Loading...
CC - Item 6A - Memo - Council Member Clark's Comments Regarding the Assignment of San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments' (SGVCOG) SGV Forward Project Proposal on Garvey Ave - Submitted 03-09-26CITY OF ROSEMEAD OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk SUBJECT: Comment Submitted by Council Member Clark on Agenda Item 6A - Discussion on Assignment of San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments' SGV Forward Project Proposal on Garvey Avenue to the Legislative Committee DATE: Monday, March 9, 2026 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, The following written comment is being submitted by Council Member Margaret Clark for your review during Agenda Item 6A at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, March 10. Thank you. 3/7/26 SGVForward take parking Garvey Having reviewed this council's previous opposition to taking parking and bus lanes on Valley Blvd and Garvey ave., I am shocked to see the staff report for the March 10, 2026 SUBJECT: Discussion of Assignment of San Gabriel Valley Council of Goxrerrr-file nts' (SGVCOG) SGV Forward Project Proposal on Garvey Avenue to the Legislative Committee. Summary: Council Member Ly requested a discussion on assignment to the Legislative Committee the task of engaging witl i SGVCOG and adjoining �g cities on the SGV Forward Project. As I point out below, this proiect requires our city to pay almost 1 Million dollars! Reasons I oppose sending this item to the City Legislative Comm.. First, in my experience, sub committees are formed to study an issue that could affect the entire city -that the council needs snore information about but which is non i controversial acid simply saves staff time. The issue I have with this item is that this IS controversial and we spent many hours on it, where the Council unanimously totally rejected the plan to take parking on Valley Blvd and unanimously voted to table the item regarding Garvey . There was tremendous opposition to implementing it on both major arteries. In this case it only close to 2 councilmembers' areas and one, myself, is ADAMANTLY opposed to it. I attended the COG workshop at RCRC and gave copies of the minutes of our council meetings expressing out - opposition to COG staff, as well as verbally objecting at that meeting to both Cog staff as well as the Kinley-Horn representatives (who would stand to make large amounts of r►ioney implementing the project.) In the city of Roemead there has always been an issue of "North vs South" where the chore affluent residents are in the north and a large population of minority con-innunities live in the south. So just on the surface one must ask, "So why did you unanimously reject any funding for the proposed project on Valley in the North, and re -open the can of worms on the south where right now 1 have experienced heavy traffic voluriies on Garvey such that when i drive from my house which is 1/2a block east of Monterey Park's border, from the west boundary of our city to the Garvey Center which is on the east boundary. Due to heavy traffic now, it already takes forever to get there and if you take one of the eastbound lanes away for a bus lane it would DOUBLE the time spent going. And for what? Just last Friday, as I stood on Garvey Ave. very near the border of Monterey Park watching the existing buses passing, out of 8 buses passing, there were maybe an average of 2 passengers on each i bus and maybe one passenger would get off the bus and one would get on.(I have heard multiple people involved in government positions express that due to the safety issues on the buses they will NOT ride them. So When 1 read time COG star report on why Metro is proposing this route I was VERY offended that on pg ES-1 they said, "this study's primary objective was to identify suitable replacements for the SR-60 Light Rail Transit (LRT) extension from the Atlantic Station terriiinus of the Metro E Line." When I was told this at the workshop I made it very clear to COG staff there that it appears that because another solution to their project was rejected, they are dumping on my constituents and businesses! And for what? To save a bus rider some 10 minutes of time on the bus (when there is so little ridership anyway on the bus)! You are going to increase traffic exponentially for my constituents and take away parking, severely impacting our residents and businesses. A huge issue with sending it to a committee runs the risk of appearing to Metro, COG, and other cities that "Rosemead is considering" this proposal. This is outrageous since we have already come out very strongly on the sin—diar proposal for Vaiiey Blvd as well as unaimriousiy tabling the Garvey Route and instead directing staff to pursue other grants. While in our packet delivered last Thursday, there was nothing included on the above mentioned council i-neetings where we took those votes. Tinere was only the packet front Metro and the SGV COG which on pg ES-1 lit lists as one of the "following goals were developed as high-level, visionary guidelines: "Provide all -day transit service for peak and off-peak trips." Oil Pg ES-4 it states what I have been stating all along: Public Opinion Survey, Ti ansit Rider Wish: that Buses were cleaner and safer. As to the outreach on this project it was MISERABLE. While I sit on the COG Board as past president, i only heard about the workshops in February of this year when my colleague, Steven Ly mentioned it the day before at our council meeting under the item "Council Comments". There were very few people attending the workshop