Loading...
CC - Minutes - 07-27-21MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2021 The special meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Low at 6:06 p.m., in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Mayor Low, Mayor Pro Tem Dang, Council Members Armenta and Clark ABSENT: Council Member Ly STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Richman and City Clerk Hernandez 1. WORKSHOP A. Federal Public Affairs Advocacy Update by David Turch and Associates David Turch and Associates will present an update on federal public affairs and discuss new legislation and grant funding opportunities for the City. David Turch, Legislative Advocate, stated the Congress took a vote to not debate on a bill that does not exist; indicated a controversy issue of transit funding which you would think falls under the Public Works Committee falls under the Banking Committee. Mr. Turch shared as far as an infrastructure bill, there isn't one and there really hasn't been one, and if there is one, it is at least three separate bills. There are about four to eight bills circulating with amounts of $300 billion to $1.2 trillion and beyond; asserted we now have distilled those down to three bills. The Houses passed a bill called Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation in America Act (The Invest Act) has a bill with a five-year life for $759 billion. The Senate passed an Environmental and Public Works bill with a five-year life for $311 billion. Asserted that after we get the text of a Bipartisan Bill together in the Senate, it would be a five-year $974 billion bill or an eight-year $1.2 trillion bill. The Fast Act expired last September 301h at midnight and was extended for one year; noting we should be able to pass this legislation by that time otherwise we will have no national transportation policy and appropriations will also end. Emphasiz(.d time is of the essence as the House plans to adjourn beginning this Friday, July 301h, for an August recess. Mr. Turch promised they would continue workinl; hard on the city's behalf, and encouraged Council to be there to have these real di,, cussions that can influence the city's future. Council Member Clark inquired if thea; is anything in the bills pending for cities? Mr. Turch responded yes as it comes down to the COVID money which has not all been allocated or spent; explained t is program money for the objectives you want to achieve. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2021 Page 1 of 13 Council Member Armenta asked if you foresee any money allocated to states for more COVID relief since unemployment rates have fallen under the threshold of 8%. Mr. Turch stated we could probably get away with another infrastructure bill, but frankly I don't see another COVID relief on the horizon. Mayor Pro Tem Dang thanked Mr. Turch for doing his due diligence to present these updates in person; inquired if there will be any type of relief for students who are paying full tuition but not receiving the regular full college experience due to classrooms being closed, etc. Mr. Turch responded that the Biden Administration is in favor of a reconciliation package for student loans, however we don't know what that entails yet. Mayor Low thanked Mr. Turch for traveling to Rosemead to provide these updates. Mayor Low adjourned the special meeting at 6:40 p.m. The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council and Housing Development Corporation was called to order by Mayor Low at 7:05 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Low, Mayor Pro Tem Dang, Council Members Armenta and Clark ABSENT: Council Member Ly PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Council Member Armenta INVOCATION was led by Mayor Pro Tem Dang STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Molleda, Assistant City Manager Kim, City Attorney Richman, Chief of Police Lt. Duong, Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo, Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking, Acting Director of Public Works Ansari, and City Clerk Hernandez 2. PUBLIC COMMENT There being no speakers, Mayor Low opened and closed the Public Comment period. 3. PRESENTATIONS - NONE 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Public Hearing on Municipal Code Amendment 21-02 — Ordinance No. 1000 Municipal Code Amendment 21-02 (MCA 21-02) is a City initiated amendment to Title 17 ("Zoning") of the Rosemead Municipal Code by defining and establishing specific standards for live/work units in the residential/commercial mixed-use overlay zones. A live/work unit provides opportunities to integrate live and work in one space that is designed to combine residential occupancy and commercial activity such as artist studios, professional offices, software/media offices, or small - Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2021 Page 2 of 13 scale retail sales of art and crafts. In addition, MCA 21-02 will modify the approval requirement for an outdoor dining area in the residential/commercial mixed-use development overlay zones from a Conditional Use Permit to an Administrative Use Permit. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and 2. Introduce the first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 1000, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE APPROVAL OF MCA 21-02, AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING DEFINITIONS TO SECTION 17.04.050 DEFINITIONS - GENERAL OF CHAPTER 17.04, ADDING LIVE/WORK AS A PERMITTED USE IN ALL MIXED-USE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE CITY, ADDING LIVE/WORK AS A PERMITTED USE TO SECTION 17.28.030.C.1 PERMITTED USES, ADDING SECTION 17.30.210 LIVE/WORK TO CHAPTER 17.30 STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES WHICH ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR LIVE/WORK UNITS, AND MODIFYING THE APPROVAL REQUIREMENT FOR OUTDOOR DINING IN THE RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONES FROM A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT Planning and Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated MCA 21-02 is a City initiated amendment to Title 17 ("Zoning") of the Rosemead Municipal Code by defining and establishing specific standards for live/work units in the residential/commercial mixed-use overlay zones. In January 2021, the City Council approved the live/work interpretation for Artist Live/Work in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and discussed allowing live/work units in residential/commercial mixed-use developments citywide. On February 17, 2021, staff met with the Commercial Task Force Subcommittee to discuss the implementation of a citywide code amendment to incorporate live/work units in the residential/commercial mixed-use overlay zones. Based on the shift to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commercial Task Force Subcommittee agreed that an amendment to the Zoning Code would prepare the City for future changes to the post -pandemic workforce. Separate from live/work, MCA 21-02 is also proposing an amendment to the approval requirement for outdoor dining and residential/commercial mixed- use development overlay zone. Since the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the restaurant business community, amending the permitting requirement to streamline the outdoor dining approval from a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2021 Page 3 of 13 to an Administrative Use Permit ("AUP") in the Residential/Commercial Mixed - Use Overlay zones. On July 19, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 21-07 recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1000 approving MCA 21-02. The Planning Commission concluded that the Code amendments are the right direction to support the small business community. Mrs. Valenzuela noted for the record that staff has one amendment to Attachment A, page 6, Section 4, No. 10.0 — incorporate off-street parking requirements for live/work units in the freeway corridor mixed-use overlay. The public hearing for the freeway corridor mixed-use overlay is scheduled for the Planning Commission's August 2"d meeting, would require the amendment to this section being presented tonight. There being no speakers, Mayor Low opened and closed Public Comment. Council Member Clark asked how do you provide half of a guest parking space? Planning and Economic Development Manager Valenzuela responded parking is calculated in its entirety based off the floorplan submitted for a project; provided the example, if the total is 20.5 parking spaces, they would have to round up to 21 parking spaces. Council Member Armenta expressed concern for the safety of the restaurants' patrons. Are we looking into the bollards to protect guests dining outdoors? Mayor Low opined it is a fair request, but I heard the bollards are very expensive. Council Member Armenta stated it would be great to give the option to the owners of these businesses to include bollards, not necessarily make it a requirement. Council Member Clark suggested incorporating planters; noting we had a tragic loss of a friend from the League of California Cities from a similar situation. Mayor Pro Tem Dang expressed this live/work is a wonderful idea and praised staff for providing this tool for the business community. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Armenta and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Dang to introduce the first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 1000, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE APPROVAL OF MCA 21-02, AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING DEFINITIONS TO SECTION 17.04.050 DEFINITIONS -GENERAL OF CHAPTER 17.04, ADDING LIVE/WORK AS A PERMITTED USE IN ALL MIXED-USE LAND USE Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2021 Page 4 of 13 DESIGNATIONS IN THE CITY, ADDING LIVE/WORK AS A PERMITTED USE TO SECTION 17.28.030.C.1 PERMITTED USES, ADDING SECTION 17.30.210 LIVE/WORK TO CHAPTER 17.30 STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES WHICH ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR LIVE/WORK UNITS, AND MODIFYING THE APPROVAL REQUIREMENT FOR OUTDOOR DINING IN THE RESIDENTIAL/ COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONES FROM A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low NOES: None ABSENT: Ly City Attorney Richman read the title of Ordinance No. 1000 for the record. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR ACTION: Moved by Council Member Armenta and seconded by Council Member Clark to approve Consent Calendar Items A through C. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low NOES: None ABSENT: Ly A. Claims and Demands • Resolution No. 2021-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $2,120,816.66 CHECKS NUMBERED 109360 THROUGH NUMBER 109465, DRAFTS NUMBERED 5164 THROUGH NUMBER 5199, AND EFT NUMBERED 50647 THROUGH NUMBER 50678 INCLUSIVELY Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2021-36. B. Approval of Minutes Recommendation: That the City Council approve the meeting minutes of the special meeting of July 12, 2021. C. Consideration of Cancellation of the August 10, 2021, City Council Meeting On December 8, 2020, the City Council approved the 2021 Meetings Schedule and cancelled the second meeting in August for summer break. At this time, the City Council will consider the cancellation of the August 10, 2021, City Council meeting. The City Council maintains the ability to adjust other meeting dates if needed. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2021 Page 5 of 13 Recommendation: That the City Council cancel the August 10, 2021, City Council meeting. 6. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Resolution No. 2021-37 of Modification 21-01 — Friendly Inn Appeal Public Hearing at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard On July 13, 2021, the City Council conducted the continued public hearing on the appeal of Modification 21-01, a City initiated modification to amend the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 88-447 for a motel at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard ("Friendly Inn"). After hearing all public testimony, the City Council directed its legal counsel to bring back a resolution with the amended conditions of approval with findings at the next City Council meeting. Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2021-37, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE MODIFICATION 21-01 WITH REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO THEREBY AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-447 FOR THE MOTEL AT 2146 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD ("THE FRIENDLY INN") Mayor Low asked Mr. Porter to explain the process and recommendations to the City Council. Mr. Porter, Law Firm of Jones & Mayer, serving as Special Legal Counsel to the City Council, requested a minor amendment to the proposed resolution. He suggested to delete two words in Resolution No. 2021-37, in the Condition of Approval No. 4, third line currently states "he, she is aware of and accepts the recommendation", asked to delete the words "and accepts". In addition, in speaking with the applicant's counsel, Mr. Weiser would accept the conditions of approval, provided certain revisions are made. Frank Weiser, Counsel to Applicant owner for motel at 2146 San Gabriel Boulevard ("Friendly Inn"), stated he delivered a fourteen -page letter to the City Clerk for Council's review. He clarified there was a typo on page 12, where he referred to the operation of the hotel for 20 years, should state for 33 years. Mr. Weiser stated that his client would like to propose to the City a rehearing in three months and a tolling agreement in order to avoid any litigation in court. If after three months, the City Council felt that the conditions have to be in place again, for the time period, his client would not waive their legal rights. He reiterated his client is not contemplating or intending to go to court. They would agree to put two security guards, request a rehearing in three months, and see what happens after that point. Mr. Weiser suggested that his client still include a security Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2021 Page 6 of 13 patrol on their own, not as a condition, and try to get the matter resolved. Noted the amendment to the resolution is the three months instead of twelve months for a rehearing, and that his client was tolling any statute of limitation for purposes of having to appeal or litigate. Mr. Weiser noted that under 42 United States Code Section 93, that's a two-year statute of limitations. His concerns were under Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5 and 1094.6 which indicates an appeal of an administrative decision by the City or local bodies is 90 -days. Mayor Low agreed that the city would prefer not to go to court and wants to work with his clients in resolving the matter; asked how the Council would decide after three months. Mr. Weiser stated the City Council would have their independent right to exercise their discretion and the discussions within legal bounds; however, the Council would have the right to see