Option 1 - Acceptance of the existing Trail:
• No cost impact.
Option 2 — Construct a new synthetic laver over the existin¢ Trail:
• Construct a softer 1 -inch synthetic layer over the existing synthetic layer at a cost of
approximately $164,000 as shown on Figure 2.
• Option 2 was recommended by Parks Commission at the March 2, 2021 Parks
Commission meeting.
Option 2 was not approved by City Council due to potential tripping hazard of the new
synthetic layer and durability concerns of the bonding between the additional layer and
the existing surface.
6' EXISTING 3"
CONCRETE HEADERS
NEW 1"
.x•AeuaaaaWIN a.
EXISTING 0.5"
SYNTHETIC LAYER
EXISTING 4"
CONCRETE BASE
Figure 2: Option 2 — Construct a new synthetic layer over the existing Trail
City Council Meeting
July 12, 2022
Page 3 of 6
Option 3 - Complete removal of existine Trail and construction of a new Trail:
• Complete removal of existing Trail, including concrete base and synthetic layer.
• Construct 4 -inch rock subbase, 2 -inch synthetic layer, and 6 -inch concrete headers at a
cost of approximately $985,000 as shown on Figure 3.
• Option 3 was not approved by City Council due to high cost of implementation.
6" 1 6'
2" SYNTHETIC
LAYER
l" ROCK SUBBASE
Figure 3: Option 3 — Complete removal of existing Trail and construction of a new Trail
The City Council did not approve any of the aforementioned options and directed staff to
continue to evaluate additional options to address community concerns of the Trail.
On September 29, 2021, the City Council directed staff to develop a Trail Subcommittee to assist
in identifying additional potential options for improvements to the Trail. On October 26, 2021,
the City Council appointed Council Member Sandra Armenta and Council Member John Tang to
the Trail Subcommittee and directed staff to obtain representation of one member of the Parks
Commission. On November 8, 2021, the Parks Commission appointed Commissioner Phieu Luu
to the Trail Subcommittee.
Subsequently, the Trail Subcommittee held three meetings to discuss and evaluate potential
options to improve the Trail including a successful meeting with the community at Rosemead
Park on April 2, 2022. The Subcommittee performed the following tasks during their evaluation:
• Research of the Trail record drawings and construction documents.
• Review and validation of the previously developed options.
• Outreach with former staff involved in the design and construction of the 2008 and 2020
Trail.
• Outreach with leading walking trail vendors and contractors to determine best
City Council Meeting
July 12, 2022
Page 4 of 6
improvement options, materials, and practices.
• Evaluation of additional options and development of a recommended option.
Based on the Subcommittee's evaluation the following items were determined:
• The synthetic layer installed in 2008 is no longer available in the current synthetic
walking trail market with a product warranty. To achieve a softer Trail surface,
installation of a minimum 1.5 -inch synthetic layer is required.
• The concrete headers were constructed with an approximately 0.25 -inch wide control
joints located approximately every 6 -feet along the Trail and serve as drainage outlets.
• Based on the existing Trail configuration and design constraints, staff has developed and
recommends Option 4 — Grind and remove 1 -inch of existing concrete base and install
new synthetic layer as described below and shown on Figure 4.
Option 4 — Grind existing concrete base and install new synthetic laver:
• Remove existing 0.5 -inch synthetic layer.
• Grind and remove 1 -inch of the existing concrete base to accommodate new 1.5 -inch
synthetic layer.
• Construct new softer 1.5 -inch synthetic layer.
• Estimated project cost is approximately $500,000. Actual cost will be determined through
a formal bidding process.
Option 4 achieves project goals, including a softer synthetic layer addressing the
resident's safety concerns, minimizing impacts to the existing Trail resulting in cost
effectiveness, and product durability.
3" 6' EXISTING 3"
CONCRETE HEADERS
GRIND 1" OF CONCRETE BASE &
INSTALL 1.5" SYNTHETIC LAYER
3" CONCRETE BASE
Figure 4: Option 4 — Grind existing concrete base and install a new synthetic layer
City Council Meeting
July 12, 2022
Page 5 of 6
Furthermore, the Subcommittee evaluated other improvement options including Option A -
removal of the existing synthetic layer and adding a new tapered layer with varying depth, and
Option B - removal of the existing synthetic layer, increasing the height of the existing concrete
headers by 1 -inch to accommodate a new synthetic layer. However, due to non-conformance
with ADA requirements, potential tripping hazards, and product durability concerns, Options A
and B were not further developed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the options as noted above and provide direction
to staff to proceed with one of the following options:
• Option 1 - Acceptance of the existing Trail.