in Rosemead and I believe the one in either El Monte or South El Monte had no residents attending. P 5 Key Mobility Problem Themes Topic Mobility Problem Land Use Densities Zoning in the SGV is low -density residential (40%) Density needs to be encouraged in areas where transit is accessibie and mobility options are available. This plays into the Scott Wierner's SB 79 bill which takes away our city's local control and mandates that a 5 story building can be built next to your single story home ! Shame on the COG for making the above statement. we cities have beenTirelessly fighting these bills in Sacra►nento that take away our zoning thus mandating extreme density!!! Housing Allocation Cities provide zoning to accommodate their share of state - Housing needs. Each jurisdiction must ensure there are sufficient areas to accommodate their housing unit requirements High Population & employment The SGV accounts for a significant share of the county's Densities housing & economic base (almost 1/5 of LA County's resid- Dents and jobs). SGV's densities are an average of 2-4 2. P.6 Freeway & Arterial Congestion P.7 outreach activities P.13 Initial screening of concepts Times higher when compared to LA County as a whole Then why would you state above that density needs to Be encouraged... when you iust said densities are 2-4x Higher??! Substantial congestion exists with high westbound travel in the i -lorn-Ing & higi i eastbound travel In the evenings on the 1-10 & SR 60. Arterials that run parallel to these freeways Also experience heavy congestion. This makes my point That Gainey is already heavily congested and to take a Lane for a bus would double the congestion and the bullet Point above it about Equity focus communities, the issue of North vs South I mentioned above, you are taking the area that is less affluent and dumping on us. The entire page is b.s because Rosemead, who would be tremendously iripacted was completely left out! I serve on many committees and I am not hard to find! East-West Concepts On the proposal for Garvey -Peck of 9 scores only 3 had Were positive scores and the overall score was Low! The 3 Negative tive scores were: "Fulfills near -term needs" "Addresses existing traveiTrends within SGV and "Increases access to major SGV activity centers." So why ON EARTH wouldwe even pursue this?? The minutes from the actual council meetings show tremendous opposition: 9122115 VALLEY BLVD:Dir. La stated in Jan. 2011 staff submitted a grant application for ►Y7TA funding ..Sept 2011 City selected to receive funding $780,793 available in FY 2015116 with city required to match in amount of $638,831. It requies a 3rd lane east and west during AM and PM peak hour, raised center medians from Walnut Grove Ave to Mission Dr. and class-111 bikeway. Explained limits on -street parking during peak hours and eliminates left -turn access which could impact adjacent businesses. Councilmember Clark said council should have been notified about the grant before it was applied r`or since there could be profound effects on our businesses. Council directed staff to meet with businesses..and whether they felt the improvements would impact their businesses. GARVEY AVE Director La stated city would know by 9124115 whether it received RSTI for 2.2 mile section of Garvey Ave.from New Ave to Sullivan Ave. Funds would be available for FY 2019/20 and 20/21. Council will have to decide whether it wants to keep the bike lanes proposed in the Garvey Ave Specific Plan or widen Garvey to include a third lane with peak parking restrictions.... Any changes would need to be incorporated into the Specific Plan ►vlinutes of Council on Nov. 24115 Staff recommends to accept grant funding of $2.3 mil awarded on 9124115 to be received in 2020. Added requires a local match of @ $992,000. Includes taking out the 3rd lane and restricts on -street parking on north side of Garvey form 6-9am and for westbound traffic on south side from 4-6 pm for eastbound traffic providing a third the lane on Garvey... City cannot provide a class i or class2 bike lane. The parking restrictions during peak hours which will have a direct impact on the adjacent business owners. After extensive discussion from public and council Mayor Clark made motion to deny acceptance and move on with Garvey Specific Plan. Motion died for lack of second. ►Yiayor Pro Tern Armenta wanted to get More input fro►rr residents and businesses and council directed staff to mail notices to residents and bring the issue back in January 1126116 after S pages of discussion moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Council Member Low, to table this grant and instruct staff to look for grants for improvements on Garvey that don't eliminate parking and revisit the issue only if we can't find any other grants. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low Ly. q MINUTES GP THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR ,AGENCY TO THE ROSEMEAD GOMIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JOINT MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 Workshop 6:00 p.m. The meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark at 6:04 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Conference Room located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tom Armenta, Council Members Alarcon, Hall. Council Member. Low arrived at 6:09 pm. STAFF PRESENT, City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman, Interim Public Works Director La, City Engineer Fajardo, Public Works Manager Sullivan and Interim City Clerk Cowley. A. Update regarding Valley Boulevard MTA Grant, Rosemead Avenue HSIP Grant, and Garvey Avenue MTA Grant Interim Public Works Director La presented a PowerPoint presentation along with the staff report updating the City Council regarding the Valley Boulevard MTA Grant. The proposed project would be along Valley Boulevard beginning at Charlotte and continue to Temple City Boulevard. He provided background on applying for and receiving the grant fund stating In January 2011 staff submitted a grant application for MTA (RSTI) funding. In September 2011, the City was selected to receive RSTI funding in the amount of $780,793 based on the criteria in the grant application. The funding becomes available in FY 2015116 and FY 2016/17, noting the City will have to match funds in the amount of $638,831. Mr. La advised the Council that one of the challenges with the funding scope is.it requires a third lane east bound and west bound during the AM and PM peak hours, raised center medians from Walnut Grove Avenue to Mission Drive and a Class -III bikeway. Public Works Director La advised the City Council that the positive of the improvements is it increases mobility and enhances safety. He explained that the negative effects are it limits on -street parking during peak hours and eliminates left -turn access which could impact adjacent businesses. Mr. La explained staff was looking for Council direction as to whether the City wants to pursue the grant funding to make these improvements on Valley Boulevard. He also explained that if the City decided not to use the funds, it might have an effect on the City's ability to obtain MTA funds in the future. A lengthy discussion between the City Council and staff regarding the impact this project would have on the businesses located on Valley Boulevard as a result of the peak parking restrictions, the medians and the inability to make left turns. Rosemead City COUTIcil arul the SuccessorAgency to the Rosemead Connm.unity Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of September 22, 2015 Page 1 of 8 Mayor Clark stated the City Council should have been notified about the grant before it was applied for since there could be profound effects on our businesses. After some discussion, the City Council directed staff to meet with the businesses on Malley Boulevard and receive their input to determine how they would feel about the changes and whether they thought the improvements would impact their businesses. Discussion also ensued regarding how the improvements would affect future events. Brian Lewin addressed the City Council with his concerns about the medians and the flow of traffic. Thereafter, the Interim Public Works Director provided the City Council with a preview of the Garvey Avenue 2015 Countywide Call for Projects and the Rosemead Boulevard Improvement project. He explained the City would know by September 24, 2015 whether it received RSTI funding in the amount of $2,315,305 under the Countywide Call for Project, which includes a 2.2 mile section of Garvey from New. Avenue to Sullivan Avenue. The funding would be available for FY 2019/20 and FY 2020/2021. He provided the City Council with drawings of the proposed improvements and emphasized that the City Council will have to decide whether it wants to keep the bike lanes proposed in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan or widen Garvey to include a third lane with peak parking restrictions. He advised that Council has time to make decisions on this project but any changes would need to be incorporated into the Specific Plan. Mr. La updated the City Council on the Rosemead Boulevard Improvement project providing landscaping in the medians from the railroad to Lower Azusa and install traffic signals at Rosemead and Valley and Rosemead and Mission, as well as sidewalks from Bridge to approximately Lower Azusa. ADJOURN WORKSHOP There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Clark adjourned the workshop meeting at 6:58 pm. Regular Meeting Minutes 7,00 p.m. The meeting of the Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission was called to order by Mayor/Chair Clark at 7=06 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Council Member/Board Member Hall INVOCATION was led by Council Member/Board Member Low PRESENT: Mayor/Chair Clark, Mayor Pro T emNice-Chair Armenta, Council Members/Board Members Alarcon, Hall, and Low STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Rosemead Chy Council and the SuccessorAcrency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of September 22, 20_75 Page 2 of 8 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JOINT MEETING NOVEMBER 24, 2015 Workshop 6:00 p.m. The meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark at 6:09 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, Council Members Alarcon, Hall and Low. 1, Garvey Avenue Traffic & Parking Workshop Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a motion to accept the Los Angeles County Metro Grant funding to be received in the year 2020. Interim Public Works Director La presented the staff report providing the city council with background information regarding the Grant which was awarded to the city on September 24, 2015. He also advised Council on the outreach to the business community by staff. He informed Council the grant covers ail of Garvey Avenue from west of New Avenue to the east City limit which is the bridge over the Rio Hondo. He added the Grant does require a local match of approximately $992,000. The scope of work includes taking out the third vehicle lane and restrict on -street parking on the north side of Garvey Avenue from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a,m. for westbound traffic; and on the south side from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for eastbound traffic providing a third through lane on Garvey Avenue, The funds can also be spenton traffic and upgrades, sidewalk improvements, furnishings at bus stops, landscaping and lighting, Mr, La explained the benefits of the project is the City would have $3.3 million for streetscapes and roadway improvements that facilitate traffic flow. The funding covers Garvey Avenue from the west City limit to the east City limit and provides for improved traffic mitigation on Garvey Avenue. The funding is also available to facilitate future developers with various infrastructure improvements. Mr. La advised the negative side of the project is by providing a third through lane, the curb would stay where it is; therefore, the City cannot provide a Class I or a Class it bicycle lane, He explained the difference between a Class I and a Class 11 bicycle lane. He also reiterated the parking restrictions during peak hours which will have a direct impact on the adjacent business owners. Mr. Law informed Council if their direction is to accept the Grant and provide a third through lane then the Specific Plan will require some revisions, which will be brought back -to the City Council for approval. City Manager Allred clarified that any modifications to parking would not occur until the year 2020 because the grant funding is not available until then. Mr. La confirmed for Mayor Clark that in order to receive the $2.3 million grant, the City would have to match and spend $992,000 on the project using local Gas Tax Funding or Proposition C funds. City Rosemead City Council and. the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint lfeeting Minutes of 1V oveinber 24, 2015 Rage I of 8 Manage' Allred also confirmed for Mayor Clark that the City receives approximately three quarters of a million dollars per year in Gas Tax funding which the City currently spends on street maintenance projects. Brian Lewin -- expressed his opposition to the proposed changes to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan project, focus on the project area as originally envisioned and decline the grant. He provided the City Council with statistics taken from the 2012 Bicycle Transportation Plan relating to Garvey Avenue, and felt it was not a good idea to remove needed, planned protections for bicyclists along the Garvey corridor. Sherman Rouman — owner of the Vehicle Center Used Cars expressed his opposition to the project and advised the City Council that the peak hours parking restrictions would hurt his business because he relies on the traffic returning from work to stop in to buy a car. He also expressed concerns with ingress and egress to his business if Garvey was three lanes. Johnny Teng — owner and operator of a business located at 8438 E. Garvey Avenue, expressed concern regarding the restricted parking and dangerous conditions three traffic lanes will create for individuals who do not drive very well. Kyi Kai — developer of a mixed use project at 8749 Garvey Avenue expressed his opposition to the proposed project because of the restricted parking on the South side of Garvey Avenue in the afternoons. He was concerned about people parking on the north side and trying to cross six lanes of traffic. Chris Melendres — owner of the property at 9117 and 9123 Garvey Avenue presented the City Council with a petition signed by several business operators and expressed concern about the tenants only receiving the letter today and were unable to attend. He advised Council that he spoke to 20 of his neighboring businesses and all of them were against the proposed plan. He discussed his concerns regarding the restricted parking and six lanes of traffic pointing out potential dangers. Thereafter followed a brief discussion regarding the possibility of an accident if a car continues to park in the third lane during non -peak hours when the third lane is being used for through traffic. Clancy Enq — expressed support for any solutions to relieve congestion on Garvey Avenue; however, there is a parking deficiency in the City. She felt the City should consider improving the parking standards if it was going to consider the changes. James Wang — owner of a used car lot on Garvey Avenue, expressed his opposition to changing Garvey Avenue. He felt if changes are made, it will be worse than it is now, Yin Lim — owner of 8254 Garvey Avenue, thinks this project won't work because of the restricted parking from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on the south side. This will prevent people from stopping at the various businesses on their way home from work. He felt the City Council should do what's best for the Rosemead citizens and business owners. Mayor Pro Tern Armenta felt it was clear that something had to be done on Garvey Avenue to mitigate the traffic congestion, but she felt to open the -third lane to traffic was dangerous because of drivers thinking the lane is open and coming upon a parked car. She felt that parking is an issue and to restrict parking even Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Commnmio� Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of_1VovembeT- 24, 2015 Page 2 of 8 further is a disservice to the businesses. She felt the City Council needed more information and feedback especially since the businesses only received notification today and did not have time to make arrangements to attend the meeting. She suggested there may be other grants available that won't restrict the parking on Garvey Avenue. She felt that since the City wasn't pressured for time, the City should communicate further with the residents and businesses to see how they will be impacted. Council Member Low wanted to know if the City accepts the grant and does the project, whether it will bring in more business if Garvey has a better flow of traffic. However, she heard the concerns from the businesses and asked if it is possible to provide more time to understand the concerns and to determine if the concerns can be mitigated. She asked if postponing a decision would impact the timeline for the Specific Plan. Interim Public Works Director La confirmed that a decision did not have to be made this evening. The only reason this was brought to the City Council at this time was to seek direction so staff knows how to proceed with the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. Council Member Alarcon addressed the issue from a pedestrian point of view noting numerous people his age and older walk on Garvey Avenue for exercise and have to share the sidewalk with bicyclists. He mentioned the danger of people his age inadvertently stepping off the curb and not being able to move fast enough to get out of the way. Council Member Hall pointed out the date of the letter sent to the businesses and the length of time it tools for delivery. She was also in support of improving Garvey Avenue and thinks it is good to have more time to discuss the issue before making a decision. Mayor Clark thought the City received enough feedback and wanted to vote against accepting the grant this evening because the City needed to move on and go back to the original design of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, She felt even though there is no deadline to make a decision, it is delaying the Specific Plan. She also expressed having to pay $992,273 of the City's money toward the project, when, if the City has that money available, work should begin on the Specific Plan and do what the City intended to do to beautify it. She stated her reasons for not wanting to accept the grant and change the Specific Plan is because it is going to be a parking ticket nightmare; Metro is pushing for people to get out of their cars and walk, bike or take the bus but the City will be providing a means for cars to move faster. She also felt with the traffic apps available, the City is penalizing the businesses by allowing traffic to get off the freeway and use Garvey as an alternate for the freeway. ACTION: Moved by Mayor Clark to deny the acceptance of the grant and move on with the Garvey Specific Plan. The motion died for a Lack of second. Mayo.. Pro `i'em Armenta felt that out of due process she would like to receive more information. She reminded Council that whenever somebody asks for another meeting to get more input the Council has always allowed that. Ms. Armenta wants to spear to more of the residents and businesses because she wants to hear more input before making the final decision. Council concurred to receive more input and feedback at another meeting. Rosemead 00Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Coynrn7rnity DeveloPMeW Coir777-7rssiort .Ioir7t Meeting Allinutes of lYovembu 24, 2015 Page 3 .`8 Thereafter followed a brief discussion as to when staff would bring the item back to Council. Community Development Director Ramirez explained the issue with having it on the December 8th meeting is that if the notices are mailed tomorrow or hand delivered again., two weeks is not enough time. She suggested bringing it back at the second meeting in January to give staff plenty of time to do the outreach due to the holidays, people being out of town during the holidays, and City Hall being closed. Council suggested the residents and any bicycle clubs be notified as well. There being no further discussion, the Mayor closed the workshop session at 7:15 pm. Regular Meeting 7.,00 p.m. The meeting of the Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission was called to order by Mayor/Chair Clark at 7:15 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Council/Board Member Alarcon INVOCATION was led by CounciliBoard Member Hall PRESENT: Mayor/Chair Clark, Mayor Pro Tern/Vice-Chair Armenta, Council Members/Board Members Alarcon, Hall, and Low. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman, Community Development Director Ramirez, Interim Director of Parks and Recreation Soash, Finance Director Chu, Interim Public Works Director La, Consultant Canon, and Interim City Clerk Cowley, 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Salvador Ramirez, Region Manager and Southern California Edison liaison for the City of Rosemead introduced himself indicating he would like to meet with each council member to discuss mutual topics. He looked forward to working with the Council in the future. 3. PRESENTATIONS Proclamation Celebrating National Arbor Day City Manager advised that the City's arborist John Scott is not present, however, the proclamation is a requirement to maintain the Tree City U.S.A. Designation status. a Proclamation Recognizing Sgt. Abel Moreno Mayor Clark announced that Sergeant Moreno was leaving the City of Rosemead. Each Council Member thanked Sgt. Moreno and expressed their gratitude to him for being involved in the community and for his dedicated and committed service to the citizens of Rosemead. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Ag-engy to the Rosemead Comr7umity Development Commission JointAleeting 11linutes of November 24., 2015 Page 4 of 8