Loading...
CC - Minutes - 07-13-21MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL, SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SPECIAL AND REGULAR JOINT MEETING JULY 13, 2021 The special meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Low at 6:00 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, Clark, and Ly ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Richman and City Clerk Hernandez 1. CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6: AGENCY DESIGNATED ORGANIZATION: City Manager Molleda and Human Resources Manager Popescu; and Katy Suttorp from Burke, Williams and Sorensen, LLP EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION: Rosemead Employee Association City Council recessed to Closed Session. The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council and Housing Development Corporation was called to order by Mayor Low at 7:37 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Low, Mayor Pro Tem Dang, Council Members Armenta, Clark, and Ly ABSENT: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Mayor Pro Tem Dang INVOCATION was led by Council Member Armenta 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 City Attorney Richman stated there was no reportable action taken in Closed Session. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Mayor Low opened the Public Comment period. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page l of 31 City Clerk Hernandez read the following Public Comments received via email. Sue Yamamoto, Community Library Manager, "As of July 12, Rosemead Library will be I J open one additional hour for our customers: Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on Tuesday from 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m. If you have any questions on our hours, services we offer to customers or the Sidewalk Service, please call us at (626) 573-5220. Thank you." Elise Frederick, resident, "We live on Lawrence Avenue, facing Muscatel Junior High. How did the "No Tolerance" on the 4`h work for you? The 4`h of July was insane here. Truly it has NEVER been that bad. Were fines issued and collected? If so, the city revenue must be amazing! Was there any attempt to get them to stop? Really another strategy is necessary. Making a law without enforcing it makes it a joke, and makes ALL other laws seem unenforceable. Thank you. - Tom and Elise Frederick" Martin Espinoza, resident, "I'm happy to see the Proclamation Declaring July 2021 as Parks Make Life Better in the City of Rosemead. Sadly, the conditions at Zapopan Park have become atrocious, and it has not made life better for the community surrounding it. What was once a beautiful, upgraded park has been destroyed by the drug addicts/homeless that live in and around the park. The fence surrounding the park, especially in the Northeast area where Earle Avenue and Delta Place meet, has become a patch job due to the homeless cutting multiple openings to gain access at night. The chain-link fence has been destroyed, and it allows these people to go in and out at all hours of the day and night. The sand in the playground area has become a litterbox because these people use it to urinate and defecate. There is trash in the park and along the fences. These people go through the neighborhood trash bins and bring junk to our street and leave it there. It's become a dumping ground. The neighbors are afraid of using the walking trail due to these men catcalling and harassing as one walks by. These people are under the influence, and I fear what they are capable of doing. Some of these people appear to be mentally unstable. I would hate to see what would happen if they snap. We've seen too many incidents where the homeless injure or kill innocent people. One of the entry gates has been chained up to keep these people out, but all it has done is prevent the law-abiding/tax-paying citizens' access. I would humbly suggest replacing the chain link fence with a rod iron type fence because the chain-link fence can be easily cut or pulled up. I would suggest enacting ordinances that would not allow camping/sleeping/storing personal property in or around the park. I would suggest regularly scheduled police patrol. I would suggest regular cleaning of trash that is left in and around the fence. I also challenge each council member to drive by (on Earle Avenue north of Garvey Avenue) and see what has happened to our once beautiful park. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to meaningful steps towards making Zapopan Park safe, secure, clean, and accessible to the residents. - Martin and Alice Espinoza" Mayor Low thanked the residents for providing these public comments and bringing these concerns to our attention; stated we will look into these matters. There being no further comments, Mayor Low closed the Public Comment period. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 2 of 31 3. PRESENTATIONS A. Proclamation Declaring July 2021 as "Parks Make Life Better Month" in the City of Rosemead Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking stated the pandemic has made it an interesting and challenging year for the Parks and Recreational professionals as it has made us think outside the box. We are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel as programming is returning to normal. We strive to make Rosemead a great place to live, work, and play by providing quality programs, services, and special events. Mr. Boecking also thanked the Public Works Department for their efforts to maintain the parks for the community. The City Council thanked the Parks and Recreation Department for their commitment to serving the community, especially during these challenging times. B. Announcement of Recipients of the Republic Services 2021 Rosemead Scholarship Program Tania Ragland-Castaneda, Municipal Relationship Manager, Republic Services, presented and highlighted the following college -bound students receiving a scholarship for writing about innovative recycling ideas: Jasmine L., Angela L., Ryan U., Steve T., and Getty L. The City Council congratulated the scholarship winners and wished them well in their future endeavors. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Public Hearing on General Plan Amendment 19-02, Zone Change 19-02, Tentative Tract Map 82870, Design Review 19-08, and Conditional Use Permit 20-08 at 3001 Walnut Grove Avenue and 8589 Garvey Avenue The Taiwan Center Foundation of Greater Los Angeles (Taiwan Center) has submitted entitlement applications requesting to develop a new residential/ commercial mixed-use development. The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures for the construction of a mixed-use development which includes 12 commercial condominiums that total 18,646 square feet and consists of a community hall (commercial recreation and entertainment), cafe, retail, and office units on the first and a portion of the second floor, and 42 residential condominium units on a portion of the second through fourth floors. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface, mezzanine, and one level of subterranean parking. The project also includes a density bonus application under Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 17.84 and Senate Bill (SB) 1818, which permits density bonuses up to 35%. The property is located at 3001 Walnut Grove Avenue and 8589 Garvey Avenue in the Medium Commercial (C-3) zone. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 3 of 31 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; 2. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2021-23, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82870, DESIGN REVIEW 19-08, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-08, AND A DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION, TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT SITE FROM COMMERCIAL TO MIXED-USE: RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL (30 DU/AC) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 12 COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS TOTALING 18,646 SQUARE FEET AND 42 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS (SEVEN OUT OF THE 42 UNITS WILL BE LOWER-INCOME). THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3001 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE AND 8589 GARVEY AVENUE (APNS: 5288-001-040, 041, 042, AND 043); 3. Introduce for first reading of Ordinance No. 999, by title only: j AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE t1.J1 CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 19-02, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE SUBJECT SITE TO INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL/ COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAYS (RC-MUDO/D-0) TO THE EXISTING MEDIUM COMMERCIAL (C-3) ZONE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 12 COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS TOTALING 18,646 SQUARE FEET AND 42 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS (SEVEN OUT OF THE 42 UNITS WILL BE LOWER-INCOME). THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3001 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE AND 8589 GARVEY AVENUE (APNS: 5288-001-040, 041, 042, AND 043); 4. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2021-34, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 4 of 31 ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM, AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-02, ZONE CHANGE 19-02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82870, DESIGN REVIEW 19- 08, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-08. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3001 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE AND 8589 GARVEY AVENUE (APNS: 5288-001-040, 041, 042, AND 043); and 5. File the Notice of Determination for the project. Associate Planner Lao stated the Taiwan Center Foundation of Greater Los Angeles has submitted entitlement applications requesting to develop a new residential/ commercial mixed-use development. The existing site is designated as a Medium Commercial (C-3) zone; Zone Change 19-02 will amend the zoning map of the subject site to include Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development and Design Overlays. The medium commercial base zone will remain. General Plan Amendment 19-02 will change the existing General Plan land use designation from Commercial to Mixed -Use: Residential/Commercial (30 units per acre). The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures for the construction of a new four-story mixed -used development which consists of 12 commercial condominium units, 42 residential condominium units, and a total of 204 off-street parking spaces. Staff has verified that the proposed development would be in compliance with most of the applicable development standards from the Municipal Code; however, a density bonus application has been submitted which permits the granting of concessions to deviate from development standard. Ms. Lao briefly noted the topics that were discussed at the June 7, 2021 Planning Commission meeting: proposed commercial condominium subdivision; trash collection along Garvey Avenue; and outdoor dining for the cafe. Staff recommendation was provided to Council. Mayor Low opened the Public Hearing. There being no speakers, the Public Comment period was opened and closed. Council Member Armenta inquired if this zone change will impact the residents. Associate Planner Lao replied an Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and it was concluded that with mitigation measures, it would not severely impact the residents north of the project site. Council Member Armenta thanked Ms. Lao; indicated she wanted to emphasize that even when we complete a zoning change, the city does its due diligence to ensure there is minimal impact to the residents. Council Member Clark expressed her concern with tall residential buildings is how they impact the line of sight on single or two-story homes within the area; Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2011 Page 5 of 31 stated she understands there is a 35 -foot setback behind it; asked if staff had any slides that show where the most impacted neighbors would be and how far it is from their homes. Mayor Low clarified on Council Member Clark's question to whether this project satisfies the line of sights the city placed? Associate Planner Lao responded we can pull up the project plans included in Exhibit A-4.1, Section A, the applicant shows a variable height requirement which the project does meet; noted there is a 28 -foot distance away setback. Council Member Clark inquired what is provided in the notices sent to residents impacted within 300 feet of the project? Ms. Lao stated the Public Hearing notice is very detailed with how many units, height, parking spaces, etc.; additionally, my contact information was included for any questions regarding the project. Council Member Armenta asked if the Public Hearing notices are sent in different languages? Ms. Lao replied the notices are currently only in English. Council Member Clark added we need to do something about that. Associate Planner Lao referred Council to the project plans, affirmed there is approximately a 33 -foot setback from the building to the property line and an additional width. Mayor Pro Tem Dang congratulated staff, Simon Lee and his team, and the Taiwan Center, on creating a mixed-use project on the Garvey Corridor, which is challenging in itself, emphasized from a development perspective, this is a very challenging site as it is narrow, noting when a building goes taller, the need for parking escalates as well. Applauded how they spent a tremendous amount of engineering, planning, and construction work to make it subterranean; stated he was impressed that you don't actually see the parking from the street since it's a wraparound, meaning the parking is hidden in the middle of the structure. Council Member Ly stated he is excited to see this project come to fruition, especially after the site was vacant for so long. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Armenta and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Dang to adopt staffs recommendations 2 through 5. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low, Ly NOES: None ABSENT: None City Attorney Richman read the title of adopted Ordinance No. 999 for the record. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 6 of 31 B. Continuation of Appeal Public Hearing of Modification 21-01 On June 22, 2021, the City Council conducted a duly noticed 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"). The Hearing was conducted and continued to July 13, 2021. Prior to the motion at the City Council Meeting on June 22, 2021, the City Council requested that the Friendly Inn (appellant), through its attorney, provide notice of the continued public hearing to motel occupants that the appellant stated were entitled to have notice. The City Council also requested that the Friendly Inn provide further information and cost estimates on private patrol service versus dedicated armed security guards. Recommendation: That the City Council continue the Public Hearing of Appeal of Modification 21-01. Mayor Low reiterated the public hearing was continued from June 22, 2021, and asked for City staff and appellant to provide comments during the continued Public Comment period. Al Ford, City Designated Counsel, stated the City had no further comments other than the closing presentation that was done at the June 22, 2021, meeting. However, the City Council requested to hear from the security service that the appellant's counsel is recommending. Mr. Frank Weiser, Legal Counsel for Appellant, introduced Michael Calloway and his associates that are proposed to provide the security services to mitigating the alleged issues that have been raised. He stated he provided documents to the City Clerk indicating how Mr. Calloway will implement his services in the motel voluntary by the appellants. The documents have house rules that must be abided by motel guests or result in enforcement up to eviction. Hotel will set rules where guests will sign disclaimers on what is allowed and not allowed on the property. Guest will sign registration cards agreeing that illegal activity prostitution, drug activity or any other criminal activity is absolutely prohibited and will be subject to eviction and subject to further legal law enforcement if necessary. Mr. Weiser noted Mr. Calloway, was a former Police Officer and well known in the Los Angeles area. Michael Calloway, Chief of James Glass Security, formerly known as Calloway Security, spoke about the services his company do to clean up and improve operations of motels. He explained they operate with a proactive philosophy and focus on preventing problems before contacting law enforcement. He reiterated that ' some house rules would change to ensure that if guests who do break any of the rules will be verbally warned, cited or even arrested. Installation of additional lighting throughout the property. Signage will be placed for no parking, meaning no sitting in cars, especially for non -guests. Guests that have guests will be Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 7 of 31 required to register with the cashier before being allowed to be in the property. Concentration will focus during the nighttime when crime is more active. Also } i noted that he does work with the City Attorney, Lead Officers and or City staff to (L/► ensure proper documentation of crime activities are recorded for use during court hearings. All his officers wear body cams to record and are reviewable upon request from any entity. Mr. Calloway spoke about the proposed four security guards, which will cost for the requested amount of security guards approximately $67,680 a month. He opined the manpower was excessive for a motel of its size and during COVID-19, it's very difficult for hire. He stated that his patrol services are proactive in doing random patrol checks at the motel. His employees wear a uniform and are in marked vehicles, having a presence at the motel. Larry Holmes Jr., Associate of James Glass Security Services, introduced himself having over 30 years of security services throughout the Los Angeles Area. He shared that the security company is equipped with proper equipment and technology to provide their services. Noted they work with the motel owner closely and address their concerns to improve the operations of their motels. Mr. Holmes Jr, also stated they work closely with police agencies and local authorities. He opined that increasing the lights on the property will also ensure crime is deterred. Mr. Calloway reiterated his company is a proactive service and achieves results. He noted that during the initial clean-up phase there will be an increase of police calls during the first 30 to 45 days from people who do not want to comply with the rules. Mr. Ford asked Mr. Calloway if a staff is onsite all 24 -hours. Mr. Calloway replied no, his staff conducts random patrols throughout the day and monitors the video feeds. Mr. Ford asked if he had reviewed the number of police calls to the motel over the last two and a half years. Mr. Calloway responded he did not review the police calls but was aware of the homicides that took place. Mr. Ford stated there had been 170 police calls from assault to drugs to murder. Asked if his security staff was armed. Mr. Calloway answered yes, all patrol officers are armed Mr. Ford asked if he had discussed with the motel owner about the amount of security guards that will be at the motel property at any given time. Mr. Calloway explained with the current COVID-19 situation, there will be two or three random patrols at the property throughout the day. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 8 of 31 Mr. Ford inquired about the night shifts the security guards would be present at the property. Mr. Calloway stated the amount of patrolling also depends on the activity in the property. Mr. Ford asked in addition to patrols, are any of the security guards also going to be getting out of the car and patrolling inside the motel? Mr. Calloway replied yes, dispatch will provide the security officers with information about an activity and request law enforcement if needed. Mayor Low stated both sides have made their comments and closed the Public Comment period and moved for City Council discussion. Mr. Weiser asked Mr. Calloway how many motels he has serviced as a security patrol in his career, their locations and the highest amount of police calls received. Mr. Calloway replied 300 to 400 motels that are near Figueroa in Los Angeles, El Segundo, Santa Monica, Culver City, Inglewood, Long Beach, La Puente, Rosemead, and County of Orange. He stated that the highest calls were 250 for a month prior to his services being implemented at a motel. Mr. Weiser inquired about the cost for Mr. Calloway's security service. Mr. Calloway replied his cost is approximately $1,500 to $2,000. Council Member Armenta asked Mr. Calloway on how he was to patrol the motel if he has difficulty hiring staff during the pandemic. Mr. Calloway replied that his prices are economical, and he is also out in the field. Council Member Armenta asked what the typical route of his patrol services is if they are patrolling other motels and how fast can they get to the Friendly Inn Motel when called. Mr. Calloway explained it was hard to know, since there are multiple vehicles patrolling the motels at different locations. Depending on which officer takes the call and the distance where they are driving from. Council Member Armenta asked what the closest motel is to the Friendly Inn that he patrols. Mr. Calloway replied that a motel in the City of Downey. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 9 of 31 Council Member Armenta expressed concern that knowing the distance and time from another motel to the Friendly Inn was a critical fact the City Council needs to know to make an informed decision on the matter. Mr. Calloway reiterated that his security officers deal with minor nuisances, and not felony crimes happening. For bigger crimes, law enforcement is called. Council Member Armenta asked who would be calling law enforcement when something happens on the property. Mr. Calloway replied although his officers are the first line in defense; when they are not on the property, his dispatch or the cashier may call law enforcement. Council Member Armenta expressed concern there will not be an officer present at all times on the property and patrol vehicles will be driving back and forth to other areas. Mr. Calloway assured City Council that his officers would be patrolling once they arrive, walk the property, talk to the manager, and check with dispatch. Council Member Clark asked about the security cameras and who is monitoring 24/7. Mr. Calloway explained that his officers can monitor remotely, as well as their dispatch at random times. He noted that his staff does not look at the cameras 24/7, but they all have access 24/7. Council Member Clark asked when will the dispatch look at the camera and call either law enforcement or security officers. Mr. Calloway replied at random times. Council Member Clark stated she would be more comfortable if there was dedicated personnel looking at the cameras 24/7. If the cashier is multitasking, you are not paying attention to other people where an activity may be occurring. Mr. Calloway stated that during his experience, suggesting someone monitor a camera for 24/7 is expensive. Also, there will still be instances where the staff may walk away for any reason and miss something in the cameras during that time. Council Member Clark asked City designated counsel what was suggested in the Condition of Approvals. Mr. Ford explained there were multiple suggestions based on the crime levels seen at the motel. In respect to security cameras, there was a significant increase requested — ten surveillance cameras on each floor, eight cameras in the parking lot, four placed around the parameter of the building, two placed in the lobby, one Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 10 of 31 in the elevator, and one in the stairwells of each floor, and for the cameras to have zoom capability, as well as longer video storage retention. Additionally, the requirement of additional signage, and four security guards to place at random points to be responsible for checking people and cars who are coming in and out of the property. Council Member Clark clarified that the motel is not meeting the proposal's Conditions of Approval requested. Mr. Ford affirmed. Mayor Pro Tem Dang asked Mr. Calloway how many employees are hired, number of contracts managing, and patrolling vehicles. Mr. Calloway replied he employs 12 staff and manages 18 contracts during the pandemic. Usually manages about 25-30 contracts. He clarified there are four staff patrolling at a given time. Mayor Pro Tem Dang asked in the event of a crime, if on-site security personnel are armed. Mr. Calloway affirmed. Mayor Pro Tem Dang stated that his patrol service equates to roughly about one patrol every two hours in the nighttime. Asked what the morning hours of the patrol would be. Mr. Calloway affirmed yes. The patrols hours may vary from three to four hours. He clarified that much of the patrol takes place during the nighttime when there is more activity. Mayor Pro Tem Dang inquired about the dispatch monitoring the cameras and phones. Mr. Calloway stated that dispatch staff does a little bit of everything including monitor cameras. Mayor Pro Tem Dang stated that the main services being provided from the company are patrolling and felt they have the capacity to clean out bad motels. Mr. Calloway agreed they do more patrolling, but also are active in handling many situations before contacting law enforcement. ' Mayor Pro Tem Dang inquired about the 30 to 45 days, being a critical transition period. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 11 of 31 Mr. Calloway stated that during the transition period increased calls are happening because there will be people who will not want to comply with the rules or evictions. Mayor Pro Tem Dang asked if he recommended two or four security guards at a minimum. Mr. Calloway replied he will be using two officers at night that can do the job. Mr. Ford clarified that the sheriffs recommendation was originally two security guards, but the Planning Commission asked for four. Mayor Low asked if the original recommendation is two guards 24/7. Mr. Ford replied yes, with two -armed security guards 24/7. Council Member Ly stated that the City Council should be deliberating on a plan that is agreeable. Mr. Ly read for the record, a message he received from resident John Tane, "This statement is that this is not an issue about a business. It's an issue that of a community affected by this business. With the City values, improving public safety, we need to address it with businesses like Friendly Inn, a well-known safe haven for criminals and criminal activity. This is as much a public safety issue as it is about adding conditions for business. Our Chief of Police recommended onsite security 24 -hours a day. It is an unusual condition to place on a business 24-hour security, but it is also unusual for businesses to have so many law enforcement cases, including two homicides. No other businesses in the City have had two homicides in one property, and one business. This one business has been consuming the city's resources and what have they contributed to the quality life of the City. Please support the Chief and the Planning Commission's recommendation to help local residents improve their community". Council Member Ly stated he calculated the cost of a law enforcement deputy if about $45 an hour, which is twice more than a security guard. Each police call takes about four hours, followed by paperwork, investigations, etc., 170 calls at the Friendly Inn have incurred approximately $193,000 for the year, in city resources and taxpayer money. One business is taking $193,000 of taxpayers' money to enforce a problem that they have caused. Therefore, supported the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mayor Low opined that it was important to have some law enforcement or security presence. She expressed concerns Mr. Calloway's staff will not always be present and the motel owner will have to continue to call the sheriffs for illegal activity happening. Stated she was amenable to having two security guards at the property instead of four. Council Member Armenta agreed that it was concerning that the patrolling service and the administrator will not be able to monitor the cameras 24/7. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 12 of 31 ' Council Member Clark stated the Planning Commission recommended six-month mark to revisit the matter. She reiterated she agreed with the Planning Commission's conditions. Mayor Low interjected that she would like to give the property owner a year instead of six months because it takes time to clean up the motel. Mayor Pro Tem Dang stated he respected the Planning Commission's decision but felt that posing something that will drain the motel owner's livelihood was concerning. He stated that if the property of the motel operated at 40% capacity during COVID, then two security guards is reasonable. If things do not improve, then we can reevaluate after 6 months if four security guards are preferred. Mr. Ford reminded the Council there were still the other conditions on signage and cameras they have to consider. Mayor Low stated that a consensus would be needed for the two security guards instead of four. Council Member Ly stated he would compromise and have two security guards but asked that the amendment also indicate the motel owner must come back in 12 months before the Planning Commission or the City Council. ' Mr. Ford explained that staff clarified the Condition No. 10 was on page six, which states the Planning Commission shall conduct a six-month review of the modification within six months of the approval date. Council Member Ly confirmed that an amendment to that condition would be 12 months instead of six months. Mayor Low reiterated there was consensus for support for two security guards for 12 months. Council Member Clark disagreed and suggested they keep the six-month time as the Planning Commission suggested. Mayor Low acknowledged Council Member Clark's disagreement and stated the majority of Council agreed to two security guards for 12 months. Mr. Ford explained the next item is the amount of security cameras being requested by the Sheriffs. Chief of Police Lt. Duong stated the motel has 16 operating cameras on the ' property. Mr. Ford explained the proposal from the Sheriffs Department was for a total of 48 cameras placed through the building and property. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 13 of 31 Mayor Low asked how much do cameras cost. She noted the Sheriffs are asking for 48 cameras, and the motel owner has 16 cameras, which would leave the motel owner to purchase 32 additional cameras. Mr. Calloway stated that the proposal also called for high HD quality cameras, which could cost approximately $900 to $1500. Then you have to factor in the cost of internet access to handle the feeds from all the 48 cameras. Mayor Low asked if the motel owner would have to upgrade the current 16 cameras. Mr. Calloway replied if the proposal is requesting for high HD, then yes. Mayor Low asked Chief of Police Lt. Duong if the Sheriffs would compromise on the number of cameras being requested. Council Member Ly stated he was okay with the total amount of cameras proposed. He noted, it's a onetime cost. Once they have cameras in place, it benefits both the property owner and business, as well as the residents grow exponentially. Even though the onetime costs are expensive, the overall benefit to the community is much greater. Mayor Pro Tem Dang suggested that there are inexpensive cameras at Costco Mr. Ford also noted that the Sheriffs Department was also requesting to have access to the camera feeds. Chief of Police Lt. Duong affirmed they were asking for access to the camera feed to monitor the motel activities remotely. Council Member Ly stated it was not the role of the City Council to discuss in detail what type of cameras the motel owner should purchase. Asked the Council if they agreed with the recommended from the Chief of Police to request 48 cameras. Chief of Police Lt. Duong indicated the proposal stated the minimum that he believed would help keep the location safe. Council Member Clark agreed with Council Member Ly and reminded the Council that two homicides have occurred at that location. Mayor Pro Tem Dang stated he agreed with Madam Mayor's assessment. He said the role as Council is to just decide on a number and there's specification of it. He added that it's just up to the owner and Chief Duong. Mayor Low reiterated that the majority of the Council would like the 48 -camera recommendation to remain. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 14 of 31 ' Mr. Ford stated the last item to discuss was about signage to be installed throughout the property such as no loitering, location is monitored by surveillance and law enforcement. Mayor Low reiterated the City Council's wish that out of all the conditions, having the motel owner agreed to have two security guards and 12 -months they would have to come back. City Council also chooses to have 48 cameras, as suggested by the Sheriffs Department, and recommended signage. Called for a motion. Mr. Porter suggested to make two amendments revising the Conditions of Approval No. 4 to state, "For starting on the 11th day after the City Council approved the resolution modifying conditional use permit, the applicant(s) shall not operate the motel unless the applicant(s) have filed with the City of Rosemead, A notarized affidavit stating that he is aware of and accepts all of the Conditions of Approval as set forth in this list of conditions". The second amendment suggested language would be Conditions of Approval No. 10, amending the six-month review be before the Planning Commission that has the authority to make revisions. Mr. Ford reiterated that the City Council was proposing to amend the six-month review to twelve-month review. Mr. Porter stated he understood the general direction from the City Council and ' stated that a resolution would need to be brought back for approval. Mr. Weiser interjected and stated his clients would like to see the resolution so they know their position on the matter, should they decide to file an appeal. Mr. Porter stated to the City Council they could hear comments by the appellant on the proposed revisions to the conditions. Mr. Weiser stated he would prefer to see the resolution in writing and at that time make comments. City Attorney Richman clarified that the City Council would need to direct Mr. Porter to draft the resolution with the amended conditions and bring back to the subsequent meeting for approval. ACTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Dang and seconded by Council Member Ly to direct the City Attorney to bring back a resolution with the amendments for approval at the next City Council meeting. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low, Ly NOES: None ABSENT: None ' S. CONSENT CALENDAR ACTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Dang and seconded by Council Member Clark to approve Consent Calendar Items A through D. The motion was carried out by Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 15 of31 the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low, Ly NOES: None ABSENT: None I. , rFfi'TOTTi 8 1I4'TT 4M • Resolution No. 2021-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,449,247.13 CHECKS NUMBERED 109153 THROUGH NUMBER 109279, DRAFTS NUMBERED 5117 THROUGH NUMBER 5129, AND EFT NUMBERED 50603 THROUGH NUMBER 50633 INCLUSIVELY Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2021-33. • Resolution No. 2021-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,445,247.97 CHECKS NUMBERED 109280 THROUGH NUMBER 109359, DRAFTS NUMBERED 5130 THROUGH NUMBER 5163, AND EFT NUMBERED 50634 THROUGH NUMBER 50646 INCLUSIVELY Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2021-35. • Resolution No. 2021-09 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 $225,857.73 NUMBERED 10316 THROUGH NUMBER 10317 INCLUSIVELY Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2021-09 SA. • Resolution No. 2021-05 RHDC A RESOLUTION OF THE ROSEMEAD HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $183,300.00 NUMBERED 1626 INCLUSIVELY Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 16 of 31 ' Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2021-05 RHDC. B. Approval of Minutes Recommendation: That the City Council approve the meeting minutes of the regular meeting of April 28, 2020, special meeting of July 6, 2021, and special meeting of July 8, 2021. C. Approval of the City of Rosemead's FY 2021-22 Statement of Investment Policy The City's Investment Policy (Policy) requires that the Policy be reviewed and adopted by the City Council at least annually within the first 90 days of each fiscal year. In addition, California Government Code Section 53607 requires the annual delegation of investment authority by the City Council to the City Treasurer. Continuing with the City Council's desire to make the Policy more functional and current in standards, laws, and best practices, the Policy has been updated again this year. Revisions to the current policy include corrections to code references, enhanced or clarified details within categories, limited expansion of allowable investments, and updated quarterly reporting requirements. The Policy has also been updated with a title page, table of contents, and summary chart of allowable investments to aid in its use. ' Recommendation: That the City Council approve the FY 2021-22 Investment Policy. D. Crossing Guard Services Agreement and Annual Crossing Guard Cost Sharing Agreements with the School Districts The proposed Agreement with All City Management Services, Inc. is for the annual crossing guard services near local public schools, and the proposed Agreements with the Rosemead School District and the Garvey School District are for cost sharing (one-half between the City and each District) for crossing guard services. The total cost for providing crossing guard services for both school districts is approximately $207,711, of which Rosemead School District's portion is approximately $48,465.90 and Garvey School District's portion is approximately $55,389.60. The City's portion ($103,855.50) is included in the City's adopted Fiscal Year 21-22 Budget. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Execute the Agreement with All City Management Services, Inc. for crossing guard services for Fiscal Year 21-22; and 2. Execute the cost sharing Agreements with Rosemead and Garvey School Districts for funding the crossing guard services for the Fiscal Year 21-22. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 17 of 31 6. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Proposed Anti -Hate Campaign On March 23, 2021, the City Council signed a proclamation denouncing hate crimes and discrimination against Asian American and Asian Pacific Islander population and other minority communities. In April, City staff met with Mayor Low to discuss the framework for a Rosemead Anti -Hate Campaign. Staff is recommending that the City Council review the proposed programs and provide feedback regarding the Campaign. Recommendation: That the City Council discuss and provide feedback and further direction. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking stated the Anti -Hate Campaign is designed with ongoing programs that will be administered by the Parks and Recreation Department. Each program will be advertised via the City's website and all social media platforms. The Campaign will begin with four programs: 1. Anti -Hate Lawn Signs — Residents will be able to register online and pick up an Anti -Hate lawn sign from the Rosemead Community Recreation Center. The signs encourage residents to report a crime if a crime has been witnessed along with a contact phone number for the Temple Sheriffs Station. The program will be advertised the week of July 19th. 2. Poetry Contest — The theme of the contest will be "The End of Hate Begins with Me". The contest will be separated into five age categories which will include five years of age to adults. Poems can be written in any poetic style and must be the original work by the participant. Judging will take place and the winners will be highlighted in our Community Guide, website, and social media platforms. This program will begin the week of August 9th. 3. Art Contest — The theme of the contest will be "Colors Should Never Divide Us". The contest will be separated into five age categories which will include five years of age to adults. Artwork must be original and created entirely by the participant. Judging will take place and the winners will be highlighted in our Community Guide, website, and social media platforms. This program will begin the week of September 13th. 4. Social Media Posts and Personal Interviews — Throughout the year staff will share Anti -Hate awareness as well as develop creative posts that will be shared on all social media platforms. Staff plan to interview longtime residents to share their opinions regarding Anti -Hate as well as their experiences in Rosemead. These posts and short interviews will be shared on all social media platforms. Council Member Armenta thanked Mayor Low for spearheading this campaign; indicated support for the programs, emphasized we will not tolerate any hate against residents and we need to stand together to not allow this to divide us. Council Member Clark stated she agreed with Council Member Armenta's sentiment. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 18 of 31 Mayor Low thanked Director Boecking and his team for putting this program together; stated she would like to see this anti -hate campaign as an ongoing program for the future to continue educating the youth and get our community involved to work on anti -hate together. Council Member Ly commended Mayor Low on her efforts to focus the city's energy toward a positive direction; expressed he believes racism and hate are taught, so it is critical to not only get the message to youth but also get youth involved. Mayor Pro Tem Dang agreed with Council Member Ly that a lot of hate is taught; noted he has observed that children absorb things more when it is taught through the school platform; suggested moving the poetry contest to September when the kids are back in school and giving a gift basket to winners to encourage more youth participation. Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking responded it is not a problem to push these items back to after the start of school; we can extend the program more throughout the year and link with school districts within Rosemead. City Manager Molleda asked if Council's lawn signs were available for them to take home tonight. Mr. Boecking indicated they will be delivered later this week as we wanted to 111 present the item tonight before being displayed. B. 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. City Manager Molleda reported there have not been a lot of changes since the June 15th order. We are up to 4,993 cases and 150 deaths; also as of July 13`h, the number of persons who have been vaccinated is 35,619. Asserted that parks, playgrounds, basketball courts, and facilities are now open. Mayor Low asked if city administrative facilities are now open. City Manager Molleda affirmed that City Hall and other administrative facilities have been open for a couple of weeks now. 7. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL A. Discuss Senate Bill 1383 Organic Waste Reduction Policy and Program Development and Implementation Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 19 of 31 In September 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 1383 Short -Lived Climate Pollutant regulations into law. The legislation set statewide methane emissions targets for California to reduce short-lived climate pollutants and divert organic waste from landfills. The emissions targets included 1) the reduction of organic waste disposal of 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025 and 2) a 20% increase to edible food recovery by 2025. Beginning in 2022, all jurisdictions are required to implement mandatory organic waste collection and recycling services to commercial and residential properties. Recommendation: That the City Council direct staff to proceed with one of the following courses of action: 1. The City's Franchise Hauler will assist in the costs associated with retaining a consultant on the City's behalf to develop, implement, and administer the SB 1383 Organic Waste Reduction Program conditioned on a City authorized extension to the existing Franchise Agreement for Comprehensive Refuse Services with Consolidated Disposal Services (Republic Services); or 2. The City will retain independent oversight through the procurement of a consultant to develop, implement, and administer the SB 1383 Organic Waste Reduction Program at a cost of $65,000 for year one. This expense is not included in the 2021-2022 adopted operating budget. Therefore, if this option is selected, a budget amendment will be necessary. The amendment will be presented with the I" Quarter Budget Report. Tania Castaneda, Municipal Relationship Manager, Republic Services, presented a PowerPoint titled "SB 1383 — Reducing Short -Lived Climate Pollutants". Stated the SB 1383 statue imposes significant organic and recycling waste reduction requirements to existing City waste collection policy and programs. Cities are responsible for implementing SB 1383 regulations in their communities and must coordinate with relevant county agencies, waste haulers, waste processing facilities, recyclers, commercial businesses, residents, and edible food recovery organizations. The state reduction targets are not an organic waste recycling target for jurisdictions; however, the City is required to develop, implement, and enforce an organic waste policy and program. Local government responsibilities include: • Evaluate the jurisdiction's readiness and capacity to implement SB 1383; • Provide organic waste collection to all residents and businesses; • Establish an edible food recovery program for all Tier 1 and Tier 2 commercial edible food generators that recovers edible food from the waste stream; • Conduct outreach and education to all affected parties, including generators, haulers, facilities, edible food recovery organizations, and city departments; • Procure certain levels of recycled organic waste products like compost, mulch, renewable natural gas (RNG); • Plan and secure access for recycling and edible food recovery capacity; • Monitor and enforce compliance with SB 1383; Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 20 of 31 • Adopt an ordinance or similarly enforceable mechanism consistent with regulatory requirements; and • Maintain accurate and timely records of SB 1383 compliance. Jurisdictions must have the policy and programs to comply with SB 1383 regulations in place by January 1, 2022. Additionally, CalRecycle can begin enforcement actions starting January 1, 2022. CalRecycle can issue a Notice of Violation or place the City on a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for violating one or more of the requirements of S131383. CalRecycle will have the discretion to determine the level of action necessary to remedy any violation. Mayor Low asked about the procurement, does the city have to purchase the compost? Municipal Relationship Manager Castaneda responded there are different components to procuring organic waste within SB 1383 regulations — the city has to demonstrate that they are purchasing compost and mulch to help create a market for all that economic food being wasted. Indicated the city can have Republic Services be responsible for determining how to utilize the compost and mulch. Council Member Armenta expressed concern if Rosemead will be in compliance, and what the fees would be if we are not able to comply? Mrs. Castaneda asserted that the Department can fine the city if they are not in compliance; referenced Section 18997.3 Department Penalty Amounts: (1) A "Minor" violation shall be no less than $500 per violation and no more than $4,000 per violation per day; (2) A "Moderate" violation shall be no less than $4,000 per violation and no more than $7,500 per violation per day; (3) A "Major" violation shall be no less than $7,500 per violation and no more than $10,000 per violation per day. We have done a lot of the groundwork that we know what needs to be done; we just need to meet with you to see if there is anything else you'd like us to do on these provisions. Council Member Clark inquired if individual homeowners will be fined if they put the wrong items in the wrong bin? Mrs. Castaneda responded there will be contamination check requirements, meaning the city will be required to conduct annual route reviews or waste characterizations. Republic Services would be happy to take that on for the city — for example if a black container had recycling items in that bin, then we would reach out to the resident to correct this, and work with the city on updating their ordinance to include an enforcement mechanism for repeated offenders; opined she does not believe the Department will impose a penalty on homeowners but will check on that and get back to Council. Acting Director of Public Works Ansari reported the program development and implementation necessary to comply with SB 1383 regulations require recycling and waste compliance area expertise and a considerable dedication of time to Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 21 of 31 ensure full compliance with all aspects of the mandate. City staff currently do not have the capacity to carry out such a tremendous new workload. Staff recommends retaining a consultant with the appropriate area of expertise to best position the 1!J! city to meet all measurements of compliance and to secure the most advantageous contractual and enforcement outcomes related to new and existing waste and recycling programs. Indicated Option 1 does not present a fiscal impact at this time, while Option 2 will require a $65,000 General Fund budget amendment. Council Member Armenta expressed concern for both options as neither seem feasible. Asked Mrs. Castaneda if Republic Services is able to implement the requirements of SB 1383. Opined I don't see the fairness with Option 1, we are essentially penalizing Republic Services by asking them to retain a cost for us to get a consultant. And on the other hand, we are going to give $65,000 to a consultant when Republic Services can carry out the implementation. Mrs. Castaneda replied that a consultant would help the city as a project manager to keep the process transparent to see what are the associated costs, etc. City Manager Molleda clarified that the recommendation in Option 1 was introduced by Republic Services. Council Member Armenta asked if Republic Services was even made aware that the city was planning on taking $65,000 from the General Fund to pay for the consultant? Council Member Ly interjected, stating that was based off Council's direction as I wanted us to have staff options as part of this proposal. We are getting a bait and switch on this item — Republic Services wants us to extend their contract and go against Council policy by not going out to bid on the contract; expressed it is insulting to Council that they are trying to use this regulatory mandate to extend their contract. I think it is unfair that we are only relying on one recommendation from a contractor that would benefit from this option. Council Member Armenia indicated she asked for this item to be placed on the agenda and it is strictly on SB 1383; we know where we are at with Republic Services efforts, so she is unsure about the bait and switch comment as there is no mention of their contract being extended. Mayor Low opined she also interprets Option 1 as a contract extension as it does include it as a condition to Republic Services assisting in the costs associated with retaining a consultant on the City's behalf to develop, implement, and administer the SB 1383 Organic Waste Reduction Program. Council Member Clark expressed it is not time to change trash haulers because we are already in a contract for two more years; emphasized we are looking to implement these programs to ensure we are in compliance with SB 1383. If we Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 22 of 31 remain with Republic Services, we already have the three bins, which we have taught our residents to recycle in blue bins; noting Athens Services has no recycle bins. Expressed she is in favor of Option I to implement these regulations. Mayor Low opened the public comment period. City Clerk Hernandez read the following public comment received via email from Brian Lewin. "Good evening, Mayor Low and City Council. I hope you are all well and staying safe. I have a few thoughts on this item that I hope you will consider. My most immediate concerns lay with the Container Color Uniformity subsection of Collection. First, I think it would be appropriate to check with CalRecycle to see if Black is an acceptable substitute or equivalent for their gray bins, as black has been in common use for general waste at least regionally for years if not decades. It seems pointless to require a change in something so widely used. This would eliminate the need for any color -based bin replacement for single-family customers and any others already on the 3 -bin system. Regarding compliance for `labels with graphics -based instructions for proper separation,' this can be achieved without any bin replacement at all. While the metal bins would in most cases need to be repainted to be color -compliant, once they have been painted, a pictorial decal system could be easily employed to clearly outline acceptable materials in each type of bin. Consolidated/Republic (among others) already uses such a system in the City of Los Angeles. Such decals could also be adapted and applied to the lids, front or sides of the plastic carts used for most residential service. I have seen this in some areas already. They could be rolled out over time on service days, and while it would be somewhat labor- intensive, it would be much less expensive than commissioning entirely new bins for the entire city and forcing residents to pay in the form of increased rates for their design, manufacture and delivery. Particularly when it is not even certain that Republic will be the City's franchise hauler after July 31, 2023. Looking more to the future, a few thoughts on enforcement: It can be tricky, as residents must leave their bins out for extended periods and some streets/areas (such as mine) have visitors who don't necessarily care where they put their trash. A bin that is uncontaminated when the resident puts it out the night before (or morning of), could be contaminated by the time the checker/hauler arrives, especially with no way to secure it. If there are penalties for contamination, there needs to be a clear and widely disseminated definition of what constitutes contamination; a requirement for photographic proof of the contamination that also provides clear visual context - i.e., whose bin it is; and an appeals process independent of whatever entity makes the contamination determination. For example, I live on a multi -home property. I don't think I should be fined if I get it right but my back neighbor doesn't, and the Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 23 of 31 checker thinks it's my bin. And I should have the ability to appeal to a third party if I think the person who checked the bins got it wrong. Businesses and multifamily residences should have the same protections as well. Thank you for your time and consideration. Take care, and stay well." There being no further speakers, Mayor Low closed the Public Comment period. Mayor Low asked Mrs. Castaneda, if we have Republic Services carry out the development and implementation of SB 1383, is there an expectation for beyond your current contract? Municipal Relationship Manager Castaneda expressed ideally that would help us with the investment we make, so we would like to present a proposal in 30 days consisting of the city's options, a checklist of everything we are able to absorb for the city. It might be more economically viable to residents if it is spread across a few more years rather than a year and a half. Since we are collaborating with the city on the potential terms, we are flexible and want the process to be enjoyable for you and beneficial for the residents. Council Member Ly asked if Republic Services is unwilling to administer this program in the remaining two years of their contract without an extension? Mrs. Castaneda responded I didn't say we are unwilling. I think there is a conversation we would like to have to get aligned to ensure the city is avoiding any potential risks and are compliant. Council Member Ly inquired if the city would be charged for the implementation of the program if we should proceed with no contract extension. Mrs. Castaneda stated we will 100% administer the contract and ensure the services are performed and delivered every day that we have a contract with the City of Rosemead. Council Member Ly questioned if that includes implementing SB 1383 regulations? Mrs. Castaneda replied we need to present a proposal that will not only factor in new requirements but authorize us to implement the regulations and absorb the financial costs; asserted that CalRecycle requires to see an amendment to verify the city is compliant. She further explained one of the penalties is having the hauler do some of the requirements without an amendment or contract in place. Council Member Ly ascertained so one way or another, Republic Services is going to pass on the cost to us or we will have to accept the contract. Mrs. Castaneda responded there are costs associated with the regulations, which is what we would like to present to you. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 24 of 31 Mr. Ly interjected, stating we have to answer to our residents whether their current rates will be maintained for the next two years or if they will be increased. Mrs. Castaneda reiterated that we are always committed to the city, but the regulations do have additional costs associated with them; indicated we would like to present what those potential rates would be. Council Member Armenta asked if Mrs. Castaneda is aware of any haulers that are not including the costs to raise their rates to comply with SB 1383? Mrs. Castaneda responded I am not. Council Member Armenta opined if there is not one other hauler doing this, then it is unfair to have a different standard for Republic Services. Council Member Ly indicated that Council Member Armenta's question is a fair question, but it is not fair to only ask Republic Services because they may not know themselves or to have them answer for their competitors. If we want to warrant research on that, then we can ask staff to see which haulers are willing to absorb the cost. Mrs. Armenta stated it is prudent to see what haulers are doing right now as that is a true indication of what they would do for the city, and not what they say they will do down the line because they could promise us everything under the sun. Mr. Ly commented that it is important for us to look at current capabilities of what companies can or cannot do; emphasized when you put competition into the mix, you tend to get a better deal for our residents. Mayor Low expressed it is fair for any company including Republic Services to recover their costs they invested to implement certain programs; as for Council, we have to look at what is the best value we get for our residents. She asked for more details on Option 2. City Manager Molleda stated Option 2 would hire a consultant to gather information that is needed and implement the new programs for a year. Acting Director of Community Development Ansari confirmed independent oversight through consulting services is required to stay compliant with SB 1383. Mayor Low asked if we go with Option 2, does that mean all the residents would get three different bins or would we work with Republic Services to use the three bins we currently have? Mr. Ansari deferred the question to Mrs. Castaneda since it is on the operational side. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 25 of 31 Mrs. Castaneda explained the purpose of the consultant is to serve as a project manager and work with Republic Services to provide a third -party assessment of our proposal. They will work with you and let you know what your options are and make a recommendation what would be best to proceed with. City Manager Molleda referred to page 2 of the Staff Report, providing the scope of work for an RFP for SB 1383 Program Planning and Implementation Consulting Services which includes but may not be limited to: • Draft an SB 1383 Organic Waste Reduction Ordinance that complies with SB 1383 regulations; • Review existing Franchise Agreement with Republic Services to examine if there are service tasks and processes currently performed that satisfy elements of the SB 1383 mandate; • Recommendation of new tasks and processes required by SB 1383 than can be assigned to the Franchise Haulers; • Draft a Franchise Agreement Amendment to ensure full compliance with SB 1383 regulations; • Meet with City staff to discuss potential negotiation objectives for the Franchise Agreement Amendments, including desired enhancements to services and contract terms; • Meet with City staff and waste hauler representatives to discuss and negotiate contract terms to comply with SB 1383 regulations; • Prepare a Recycled Organic Waste Product Procurement Policy to comply with SB 1383 regulations; • Meet with City Staff to review SB 1383 record keeping requirements and recommend a best practice to comply with SB 1383 regulations; and • Attend City Council meetings to present the proposed SB 1383 Organic Waste Reduction Ordinance, Franchise Agreement Amendment, and Recycled Organic Waste Product Procurement Policy. Council Member Armenta expressed to pay a consultant for something that Republic Services can be doing is double dipping. We rely too much on consultants, and in this case would be paying them $65,000 just to say yes or no to a proposal. Council Member Clark concurred with Council Member Armenta. Council Member Ly indicated regardless of which option is selected our residents will still be paying $65,000 — the only difference is if Republic Services or an independent consultant will be receiving it. Council Member Clark responded that she disagrees with Council Member Ly as our trash hauler understands what is coming down; asked why we should pay a consultant who may not understand the operation or implementation of the SB 1383 regulations. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 26 of 31 Mayor Pro Tem Dang stated it is a muddy situation because the implementation is coming around the comer; expressed if Republic Services does continue to honor our contract and implement the SB 1383 regulations, it is unfair for them to absorb these costs, unless it was written in the contract that they will absorb any new legislation or changes that come down from Sacramento or Washington. Noted Mrs. Castaneda did state there is a potential opportunity to itemize the program and spread it out an x number of years to make it beneficial to the residents. To be fair, if we are going to open that type of evaluation for Republic Services, then we should do the same for other interested stakeholders. Stated either way we would have two waste haulers for the city. Acting Director of Public Works Ansari clarified that there would not be two waste haulers; the consultant would have more of the oversight of the operation to ensure compliance. Mrs. Castaneda commented that the franchise agreement is exclusive, meaning it only authorizes one trash hauler during the period of a contract. Mayor Low explained her understanding is Republic Services would still be picking up the trash, and we can hire someone else to administer, manage and monitor the SB 1383 program. Mr. Ansari replied that there are a set of operations that need to be done which the hauler would still be carrying out as the consultant would not be skilled or equipped to do that. The role of the consultant in each of these options is cost associated either way — Option 1 through negotiation with Republic Services or Option 2 to make it city controlled and completely independent to look into the program, present to the City Council and negotiate the terms of the agreement with the trash hauler to ensure the city is in compliance. Council Member Armenta opined Option 2 would cost the city more because we are paying for a consultant in addition to working with our trash hauler. Expressed that Republic Services has not given us reason to be viewed as not being transparent or jeopardizing the city from fulfilling SB 1383. It is a slap in the face to Republic Services that they have already started implementing SB 1383. I don't think any of us can say that they have not done their due diligence to ensure we are headed in the right direction. If they weren't, then I could understand us needing a consultant. Mayor Low asked staff if the $65,000 is a one-time cost to search for a consultant or is that going to be an annual cost? Mr. Ansari answered that the $65,000 is an estimated cost for year one to do the things that are listed on page 2 of the Staff Report. Pointed out in both options, there will be a need to hire a consultant to look over the program whether it is in collaboration with Republic Services or in full control of the city to issue an RFP and get a consultant on board. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 1021 Page 27 of 31 Mayor Low inquired if we get a consultant on board, how does that work if we decide to go out to bid for our trash hauler? Council Member Ly stated the city believes roughly that the cost of implementing the regulations will be $65,000/year; ascertained there are many ways we can do this, one being extend Republic Services contract so our residents pay them directly or staffs proposal is for it to come out of the General Fund. It's simply a matter of putting it into a bid and a contract. Mayor Low asked if Republic Services can honor the residents' current rate and not increase it. Mayor Pro Tem Dang opined it does not seem fair to have a consultant tell the operator how to do the work. Council Member Ly responded that is going to happen no matter what, whether it is a consultant or city staff directing the hauler. There needs to be someone independent of the trash hauler that is overseeing compliance. Agreed with Mayor Low's suggestion to keep it within the two-year contract. Mrs. Castaneda emphasized we will be doing the actual implementation, not the consultant. Mr. Ly indicated support for Republic Services to provide the city with a proposal that does not include a contract extension; stated this will allow Council to honor our position to not allow a contract beyond 10 years and ensure it goes out to bid to secure the best possible deal for our residents. Council Member Clark reminded Council of a similar situation when we paid $30,000 for a consultant for the COG on homeless to do what we are already doing. Made a motion to proceed with Option 1. Council Member Armenta asked if Public Works staff can do the same work a consultant can do? Mrs. Castaneda responded if you want to have a third party look at the options. We'd be happy to work with the city directly without a consultant. Council Member Armenta inquired so there is no requirement that you must have a consultant to implement SB 1383? Mrs. Castaneda affirmed that is correct. Council Member Armenta seconded Council Member Clark's motion to proceed with Option 1. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2011 Page 28 of 31 Mayor Low made a substitute motion to ask Republic Services to provide their best estimate of the list of tasks provided on page 2 of the Staff Report and contingent that no contract extension is included. Council Member Ly seconded Mayor Low's substitute motion. Council Member Clark reiterated that you're denying them the option of asking for an extension. Council Member Ly stated that is the Mayor's motion. ACTION: Moved by Mayor Low and seconded by Council Member Ly to ask Republic Services to provide their best estimate for associated costs to carry out the scope of work listed (on page 2 of the Staff Report) for SB 1383 Program Planning and Implementation, which is contingent that no extension of the contract is included. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Dang, Low, and Ly NOES: Armenta and Clark ABSENT: None B. Consolidated Disposal Services Discussion This item is presented to the City Council at the request of Council Member Steven Ly. The current consolidated disposal services agreement expires on July 31, 2023. Recommendation: That the City Council discuss as provide further direction. Council Member Ly stated he requested this item to request more information; asked when the contract is officially up. City Manager Molleda responded I believe it ends August or September 2023. Council Member Armenia clarified the Staff Report indicates the contract ends July 31, 2023. Council Member Ly inquired if we were to go back out to bid, how much time is needed before we have to release the RFP? City Manager Molleda replied I would assume at least 6 months out. City Attorney Richman stated if we are going out to RFP, that we would want to make that decision at least a year before the termination; explained you need to hire that consultant first to draft the RFP, then it can be issued. Council Member Armenta asked if city staff can draft the RFP. City Attorney Richman responded no, as the regulations are very technical. Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 29 of 31 Council Member Ly stated the way these RFPs are drafted, the cost of the consultant is built into the winning bid — the cost is recouped as whoever won the bid pays for that consultant. We have to make a decision one year from now if we want to go out to bid. Estimated the timeline: In July or August 2022, staff spends 60 days to figure out the best consultant and brings it to Council for consideration; Council spends another 60 days to figure out if the RFP meets the standard of Rosemead; then the RFP goes out for another 60-90 days, so we are looking at 4-5 months when a new successful bid would be entered. City Attorney Richman indicated it sounds about right; noted if you do not stay with the same trash hauler, you would really need that period of time to figure out how to transition. Council Member Ly asserted that answers most of my questions as everything else was pretty much discussed in the previous item. C. Council Comments Council Member Armenta appreciates Mr. Martin Espinoza bringing to Council's attention the condition of Zapopan Park; shared that many of our facilities have gone down the drain, especially Splash Zone, stating there is no reason why it has gotten to the point it is at — there are ducks and the pool was green for so long. She asked management and was told things are broken, but wonders why those things were allowed to be broken for so long? Expressed frustration with summer coming, that Splash Zone is not available for youth after they have been stuck inside due to the pandemic. Opined many of the decisions being made should be policy made by Council. Also noted the Rosemead Aquatics Center will only be open three days of the week two from 6:30-8:00 p.m., and on Saturdays from 12:30-3:30 p.m. What are we offering our city? Why are other cities able to open up; have seven to eight Concerts in the Park and we're only going to have two and two movie nights. For Council to find out from Facebook or residents is disrespectful to us. Council Member Armenta also expressed it is unacceptable that time after time Council has to keep asking for updates on items. Indicated she asked at the end of January to place receptacles next to the In -N -Out because there is always trash on the floor — only one was installed which was in front of a red curb, noting the trash is accumulated where people park. Stated when she asked management why, she was told that was the decision made. Then when she asked, what criteria was used to make that decision? Council Member Armenta asserted she is still waiting for an answer. Lastly, she informed Council in case they weren't aware that Rosemead is not having a National Night Out but all the other cities around us are. Council Member Clark asked staff to see if other cities are having a consultant oversee SB 1383? Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2021 Page 30 of 31 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Low adjourned the meeting at 11:45 p.m. The next regular scheduled meeting will take place on July 27, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber. Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk APPROVED: Mayor Rosemead City Council, Successor Agency & Housing Development Corporation Special & Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of July 13,1021 Page 31 of 31