• Option 4 - Grind existing concrete base and install a new synthetic layer.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this item will depend on action taken by the City Council and defined
below:
Option 1 - Acceptance of the existing Trail.
• No fiscal impact.
Option 4 - Grind existing concrete base and install new synthetic layer.
• Estimated project cost is $500,000. Actual cost will be determined through a formal
bidding process.
• Costs for Option 4 is included in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Annual Budget as a placeholder
and is funded by State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) in the amount of
$500,000.
STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT
The Project is consistent with the City of Rosemead's Strategic Plan Goal D - Parks and
Programs, which is to continue to expand the existing green space, park facilities, and programs
available in the City through community partnerships, expanded stewardship from the
community, development of more robust cultural programming.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process
City Council Meeting
July 12, 2022
Page 6 of 6
Prepared by:
W ciitcoe
Michael Chung, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Attachment A: April 27, 2021, City Council Staff Report and Community Petition Letter
Attachment A
City Council Staff Report
Dated April 27, 2021
ROSEMEAD 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.
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:
Option1: 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.
I:TH DQ1171 Y 1 016 A.1
City Council Meeting
April 27, 2021
Pape 2 of 4
Option 2: Additional Layer Over Completed Surface .................$163,649 Approximate Cost
Figure 1. Additional Layer Over Completed Surface
Overview. The City may choose to add an additional one -inch (1") layer of Rubberway Pervious
Pavement (PP) 3000 (aon rous material) atop the recently completed non -porous surface. The
porous material contains more voids and entrains more air (when dry) which yields a "softer"
surface. The raised layer above grade would allow diffusion of storm or irrigation water
collected over its surface laterally through its pores.
Accessibility. The raised layer would require transitions to "ramp" the longitudinal slope of the
surface at the perpendicular crossings in locations like the paths to the playground areas.
Meaning, the transitions in those areas would likely feel similar to the newly constructed surface
in those areas.
Aesthetics. Should this option be chosen, the final condition or aesthetic of the trail will not
resemble the existing condition as the trail will appear raised. The unsupported edges not being
flush -mounted between concrete headers may also be more susceptible to chipping or spalling at
the edges. Rubberway can provide material samples for inspection by the City.
Vehicles. The overlaid surface would be recommended for walking and jogging only as opposed
to the multipurpose use of the newly constructed surface. The overlaid surface is not
recommended for use by bicycles or by extension park maintenance vehicles known to drive
over the Trail.
Construction. The additional work for the project must be rebid.
Cost Impact. A breakdown of the rough order of magnitude cost can be found in Attachment B.
Option 3: Demolish and Replace Rosemead Park Trail ............... $984,463 Approximate Cost
Overview. The City may choose to demolish and replace the entirety of the Rosemead Park Trail.
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:
f, Chris Dast6,
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.
To whom it may concern,
-1i9PEIVED
CITY CIFYOSEMEAD
JAN 14 RECD
CITY K O FICE
BY:
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
� 10
1Jf L
3, Jol+n Ny�+7Qn
Av-e
�V�,j eknT--�
t
.s
19 k, „r
cL
•
-
r
I -n _--. — t�n '.� � �.. .._..—,—' -__ •rim-.—.>a�.:._r_ n+yi,iw�.r, • •�
1.
�J' r - i? ' . � Frpf .. - ..... _ _'•_- --y''n•)•� _.a-�Y : »:,a..: ... `y,ra�e..- <:�
� •e
•� •r•• ,?i: _�. _ _. -. _gyp .F'e -_-. _ i -•r �- .w.
Attachment B
Additional Layer for Rosemead Park
Cost Estimate
m u I h o I I a n d* Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate Revision No. 0:2/14/21
Option 2: Additional Layer for
Rosemead Park Walking Trail
No
Item
Unit
Quanti
Unit Price'
Cost
Mobilization, Demobilization, and
Hard Costs
Miscellaneous Items of Work (Not
1
to Exceed 5%)
1.00
LS
$
4,633.50
$
4,633.50
Clearing, Grubbing, and
2
Miscellaneous Removals
1.00
LS
$
3,000.00
$
3,000.00
Work Area Protection (Includes
3
Notification, Fencing, and Securi
1.00
LS
$
25,000.00
$
25,000.00
4
Construct 1" PP3000 Wear La er
58.00
CY
$
1,115.00
$
64,670.00
Hard Costs Subtotal =
$
97,303.50
100 ITopographic Survey
Soft Costs
1.00
1 LS
1 $
10,000.00
$
10,000.00
101
Desi n/Construction Documents
1.00
LS
$
20,000.00
$
20,000.00
City Project
102
Management/Inspection
1.00
LS
$
15,000.00
$
15,000.00
So
is Subtotal
Hard Costs + Soft
Costs Subtotal =
142,30T50
15% Contingencyl
$
21,345.53
Estimated
49.
" : Costs presented include Prevailing Wages.
In providing opinions or estimates of probable construction costs, CLIENT understands that ENGINEER has no control
over costs, the price of labor, equipment or materials, or any contractors method of pricing. Opinions or estimates of
probable construction costs provided herein are made on the basis of ENGINEER'S qualifications and experience.
ENGINEER makes no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy of such opinions or estimates as compared to bid
or actual costs.
Attachment C
New Rosemead Park Walking Trail
Cost Estimate
Mulholland' Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Estimate Revision No. 1; 2/14/21
Option 3: New Rosemead Park Walking Trail
No
Item
I Unit
Quantic
Unit Price`
Cost
Mobilization, Demobilization, and
Hard Costs
Miscellaneous Items of Work (Not
1
to Exceed 5%)
1.00
LS
$
35,376.17
$
35,376.17
Clearing, Grubbing, and
2
Miscellaneous Removals
1.00
LS
$
3,000.00
$
3,000.00
Work Area Protection (Includes
3
Notification, Fencing, and Security)
1.00
LS
$
25,000.00
$
25,000.00
Demolition, Hauling, Proper
4
Disposal of Existing Surface
1.00
LS
$
50,000.00
$
50,000.00
Demolition, Hauling, Proper
Disposal of Existing Concrete
5
Headers and Base
1.00
LS
$
50,000.00
$
50,000.00
6
Construct 1" Wear Layer
58.00
CY
$
6,123.75
$
355,177.50
1" Base La er
58.00
CY
$
1,115.00
$
64,67Construct
4" Min. Thickness 3/4"
Crushed Rock Sub -base
225.00
CY
$
171.72
$
38,635.97
L87Construct
Construct 6"x6" Flush -mount
Concrete Headers
6,052.00
LF
$
20.00
$
121,040.00
Fine GradinR
18,156.001
SF
1 $
1.00
$
18,156.00
Hard Costs Sub
$
761,055.64
100 Topo ra hic Surve
Soft Costs
1.00
1 LS
1 $
10,000.00
$
10,000.00
101Construction
Stakin
1.00
LS
$
15,000.00
$
15,000.00
102
GeotechnicaVSoils Testin
1.00
LS
$
10,000.00
$
7000.00
ents
1.00
LS
$
45,000.00
$
45,000.00
1.00
LS
$
15,000.00
$
15,000.00
wii:Aifii
Soft Costs Subtotal =
00 .
Hard Costs + Soft Costs Subtotal =
856,055.64
15% Contin enc
128,40 .35
E imated Grand Total =
984.463.99
: Costs presented include Prevailing Wages.
In providing opinions or estimates of probable construction costs, CLIENT understands that ENGINEER has no control
over costs, the price of labor, equipment or materials, or any contractors method of pricing. Opinions or estimates of
probable construction costs provided herein are made on the basis of ENGINEER's qualifications and experience.
ENGINEER makes no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy of such opinions or estimates as compared to bid
or actual costs.
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, Somoso 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 Oceguem 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, Somoso and Tocki
3. MATTERS FROM STAFF
A. Rosemead Walking Trail
The Director of Public Works, Chris Dast6, 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 Dast6 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 Dast6 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 Dast6 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
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 Armenia 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. Armenia 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. Armenia 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
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 Somoso 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. Somoso 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
Somoso 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 Somoso 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 Dast& 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 Dast&
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 Dast6 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 leaming 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
could be funded through other resources such as grants. Director of Public Works
Dast6 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 traits.
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
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.
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 Somoso 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 Somoso 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.
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