the evidence and assess if there is any improvement. The Council could say two security guards is not needed and one is sufficient. Maybe have another tolling until the alleged problem is resolved to the city's satisfaction and see where there can be a permanent solution. Mayor Low expressed concern with the request for a rehearing in three -months as she felt it was too short of a time to see any significant improvements. Mr. Weiser affirmed its up to the City Council's discretion, as long as his client was not waiving their rights, and there's a tolling on the right to appeal the resolution itself within the 90 -day period. Clarified for the record that his client, Mrs. Chen and her son Andrew Chen gave Mr. Weiser authority to make an offer on their behalf. He noted he did not want any misconstrues between his client and the City. Andrew Chen, son of motel owner Mrs. Chen, stated that on behalf of his mother Mrs. Chen and himself, gave Mr. Weiser full authority to act on their behalf regarding this matter. Mayor Low recited the resolution stated there will be two guards 24/7 and instead of a rehearing at twelve months, it will be at three months. Council Member Armenia asked Mr. Weiser to clarify what he meant in his opening statement about the three months. Mr. Weiser explained he did not mean to limit the City's authority, he was stating that after three months, when the rehearing occurs, the City Council could determine if there has been improvements based on the evidence shown or decide on other actions. Mr. Weiser clarified his concern was not to waive his clients' legal rights to an appeal or the resolution. Council Member Armenta asked what criteria is going to be used in measuring whether or not the motel conditions have improved or not. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes ofJuly 27, 2021 Page 7 of 13 Mr. Porter explained that in Condition of Approval No. 10, Mr. Weiser had informed him that he was comfortable with the language as drafted. Reiterated, that the twelve months, and dependent on Mr. Weiser's proposal, the number "12" would be changed to three months. Also asked if the City Council preferred to have the rehearing directly with the City Council instead of the Planning Commission as currently stated in the resolution, it was an appropriate change. The resolution currently stated that in three months, the Planning Commission shall conduct a Public Hearing on Modification 21-01 to determine whether to add, revise or remove Conditions of Approval, based upon the operations of the facility during the period since the effective date of Council resolution, and whether the conditions stated in Resolution No. 2021-37, will continue to be appropriate to mitigate the impacts of substance of the subject property on an ongoing basis. Such decision may be appealed to the City Council consistent with procedures of Chapter 17.160, as it may be amended from time to time. Council Member Armenta clarified that the amendment to the resolution was to be from twelve to three months. She explained she wanted to make sure it was on the record to ensure there is no switching on either side. City Attorney Richman asked if there was city staff perspective on how they envision the tolling agreement. Mr. Porter suggested to the City Council that if they agreed to the tolling agreement, that they direct the City Attorney to enter into a tolling agreement that the City Attorney would find acceptable. Mayor Low asked for clarification about the tolling agreement. Mr. Porter explained a tolling agreement is an agreement that says the other party agrees not to sue the City for 90 -days, and the City agrees that the motel owners do not lose their rights to sue the City once the 90 -day period is over. Normally, they would only have 90 -days to sue the City, where the clock is ticking. Under the tolling agreement the timing is not ticking for the motel owner. City Attorney Richman inquired if the rehearing would be before the Planning Commission. Mr. Porter replied the current resolution was drafted to go before the Planning Commission, but that is up to the City Council if they want it to go to the Planning Commission directly or to the City Council. Mayor Low stated she was okay with it going to the Planning Commission. Council Member Clark interjected that the rehearing should come before the City Council instead of the Planning Commission; acknowledged that although the Planning Commission came up with the conditions, the City Council is the body making the decisions such as whether to enter into litigation. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2021 Page 8 of 13 Council Member Armenta asked Mr. Porter if there were any liability concerns if the rehearing was to first go to the Planning Commission rather than the City Council. She expressed if a delay may be of concern for the City. Mr. Porter explained the resolution did not specify 30 days or 90 days, only that it will take place shortly after; stated essentially the next meeting, or in a month, or at a reasonable time frame. Council Member Armenta inquired if there was an appeal by the motel owner, then would the item have to come back to the City Council? Mr. Porter affirmed the current resolution as drafted can be changed so the matter goes to the City Council and not the Planning Commission. If the City Council prefers to skip the middleman, in case there is an appeal in any event, it would be appropriate. Council Member Armenta asked if there is an appeal, which was highly probable, usually it goes to the Planning Commission that serves at the advisory board to the City Council; expressed it was better to have the matter go directly to the City Council. Mr. Weiser stated his client's preference was to have the City Council do the hearing because of the information already discussed. The Planning Commission had not been part of the discussions. He noted that his client was agreeable to 180 days which would provide the City with time to prepare for the hearings. Mayor Low agreed with Council Member Clark that the matter should continue with the City Council because of the decisions being made. Asked Mr. Porter to reiterate the amendments to the Conditions of Approval and Resolution. Mr. Porter also suggested that in the second line of Condition of Approval No. 10, to strike the word "Planning Commission" and replace that with "City Council". Also, the final sentence would be deleted, because the City Council would not have the ability to appeal the decision. So, you delete, "such decision may be appealed to the City Council consistent with procedures of Chapter 17.1 60 as it may be omitted from time to time". Additionally, the revision from "twelve -months" to "three -months". Council Member Armenta asked where the 180 days would be added. Mr. Porter replied that a separate motion would be appropriate to authorize the City Attorney to enter into a tolling agreement for a period not -to -exceed 180 days. Mayor Pro Tem Dang suggested Condition of Approval No. 10 to be six -months instead of twelve -months, which was about 180 days, which would line up with the tolling agreement. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2021 Page 9 of 13 Mr. Porter replied that was acceptable. However, the applicant had indicated they were willing to agree to this on the condition that it only be a three month and the tolling agreement. Mr. Weiser stated the tolling agreement is only to prevent litigation during that period and proposed a four month as a compromise to the six months proposal. Council Member Armenta agreed that six months was a better option to allow the motel owner to show any improvements. The City wants to be good partners with them but both sides have to agree and each entity has to also make sure that whatever is being said is happening. Mayor Pro Tem Dang explained to Mr. Weiser, the reason he mentioned six months was because Mr. Callahan stated during his testimony that there was going to be a lot of police activity in the first few months while in the process of kicking people out and cleaning the neighborhood. If that data was brought to the City Council, then it would not be to the motel owner's advantage. Mr. Weiser consulted with his client and compromised for five months. Mayor Low stated that Council wants to give the motel owner enough time to make progress. Andrew Chen replied the five months would work. Mayor Low asked Mr. Porter to reiterate the amendments to the Condition of Approval and Resolution No. 2021-37 for the record. Mr. Porter asked Mr. Weiser to confirm his clients agreed to the changes. Mr. Weiser stated his clients did accept the change to the five-month period, and they will keep the conditions of the resolution. Reiterated that if eventually the matter is not resolved, it was understood that his clients have their full rights to appeal the initial resolution. Mr. Porter reiterated the Council's motion to revise and approve the resolution on Condition No. 4 and Condition No. 10. To be a five-month period and delete the last sentence. The second portion of that motion would be to direct the City Attorney to enter into the tolling agreement not -to -exceed 180 days. Council Member Armenta asked if everything else in the resolution and conditions would remain the same. Mr. Porter affirmed the resolution and conditions would not be revised in any other manner. Mr. Porter clarified Condition of Approval No. 4, would be revised slightly to delete the words "and accepts". Otherwise, the condition would remain the same. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2021 Page 10 of 13 Also, Condition of Approval No. 10, the first sentence would be revised to instead, "provide if requested in writing by the applicant at a date shortly after five months from the effective date of Council Resolution No. 2021-37. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing" everything else would continue to be the same, except that the last sentence would be struck. In that last sentence and states, "such decision may be appealed to the City Council consistent with the procedures in Chapter 17.160 as it may be amended from time to time". ACTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Dang and seconded by Council Member Armenia to approve Resolution No. 2021-37, as amended to a five-month period, and amend Condition No. 4, "provide if requested in writing by the applicant at a date shortly after five months from the effective date of Council Resolution No. 2021-37. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing; and delete the sentence in Condition No. 10, "such decision may be appealed to the City Council consistent with the procedures in Chapter 17.160 as it may be amended from time to time". Motion was carried out by the following vote: AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low NOES: None ABSENT: Ly Mayor Low asked for a motion on the tolling agreement. ACTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Dang and seconded by Council Member Clark to authorize the City Attorney to enter into a tolling agreement with the motel owner for a period not -to -exceed 180 days. Motion was carried out by the following vote: AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low NOES: None ABSENT: Ly B. Proposed 2021 State and Federal Legislative Platform In recent years, a City Legislative Platform was developed to provide a streamlined process for responding to legislative proposals that may impact the City. The proposed Platform identifies the fundamental legislative issues deemed critical to the City, and upon Council approval, would allow staff to respond to legislative items efficiently. Recommendation: That the City Council adopt the proposed 2021 State and Federal Legislative Platform. By consensus, the City Council tabled Item 6B since it was requested by Council Member Ly who is absent tonight. C. 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. Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2021 Page 11 of 13 City Manager Molleda reported effective 11:59 p.m. on July 17`h, LA County Health Officers modified orders to require face masks to be worn by all persons regardless of vaccination status while indoor public settings and business, specifically on 1) public transit such as airplanes, ships, ferries, trains, subways, and buses; 2) public transportation hubs such as airports, bus terminals and trans stations; 3) indoor k-12, childcare and other youth settings; 4) healthcare settings including long-term care facilities; 5) state and local correctional facilities and detention centers; 6) homeless shelters; emergency shelters including cooling shelters; and 7) all indoor public settings, venues, gatherings and businesses. Ms. Molleda shared that as of today, Rosemead has 5,056 confirmed cases and 150 deaths; also the number of persons who have been vaccinated is 36,294 and that is a percentage of 78.9%, which includes people who have received at least one vaccination. 7. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL A. Council Comments Mayor Pro Tem Dang expressed he is happy to see we are moving back to normal with the return of more events such as Movie in the Park. He congratulated the Rosemead Rapid Swimmers for heading into the big 3 Championship Meet — the Southern California Swimming Jr. Olympic Championship, the Nevada Speedo Sectional Championship, and the USA Swimming Future Championships; stated he hopes to see those swimmers at future Olympics. Council Member Armenta stated at the last Council meeting we talked about SB 1383, noting since then we received a list of cities that obtained a consultant to oversee SB 1383; pointed out that none of the cities were in the San Gabriel Valley, even though it was supposedly stipulated in the San Gabriel Valley; reiterated her concern about having to always obtain consultants for things that should be in-house when we are hiring experienced people that can carry out these jobs; emphasized not everything warrants a consultant. Council Member Armenta indicated she has not received a report on the Rosemead Park Walking Trail; requested an update on where we are at, how we are moving forward and what efforts have been made. 8. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6: AGENCY DESIGNATED ORGANIZATION: City Manager Molleda and Acting Finance Director Chamberlain; and Katy Suttorp from Burke, Williams and Sorensen, LLP EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION: Rosemead Employee Association Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2021 Page 12 of 13 City Attorney Richman stated for the record that tonight's Closed Session was cancelled; rather there will be a special meeting tomorrow night, and Council will have the option to conduct the meeting via Zoom. 9. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Low adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. The next regular scheduled meeting will take place on August 10, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber. APPROVED: Rosemead City Council Special & Regular Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2021 Page 13 of 13 --- - Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk = --