CC - Item 4B - Minutes of September 8, 2026 Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Armenta
at 8:18 p.m., in the Rosemead City Council Chamber, located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard,
Rosemead, California.
PRESENT: Mayor Armenta, Mayor Pro Tem Low, and Council Members Clark, Dang and Ly
ABSENT: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Council
INVOCATION was led by Council Member L
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mindy Ye, Liaison to the West
Mayor Armenta and Council ME
invited the City Council to attf
September 26, 2026, at the Mar
residents with information and
assistance programs.'' She encoui
and thanked the Citv for its cont
Drive, stating that vehicl
stop sign. He requested t:
traffic enforcement at the
2. PRESENTATIONS - N
3. PUBLIC HEARING - r
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Gabriel Valley Realtors Legislative Rosemead, thanked
-r Clark for participating in the Legislative Day. Ms. Ye
the 2026 HomeFair: Pathway to Homeownership on
t Monterey Park. She stated that the event will provide
ounces regarding homeownership and down payment
d the City to share the event information with residents
ended Sheriff's Deputies for their professional response to a
•n at his home and expressed his appreciation for local law
raised traffic safety concerns at Arica Avenue and Mission
quently travel' at high speeds and fail to stop properly at the
e City consider painting a roadway guide line and increasing
section to improve pedestrian and motorist safety.
ACTION: Motion by Council Member Ly, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Low to approve
Consent Calendar Items A — C. Motion was carried our by the following votes: AYES:
Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low and Ly NOES: None
A. Approval of City Claims and Demands
• Resolution No. 2026-45 — Approval of Bi-Weekly Accounts Payable
Disbursements in the sum of $2,296,831.17.
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page I of 36
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-45.
Resolution No. 2026-47 — Approval of Bi-Weekly Accounts Payable
Disbursements in the sum of $1,231,159.08.
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2026-47.
B. Minutes
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the regular meeting minutes of
September 26, 2023; special meeting minutes of May 26, 2026, August 11, 2026,
August 24, 2026, and August 25, 2026.
C. Memorandum of Understanding with the El Monte Union High School District for
School Year 2026-2027 School Resource Deputy Funding
Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions:
1. Approve and authorize the Interim City Manager to execute the Memorandum of
Understanding with El Monte Union High School District for School Year
2026-2027 School Resource Deputy funding;
2. Approve the proposed use of JAG Program funds for the School Resource
Deputy; and
3. Approve the Interim City Manager to execute JAG Program related documents
and amendments.
5. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF
A. Solid Waste Franchise Agreement Compliance and Billing Audit Corrective Actions
Update
Recommendation: That the City Council receive and file this report.
Public Works Director Gutierrez stated that the item was a follow-up to the solid waste
contract performance and billing audit presented to the City Council in May. At that meeting,
the City Council directed staff to continue working with Republic Services to address service
issues and return with an update to the billing audit findings. Staff has continued working
closely with Republic Services and MSW Consultants on both matters.
Public Works Administrative Analyst Tieu provided an overview of the presentation. She
stated that the presentation would begin with service performance updates regarding bulky -
item pickup, graffiti on waste containers, and bus shelter collection services. Gerard
Mowbley, senior consultant with MSW consultants would then present the resolution of the
billing audit, including final reimbursement amounts and recommendations for Republic
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 2 of 36
Services to improve its billing procedures. Stephen Herring, General Manager for Republic
Services, would conclude the presentation by reviewing Republic Services' Remediation
Plan and proposed next steps.
Council Member Ly requested a change to the presentation order. He stated that he had no
objection to staff proceeding with Items One and Two; however, he requested that the
Council discuss its concerns and position regarding Republic Services before the
presentation of the proposed remediation plan. He explained that the discussion would
provide an opportunity for Council Members to identify any additional remediation requests
or concerns that may not have been included in staff s recommendations before Republic
Services presents its remediation plan.
Public Works Administrative Analyst Tieu provided an update on solid waste service
performance since May 2026. She reported measurable improvements in the three primary
areas identified by the City Council: bulky -item collection, graffiti on waste containers, and
bus shelter collection services, based on data from June and July 2026.
• Bulky -item collection: 99% of 627 requests were addressed within the nine -day
contractual timeframe, up from 97% in May. Republic Services now provides daily
completion reports with photos.
• Abandoned bulky items: 95% of 230 requests were addressed within two days, up from
71% in May. The City is working to improve CRM tracking so response times more
accurately reflect Republic Services' performance.
• Graffiti on waste containers: All three CRM requests were resolved within five days,
with over 80% completed'within two days -a 57% improvement from May. Republic
Services also expanded field handling of minor graffiti and began weekly reporting of
container exchanges.
• Bus shelters: The City and Republic Services confirmed 79 active shelters and
established individual service accounts for better tracking. 13 high -use shelters now
receive collection five times per week, above the contractual minimum of three, to help
reduce overflowing receptacles.
Gerard Mowbley, senior consultant with MSW Consultants presented the billing audit
findings and final reimbursement amounts. He explained that the presentation included the
original findings presentedduring the May briefing, the initial audit amounts, the final
reimbursement amounts, and the reasons for adjustments based on additional information
provided by Republic Services to City staff and MSW Consultants. He reported that the
original audit finding totaled $240,000. Following review of additional documentation
provided by Republic Services, the amount was reduced to $124,641. An additional $36,300
was included for payments to the City related to the billing audit costs and penalties for
container non-compliance. The total reimbursement amount to the City was therefore
$160,941. Mr. Mowbley then presented recommendations developed by MSW Consultants
and City staff for Republic Services to improve its billing procedures. The recommendations
included:
• Conducting scheduled quality assurance and quality control reviews and developing
a checklist to document and verify those reviews.
Rosemead 00Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 3 of 36
• Establishing a written process to maintain City -approved organic services waivers
and ensure the correct rates are applied to accounts with waivers under SB 1383.
• Implementing a written procedure for reviewing additional service charges, including
overage fees, additional organic service charges, and late fees, to ensure that all
charges are billed in accordance with the franchise agreement.
Public Works Director Gutierrez stated that Republic Services would present its plan to
address and resolve the audit findings.
Council Member Ly asked staff to clarify whether the bulky -item call -in requests referenced
in the performance snapshot are being tracked through the City's own Customer Relationship
Management (CRM) system or through Republic Services' tracking system.
Public Works Administrative Analyst Tieu replied that is through Republic's system.
Council Member Ly asked how are we validating what they're providing us is accurate in
terms of their CRM data?
Public Works Administrative Analyst Tieu responded that Republic Services provides the
City with call logs, which provide additional information regarding the requests and issues
reported by residents.
Council Member Ly asked for clarification regarding the tracking of graffiti -related container
exchanges and whether the reported information was being tracked through Republic
Services' CRM system or the City of Rosemead's CRM system.
Public Works Administrative Analyst Tieu replied the graffiti exchanges is a combination of
Republic Services system as well as the City's CRM system.
Council Member Ly referred to slide six and asked staff to confirm whether the 19 graffiti -
related container exchanges reported by Republic Services were based on Republic Services'
internal tracking system. He further asked whether the City receives the corresponding CRM
data from Republic Services for accountability and whether the data has remained
unchanged.
Public Works Administrative Analyst Tieu confirmed that the City's CRM data had not been
altered. She stated that the City receives weekly reports from Republic Services documenting
reported container exchanges, including photographs verifying completed exchanges.
Council Member Ly referred to slide five and asked whether the bulky -item pickup requests
shown were all related to the City's CRM system.
Public Works Administrative Analyst Tieu confirmed that all of the requests were CRM
requests.
Council Member Ly then asked how many requests were submitted directly by residents
versus initiated by City staff.
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 4 of 36
Public Works Administrative Analyst Tieu responded that the City does not currently have
the data separated by source but could gather and provide that information.
Council Member Ly stated that he was interested in obtaining data distinguishing resident -
initiated CRM requests from staff -initiated requests. He also raised concern regarding the
City's CRM tracking methodology. He asked whether response times are measured from the
time a request is entered into the CRM system rather than from the time the underlying issue
actually began. He questioned whether the reported two-day response timeframe, accurately
reflects the actual time taken to address an issue.
Council Member Ly referred to slide eight regarding the billing audit and asked the
consultant to explain the discrepancy between the approximately $47,000 audit finding and
the approximately $13,000 final reimbursement. He requested clarification regarding the
notation that additional invoices showed the billing error was limited to a six-month period.
Mr. Mowbley explained that the audit findings were based on the timeframe covered by the
audit and the invoicing information that Republic Services ultimately provided to the City
and MSW Consultants.
Council Member Ly asked for clarification regarding the initial audit finding of
approximately $46,000 and whether the difference was attributable to the audit covering a
longer timeframe.
Mr. Mowbley explained that the initial audit amount was based on a worst -case scenario
pending receipt of additional information needed to make adjustments. He stated that the
final calculation was based on the most recent billing information received from Republic
Services. Because Republic Services bills on_a quarterly basis, the additional information
received covered the final six-month period needed to complete the adjustments.
Council Member Ly asked how the City could verify that commercial businesses were not
overbilled over a 12-month period.
Mr. Mowbley responded that the audit determination was based on the invoicing and billing
information provided by Republic Services.
Council Member Ly requested clarification regarding why the audit findings referenced a
six-month period and what significance that period had to the final calculation.
Public Works Administrative Analyst Tieu explained that Republic Services provided
additional invoices demonstrating that the incorrect waived rate was charged for only a six-
month period. She stated that the billing error occurred during the annual rate adjustment in
July. Republic Services provided the City with June and July invoices for comparison; the
June invoice reflected the correct rate, while the July invoice reflected the incorrect rate.
Council Member Ly asked when the current solid waste contract began.
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes ofSeptember 8, 2026
Page 5 of 36
Public Works Administrative Analyst Tieu stated that the current contract began in August
2023.
Council Member Ly then asked how the City could verify that there were no incorrect billing
charges beginning with the start of the contract in August 2023, particularly given that the
audit review appeared to rely on billing information from June 2025.
Mayor Pro Tern Low inquired how the $46,000 was calculated.
Public Works Administrative Analyst Tieu clarified that the billing review covered the entire
period from August 2023, when the current franchise agreement began, through December
2025. She stated that Republic Services indicated the billing error occurred only from July
2025 through December 2025.
Council Member Ly asked how the City could verify that the billing error did not begin
earlier, in August 2023.
Public Works Director Gutierrez responded that Republic Services provided invoices
supporting the stated timeframe. He noted that the consultants reviewed and scrutinized the
billing information, and City staff subsequently agreed with Republic Services'
determination that the error was limited to the July through December 2025 period.
Council Member Ly confirmed that the City and its consultants had reviewed the billing data
beginning with the August 2023 commencement of the franchise agreement.
Mayor Pro Tem. Low stated that she understood the explanation and asked whether the initial
approximately $46,000 audit 'finding was calculated based on the assumption that the
incorrect billing began when the franchise agreement commenced in August 2023, based on
the invoices initially reviewed by staff.
Public Works Director Gutierrez responded that Republic Services subsequently provided
documentation demonstrating that the billing error was limited to a six-month period.
Council Member Ly asked about the proposed method for reimbursing commercial
customers who were affected by the billing error, noting that a later presentation indicated
that reimbursements would primarily be provided through account credits rather than
refunds.
Public Works Director Gutierrez stated that he would defer to Republic Services for the
details but understood that affected customers would be contacted and would have the option
to receive either a cash refund or an account credit.
Council Member Ly asked whether the reimbursement would include interest or any
additional compensation for the period during which customers had been overcharged. He
noted that affected businesses had effectively provided Republic Services with the use of
those funds during the period of the billing error.
Rosemead 00; Council Regulw° Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 6 of 36
Public Works Director Gutierrez confirmed that no interest payment or additional
compensation would be provided. He stated that the reimbursement calculation would
account for the applicable year -over -year Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase.
Council Member Ly commented that the City should seek stronger reimbursement terms.
Mayor Pro Tem Low requested clarification regarding the discrepancy associated with the
additional 64-gallon organic cart charge shown on Slide Eight.
Mr. Mowbley explained that the initial calculation covered the period from the beginning of
the franchise agreement until Republic Services provided additional documentation,
including photographs from collection trucks verifying that the carts were present at specific
locations and time periods. Based on that documentation, the corresponding periods were
removed from the penalty calculation.
Mayor Pro Tem Low asked whether the approximately $149,000 amount was initially
calculated based on the assumption that the issue had been ongoing since the beginning of
the contract.
Mr. Mowbley confirmed that the initial calculation assumed the charge had been ongoing
from the start of the contract until Republic Services provided documentation establishing
otherwise.
Mayor Pro Tem Low then asked whether the City would incur staff time or other
administrative costs associated with processing refunds to affected businesses or residents,
or whether the reimbursement process would be handled directly between Republic Services
and the affected customers.
Public Works Director Gutierrez stated that City staff would spend some time following up
on and verifying that the required reimbursement work is completed. He clarified that the
actual reimbursement amounts to affected customers would be handled by Republic Services
based on the audit findings.
Council Member Ly asked whether the City would be billing Republic Services for staff
time associated with overseeing and verifying the reimbursement process.
Director Gutierrez stated that he did not believe staff oversight time would be billed
separately. He explained that the audit process is included as part of the franchise agreement
and that Republic Services had agreed to reimburse the City for the audit costs. He noted that
the total reimbursement amount includes approximately $35,000 to cover the audit and
related consultant work.
Mayor Pro Tem Low clarified that approximately $35,000 reimbursement was intended to
cover the audit fees only.
Public Works Director Gutierrez confirmed that the $35,000 amount was specifically for the
consultant fees associated with conducting the audit and preparing the report.
Rosemead CioJ Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of SepteMber 8, 2026
Page 7 of 36
Mayor Pro Tem Low clarified that Mr. Ly's concerned with the staff time required to assist
and oversee the reimbursement process. She acknowledged that the amount of staff time may
be limited but questioned why the City should bear those costs when staff are required to
assist with the reimbursement process resulting from the billing issue.
Council Member Ly questioned why the reimbursement amount did not account for City
staff time associated with addressing the billing issue, noting that such costs are ultimately
paid by Rosemead taxpayers. He asked why staff time was not included in the final
reimbursement discussions with Republic Services.
Public Works Director Gutierrez explained that staffs negotiations with Republic Services
had been based strictly on the audit findings. He stated that staff time and interest were not
included in the reimbursement calculation. Mr. Gutierrez noted that the City could reopen
negotiations with Republic Services to discuss these additional costs.
Mayor Pro Tem Low stated that reopening discussions regarding reimbursement for staff
time would be reasonable, noting that the amount of staff time involved was not yet known.
Mayor Armenta asked for clarification regarding the new process developed by Public
Works and Code Enforcement for identifying, tagging, and citing residents responsible for
abandoned bulky items in the public right-of-way. She shared a recent concern from a
resident on Marshall Street who reported being cited for a bulky item that had allegedly been
dumped in front of his residence. The resident paid the citation but stated that he had not
been responsible for the dumping. She asked how the City verifies that the correct individual
is cited and requested additional information regarding the new process.
Public Works Administrative Analyst Tieu explained that Code Enforcement generally tags
abandoned items and attempts to identify and contact the responsible party. She stated that
staff could follow up with Code Enforcement regarding the procedures used to verify
responsibility before issuing a citation.
Mayor Armenta requested that staff review the process to ensure that citations are issued
only when there is adequate information identifying the responsible party. She expressed
concern that residents may be incorrectly cited when bulky items are dumped in front of their
properties and emphasized the importance of having sufficient documentation to support
citations. She also expressed concern regarding the billing audit and the reimbursement
process for affected customers. She stated that residents and businesses may have difficulty
obtaining reimbursements if they have moved out of the City, state, or country. She expressed
disappointment regarding the billing discrepancies and referenced the initial audit finding of
$240,739.94 in overcharges. She stated that the matter was particularly concerning given the
financial challenges faced by many residents and businesses.
Council Member Ly referenced Mayor Armenta's comments regarding the financial impact
of billing issues on residents and businesses. He noted that the current audit primarily
addressed commercial accounts and did not analyze residential billing during the review
period. He shared a concern raised by a resident who had recently contacted him after seeing
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 8 of 36
the item on the City Council agenda. The resident stated that after paying her monthly or
quarterly bill in person, she subsequently received another bill indicating that she owed an
additional amount of approximately $3. The resident initially believed the charge may have
been a late fee; however, she was later informed that the additional amount resulted from a
rate adjustment. Mr. Ly expressed concern regarding the clarity of residential billing and
asked how the City ensures that Republic Services is complying with the franchise agreement
and accurately billing residential customers, in addition to commercial customers.
Public Works Director Gutierrez stated that staff had discussed the resident's billing concern
with Republic Services. He explained that Republic Services was adding a message to
customer bills to clarify the nature of the applicable fee.
Council Member Ly clarified that the approximately $3.24 charge was added after the
resident had already paid the original bill. He questionedwhether simply adding a message
to future bills would sufficiently address the issue, particularly for residents who may not
review billing notices or understand the explanation. He asked whether the billing message
would be provided in all four languages used by the City.
Public Works Administrative Analyst Tieu stated that billing messages are generally
provided in English or the customer's preferred language and are not currently provided in
all four languages.
Council Member Ly expressed concern that language limitations could make it difficult for
residents with limited English proficiency to understand additional charges on their bills. He
emphasized the importance of rebuilding customer trust following the billing issues
identified in the audit. He further expressed concern about ensuring accountability for
Republic Services' residential billing practices, noting that the City has a diverse community
and that some residents and businesses may face language barriers when reviewing billing
information. He also questioned how the City would be reimbursed for staff time required to
monitor and address Republic Services' billing issues. He noted that Public Works staff
already have significant responsibilities, including infrastructure maintenance, pothole
repairs, traffic -related projects, and other City services, and stated that additional staff time
required to oversee the solid waste contractor presents an additional workload for the City.
Mayor Pro Tern Low referred to the staff report, which stated that, to ensure billing issues
are resolved and do not recur, the City would work with MSW Consultants to conduct
quarterly billing reviews of all commercial and multifamily accounts. She asked whether
these quarterly reviews had been conducted previously or represented an additional oversight
measure being implemented in response to the billing issues.
Public Works Director Gutierrez explained that the franchise agreement provides that the
City may conduct quarterly audits of Republic Services' billing and other systems. He stated
that, to his understanding, the quarterly audits had not previously been conducted and that
the current audit was the first of its kind. He stated that the City would establish a schedule
for future audits and continue reviewing Republic Services' billing systems to improve
transparency and accountability.
Rosemead 00Council Regular Aleeting
Alinutes of September 8, 2026
Page 9 of 36
Mayor Pro Tern Low asked who would be responsible for the cost of the quarterly audits and
whether the franchise agreement requires Republic Services or the City to pay for them.
Public Works Director Gutierrez stated that, in this instance, the City would cover the cost
of the additional audits. He clarified that the franchise agreement allows the City to conduct
quarterly audits but does not require the City to do so, stating that the provision indicates the
City "may" perform quarterly audits. He explained that, in response to the audit findings,
staff intends to conduct audits more frequently going forward.
Mayor Pro Tem Low clarified that, although the franchise agreement permits quarterly
audits, the associated costs would be borne by the City and, ultimately, City taxpayers.
Mayor Armenta opened public comments period.
Resident Norman Lee talked about Rosemead's residential waste and recycling container
programs and discussed the incomplete rollout of replacement carts by Republic Services.
He reported conducting an independent review of streets that still have older or improperly
branded containers and stated that his preliminary list includes more than 1,000 addresses.
Based on Republic Services' published replacement fees, he estimated that the affected
residents could potentially face more than $65,000 in replacement charges, despite the City's
request for citywide replacement of older carts. He noted that the remaining issues appear
particularly concentrated on Friday, Monday, and Thursday routes. He also stated that he
observed differences in the deployment of trucks replacing green -waste containers compared
with black and blue containers. He urged Republic Services and City staff to complete the
remaining cart replacements, avoid considering the rollout complete while streets remain
unserved. He offered to provide his collected data for review.
Resident Jonathan Loc stated that the City should provide residents with a more convenient
method of requesting bulky -item pickups. Mr._Loc recommended that Republic Services
implement an online and/or in-app system that allows residents to submit bulky -item pickup
requests electronically. He noted that Republic Services is a large company with the technical
resources to develop such a system. He expressed concern about residents having to wait on
hold by telephone to request a bulky -item pickup and stated that an online option would
make the process more efficient and timely. He suggested that residents be able to submit
bulky -item pickup requests through the same website or online platform used to pay their
Republic Services bills, rather than relying solely on telephone requests.
Council Member Dang, referring to Slide No. 5, asked whether the 230 multiple CRM
requests submitted for the same address are counted as separate requests.
Public Works Administrative Analyst Tieu confirmed that they are counted as multiple
requests.
Council Member Dang questioned the reliability of the data, noting that the 230 requests
could include multiple requests from the same address and therefore potentially skew the
total. He acknowledged that the reported 95% completion rate within two days was
commendable but suggested that the actual number of affected addresses could be lower.
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 10 of M .
Public Works Director Gutierrez agreed and noted that staff is working with the City's CRM
vendor to obtain greater granularity in the data collected.
Council Member Dang commented that the reported total of 230 requests may give the
impression that the City is experiencing a significant issue. He clarified that the number may
be skewed due to multiple requests being submitted for the same matter and stated that, based
on the data presented, he did not believe the City had a corresponding level of underlying
issues.
Stephen Herring, General Manager of Republic Services, apologized for the billing errors
and the length of the review process and accepted _ responsibility on behalf of Republic
Services. He stated that Republic Services worked collaboratively with MSW Consultants
and City staff to reach the resolution presented to the Council. Mr. Herring noted that updated
data resulted in a reduction from the initial audit findings and clarified that the initial amount
represented a worst -case scenario. He stated that Republic Services intends to reimburse all
customers affected by the billing errors. The majority of credits are expected to be
substantially completed by the end of 2026, with remaining accounts requiring additional
research, including customers who have moved or changed addresses. All credits are
expected to be fully resolved by, July 2027. He further committed to completing and
processing payments for audit -related amounts and City penalties within 60 days. Republic
Services agreed with the recommendations presented by MSW Consultants and City staff.
He also outlined additional corrective measures, including an annual review of the billing
system to verify customer rates against the franchise agreement, a full audit following each
annual rate increase, and quarterly reviews with the City. Republic Services will provide the
data necessary for these reviews and will address and validate any identified variances with
City staff.
Public Works Director Gutierrez stated that staff have made progress since the item was last
presented to the Council and will continue implementing improvements based on Council
feedback. Measurable improvements have been observed in bulk -item collection, graffiti
response, and bus shelter maintenance. He noted that the billing audit has reached a final
resolution, resulting in - approximately $161,000 in total reimbursements, including
approximately $125,000 to affected customers and $36,300 to the City. He stated that staff
have gained greater understanding of Republic Services' performance and billing practices
and will continue to monitor compliance with the franchise agreement. Staff will conduct
quarterly billing reviews to verify that corrective measures remain effective and that
Republic Services continues to comply with the franchise agreement.
Mayor Armenta asked how staff learned about the discrepancy and overpayment errors.
Public Works Director Gutierrez stated that, upon joining the City, staff identified the need
to ensure that required audits were being conducted and that Republic Services was
complying with the franchise agreement. In early 2025, staff initiated discussions regarding
the audit process, issued a Request for Proposals (RFP), and selected MSW Consultants
based on its experience conducting audits. He reported that the audit identified several
discrepancies. Due to the volume of data involved, the review required significant time from
Rosemead Cit)� Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 11 of 36
both the consultant and City staff. The process provided staff -with a better understanding of
the data and reports necessary for future reviews. He stated that, moving forward, the City
will continue to monitor and hold Republic Services accountable for compliance with the
franchise agreement, maintain transparency regarding the process, and enforce the agreement
as appropriate.
Mayor Armenta asked Republic Services when they learned about the billing errors.
Pilar Mejia, Republic Services Municipal Manager replied that she and Stephen Herring
joined Republic Services in late 2024 and that billing concerns were among the issues
brought to their attention during regular meetings with the City. She noted that Republic
Services worked to address the identified concerns as they arose. She reported that, in late
2025, she conducted an internal review of residential billing data to identify discrepancies
and gaps. She stated that the billing audit was useful in identifying additional areas requiring
corrective action, particularly where customer service interactions and system rate
information could result in billing discrepancies. She stated that she reviewed the invoices
individually and made corrections to addresses identified, with the majority of corrections
becoming effective in January 2026. She noted that the remaining issues identified through
the audit generally relate to the period from August through December.
Mayor Armenta questioned Ms. Mejia regarding Republic Services' billing procedures and
safeguards. She stated that changes in ` staff should not affect the billing numbers and
expressed concern that Republic Services may not have identified the billing discrepancies
until they were brought to the company's attention by City staff. However, she expressed
concern that Republic Services, as a nationwide company, had not identified discrepancies
involving the City, totaling nearly $250,000.
Council Member Ly asked for clarification regarding the apparent discrepancy between the
statements made in May and the information presented to the Council at the current meeting.
Ms. Mejia explained that several of the issues previously identified had been addressed and
corrected. She stated that some issues had occurred repeatedly, although they were not
necessarily significant individually.However, because billing concerns were repeatedly
raised by the City, Republic Services focused on reviewing and correcting the specific billing
issues brought to their attention. She stated that's when Republic Services began servicing
the City, one of the primary concerns identified involved an additional container. She
indicated that this, along with billing -related concerns, were among the two primary issues
addressed during that period and suggested that these recurring concerns may have
contributed to the need for an audit. Regarding the waiver accounts referenced on Slide 8,
she addressed the question concerning the difference between approximately $46,000 and
$12,000. She explained that the waiver rate did not automatically become effective in August
2023. Instead, customers were required to contact Republic Services and apply for an
exemption. She explained that the waiver process requires a customer to request an
exemption from receiving an organic waste container. A Republic Services representative
then visits the property to assess the site and completes a waiver form. The completed form
is subsequently forwarded to City staff for review.
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 12 of 36
Council Member Ly noted that when the City approved the ten-year contract extension,
Republic Services had explained that a lot of work had already been done, particularly with
the organic waste program, including staff going out to restaurants and other businesses and
working with them. He asked whether Republic Services should already have a database of
restaurants, cafes, hotels, and other businesses that were subject to the organic waste
requirements and potentially eligible for waivers. He questioned why the responsibility was
now on the ratepayer to request a waiver rather than Republic Services identifying those
businesses based on information it already had. He said he was concerned about making the
process more difficult for local businesses. He referred back to Republic Services' 2023
presentation that the City would not have to reinvent the wheel because the company already
had the infrastructure and resources in place. He asked why that existing information and
infrastructure were not being used to identify businesses that may qualify for waivers.
Ms. Mejia explained that the waiver process is separate from identifying businesses that may
potentially qualify. She stated that, even though Republic Services has information on
businesses that may be eligible, each business still needs to go through an assessment and
complete a waiver form, which is submitted to the City along with the required
documentation. She explained that the City then reviews and approves the waiver. She noted
that businesses have been contacting Republic Services over the past three years to request
waivers. She clarified that the waiver takes effect on the date it is approved by the City.
Council Member Ly asked when was the error recognized by Republic Services or by City
Staff?
Ms. Mejia replied that the issues were found periodically on and off.
Council Member Ly asked why Mr. Herring stated at the last meeting that Republic Services
could not accept fault of the billing issues.
Mr. Herring responded that the company was not aware of the extent or number of instances
involved. Previous discussions with City staff had focused on specific billing issues that the
company was able to investigate individually. He also stated that Republic Services' billing
team routinely conducts spot checks and that the company had issued hundreds of thousands
of dollars in credits during the same period. He clarified that, based on the information
available, the company could not characterize the issue as affecting every customer and did
not believe that to be the case. Mr. Herring stated that the issue appeared to involve a smaller
set of customers and assured the Council that Republic Services would work to correct the
affected accounts.
Council Member Ly asked for clarification regarding Republic Services' characterization of
the billing issue as involving a "small subset" of customers. He referenced the $124,641.24
in identified incorrect billing and asked whether Republic Services was suggesting that this
amount was not significant to the City's ratepayers.
Mr. Herring clarified that this was not what he meant. He explained that when comparing
the identified incorrect billing to the total number of invoices issued during the period, the
incorrect billings represented less than one percent of all invoices.
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 13 of 36
Council Member Ly stated that he was familiar with how property taxes are administered.
He noted that, as the October property tax due date approaches, taxpayers who overpay their
property taxes are entitled to a refund of the overpayment. He explained that under California
policy, when a taxpayer overpays and the excess funds are subsequently refunded, the refund
may include interest. He stated that the rationale is that the government received and held
funds that were not owed and, therefore, the funds should be returned with applicable
interest. He noted that this appeared to differ from the information previously provided by
City staff and asked for clarification regarding how the same principle would apply in this
situation.
Mr. Herring clarified that there were two separate components to the question. First, he stated
that customers could choose to receive a refund by cash or check issued to the business, or
they could choose to receive the amount as a credit on their account. He then addressed the
issue of the amount being refunded or credited. He explained that Republic Services had
discussed with City staff issuing credits based on the 2025 rate, which is higher than the rates
charged during the previous two years.He stated that this was the basis for the earlier
reference to a CPI adjustment. He clarified that while the adjustment was not specifically
interest, applying the higher 2025 rate would result in a greater credit amount over the
applicable contract period.
Council Member Ly requested that City staff continue discussions with Republic Services
regarding the billing issue. He stated that he did not believe the proposed resolution was
sufficient and expressed that when a public agency or contractor collects money from the
public in error, the funds should be returned with applicable interest to acknowledge the error
and ensure responsible stewardship of ratepayer funds. He acknowledged that Republic
Services is accountable to its shareholders but stated that, under its contract with the City,
the company also has responsibilities to Rosemead ratepayers. He referenced resident
Norman Lee, who had identified a number of bins that had not been replaced. He noted that
the resident had brought these issues to the City's attention and questioned why the necessary
bin replacements had not been completed by Republic Services.
Council Member Ly also referenced a prior conversation with Suzanne Pasantino regarding
the City's consideration of the ten-year contract extension. He stated that, at that time, he had
indicated he could support the extension provided that certain commitments were met,
including the replacement of bins or, at a minimum, ensuring that the bins were consistently
marked as Republic Services containers. He reiterated his concern that numerous bins
remained unreplaced and questioned why a resident was identifying deficiencies that he
believed should have been addressed by Republic Services staff.
Mr. Herring explained that during the initial rollout, Republic Services made efforts to
remove the existing containers and replace them with new containers. He stated that a
significant percentage of the replacements were completed successfully. He noted that
residents are entitled to new containers and stated that Republic Services supports providing
them. He stated that the company had sent multiple mailers and other communications
regarding container replacement and that residents needing a replacement container would
not be charged.
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 14 of 36
Council Member Ly questioned why Republic Services' staff could not identify and report
outdated or non -Republic Services containers while servicing their regular routes. He
referenced Mr. Lee's observations and asked whether staff could identify containers
belonging to other older service providers, document them through the company's CRM
system, and arrange for their removal and replacement. He noted that the initial container
rollout began when the current contract took effect in August 2023. He stated that
approximately 36 months had now passed and questioned why the rollout and replacement
of containers had not yet been fully completed.
Mr. Herring stated that it was substantially completed.
Council Member Ly stated that Mr. Lee's finding indicated there was at least over a thousand
bins still not replaced.
Ms. Mejia stated that she had reviewed the list provided by Mr. Norman Lee and that
Republic Services would use it as part of its route reviews this year. She noted Republic
Services staff had met with Norman and City staff approximately two weeks earlier to review
the list. Ms. Mejia explained that some of the properties identified on the list do not have
active Republic Services accounts and therefore do not appear to be current Republic
Services customers. She stated that her team would conduct route reviews along the
identified streets, document the properties with photographs, and identify containers that are
missing or need to be replaced. She said Republic Services would also contact residents in
advance to notify them of the review and potential container replacement. She noted that
some residents had previously expressed a preference to keep their existing containers
because they believed the newer containers were not as sturdy. She stated that the list
provided by Norman would be used to identify containers requiring replacement and that
necessary exchanges would be completed during the route reviews. The findings and
completed work would also be provided to City staff.
Mayor Armenta stated that since this item was a receive and file, suggested that any Council
member with additional concerns should speak with the city staff to ensure it's discussed
with Republic Services.
Council Member Ly requested that this item be brought back in three months for further
discussion.
6. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
A. Consideration of the Adoption of Resolution No. 2026-46 - Approving the Scope of
the Improvements for the San Gabriel Valley Forward "Jump -Start" Demonstration
Project Along Garvey Avenue Between New Avenue and the Eastern City Limit as
Advised by the SGV Forward Subcommittee
Recommendation: That the City Council, as advised by SGV Forward Subcommittee,
take the following actions:
Rosemead 00) Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 15 of 36
1. Consider and adopt Resolution No. 2026-46 approving the scope of
improvements for the SGV Forward "Jump -Start" Project, consisting of side -
running peak -hour bus lanes operating in the hours between 7AM - 9AM and
4PM - 7PM, transit signal priority, and bus shelter upgrades along Garvey
Avenue between New Avenue and the eastern City limits; and
2. Authorize City staff to take all necessary actions, including the negotiation of an
agreement with LA Metro and/or the SGVCOG, to proceed with the engineering
design and construction of the project.
Brian Horn, a business owner, asked whether businesses along Garvey Avenue had been
surveyed regarding potential transportation changes. He stated that several businesses he
spoke with were unaware of the proposed changes and had not been consulted. He expressed
concerns about potential reductions in parking or traffic lanes and the resulting impacts on
local businesses. He requested that the City Council consider business concerns when
evaluating the proposed changes.
Resident Chuck Lyons supported efforts to reduce traffic, noise, and pollution but expressed
concerns about the proposed bus lane and potential loss of traffic lanes and parking. He cited
concerns about increased congestion, driver confusion, enforcement and infrastructure costs,
and potential impacts on local businesses. Mr. Lyons questioned whether bus ridership
justified a dedicated lane and suggested improving traffic signal synchronization as an
alternative. He recommended maintaining existing parking and not implementing the
proposed bus lane.
Resident Jonathan Loc spoke in support of improving transit reliability, pedestrian access,
and street safety. Drawing from his personal experience relying on public transportation, he
emphasized the importance of reliable transit for residents who cannot afford or drive a
vehicle, including youth, seniors, and people with disabilities. Mr. Loc acknowledged
concerns regarding the removal of a travel lane or parking for a full-time dedicated bus lane.
He expressed support for the proposed peak -hour curb -running bus lane, which would use
the curb or parking lane during rush hours and restore parking during off-peak periods. He
stated that this approach would preserve two travel lanes during peak hours, maintain parking
for much of the day, and potentially reduce conflicts between buses, vehicles, and parked
cars. Mr. Loc requested additional data from the consultants regarding the number of vehicles
traveling on Garvey Avenue during peak hours compared with the number of vehicles using
curbside parking during those same periods. He also clarified his understanding that SB 79
would not apply to the project. He concluded by encouraging the City Council to consider a
peak -hour curb -running bus lane as a compromise between transit improvements, traffic
capacity, and parking needs.
Mayor Armenta read a written comment submitted via email by resident Victor Ruiz. Mr.
Ruiz expressed concerns regarding the proposed bus lane, noting that a similar proposal had
previously been rejected as infeasible and that traffic conditions on Valley Boulevard and
Garvey Avenue have increased since that time.
Mr. Ruiz stated that both roadways experience significant peak -hour traffic and are used by
commuters seeking to avoid congestion on the I-10 freeway. He expressed concern that
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 16 of 36
removing a travel lane could further increase congestion during peals hours. He asked the
City Council to consider the following and the potential impacts on residents, commuters,
and local businesses before taking action on the proposed bus lane:
• The estimated travel time for commuters traveling between Atlantic Boulevard and
Rosemead Boulevard during peak hours.
• Whether funding is available for additional traffic enforcement.
• The number of buses Metro plans to operate between Atlantic Boulevard and Rosemead
Boulevard.
• The potential impacts on local businesses along the corridor.
• The benefits the proposed project would provide to the City of Rosemead.
Mayor Armenta read a written comment from Thanh Lam - As a lifelong resident of
Rosemead, the prospect of introducing a public -transit-oriented project is one that our
community desperately needs. Not only would it benefit those who ride and rely on bus
services, but I believe it would greatly benefit our community as well. A side -running bus
lane, with the possibility of adding a bike lane would make it so much safer for cyclists,
scooters, and pedestrians. The Jump -Start demonstration project is one that I'm truly excited
to finally see and hope that similar projects will be implemented along other corridors in
Rosemead.
Council Member Ly stated that significant time and effort had been devoted to developing a
plan that preserves the preferences expressed by Rosemead residents while coordinating with
neighboring cities. He explained that one of his primary concerns throughout the process was
ensuring that transportation changes implemented by neighboring jurisdictions would not
create adverse impacts at Rosemead's entry and exit points. He stated that the goal was to
maintain traffic flow and minimize potential impacts on Rosemead, particularly at
intersections and corridors shared with neighboring cities.
Council Member Ly referenced comments from Council Member Dang regarding the
coordination of improvements near Garvey Avenue and Rosemead Boulevard, noting the
importance of ensuring that changes implemented by South El Monte and El Monte do not
negatively affect Rosemead. He stated that a coordinated approach among all four cities
would be preferable to avoid creating a patchwork transportation system. He acknowledged
that the proposal before the Council was not perfect and recognized concerns raised by
members of the business community and other residents. However, he stated that the
proposal reflected significant compromise and preserved several priorities identified by the
community and Council. He highlighted that the proposal would preserve existing parking,
which he described as an important priority for residents and the Council. He also noted that,
rather than implementing a fully dedicated 24-hour bus lane, the proposal would limit bus
lane operations to peak hours in consideration of the programs being implemented by
neighboring cities.
Council Member Ly further noted that the implementation timeline would coincide with the
Olympic period and stated that the Council could evaluate the effectiveness of the changes
after implementation. He concluded that if Rosemead does not implement the proposed
changes while neighboring cities proceed with similar programs, the City would need to
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 17 of 36
consider how those changes could affect traffic flow and the entry and exit points into
Rosemead.
Mayor Pro Tem Low stated that the proposed transportation changes presented a difficult
decision and acknowledged that there was no perfect solution. She noted that removing a
travel lane during peak hours could improve bus travel times by approximately 10 to 25
percent, based on the data presented. She emphasized the need to consider the impacts on
both transit riders and motorists, noting that both groups include Rosemead residents as well
as individuals traveling from neighboring communities. She stated that the City Council
should consider the overall flow of traffic on City streets and the effects on residents who
rely on vehicles for commuting and family responsibilities. She expressed concern that
removing a travel lane could substantially increase travel times for motorists. She also noted
that several intersections along the corridor were already operating at approximately Level
of Service E and expressed concern that reducing a travel lane during peak hours could
further increase congestion. She further stated that increased congestion on Garvey Avenue
could cause traffic to divert into residential streets, potentially affecting nearby
neighborhoods and local businesses. Mayor Pro Tern Low concluded that, based on the
information presented, he could not support the proposed lane reduction because he had not
heard of sufficient measures that would adequately mitigate the anticipated impacts on
motorists, residential neighborhoods, and businesses.
Council Member Dang stated that he was evaluating the proposed project from an
engineering perspective and recognized that the City has limited funding for traffic signal
synchronization. He indicated that, if the City supports the project, he would seek a
compromise that does not result in a fully dedicated bus lane. He expressed support for a
peak -hour bus lane with traffic signal synchronization, provided that the lane could also be
used by high -occupancy vehicles. He stated that the proposed arrangement could provide a
benefit by having Metro fund and implement traffic signal synchronization.
Council Member Dang also emphasized the importance of coordinating the project with
neighboring jurisdictions. He expressed concern that buses traveling from El Monte could
experience delays in Rosemead if the City does not implement complementary
improvements, while buses could move more efficiently through neighboring jurisdictions.
He stated that synchronization could help facilitate the movement of buses through
Rosemead. He further requested that Metro work with Caltrans to improve traffic signal
synchronization along Rosemead Boulevard, noting that portions of the roadway are under
Caltrans jurisdiction and that the City has limited ability to independently require
improvements. He stated that Metro may have greater leverage to coordinate with Caltrans
on this matter. Mr. Dang also raised concerns regarding bus service on Valley Boulevard,
referencing changes to Route 76 that increased passenger waiting times. He stated that longer
wait times on Valley Boulevard could encourage riders to travel to Garvey Avenue to access
more frequent service, potentially increasing congestion in the southern portion of
Rosemead. He requested that Metro restore the previous service frequency on Valley
Boulevard rather than shifting transit demand toward Garvey Avenue.
Council Member Dang identified traffic signal synchronization, Caltrans coordination, and
Valley Boulevard transit service concerns as key considerations for the City Council.
RoseMead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of SepteMber 8, 2026
Page 18 of 36
He commented that, when the matter was first presented to the Council, he had stated that
parking should not be sacrificed or removed to accommodate a bus lane. He acknowledged
that the subcommittee honored that commitment.
Council Member Clark referred to the Council's prior meeting minutes and stated that the
Council's previous direction was to preserve existing parking and not remove a travel lane
for a dedicated bus lane. She expressed concern that the current proposal differed from that
direction. She stated that she agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Low's concerns regarding the
potential impacts of removing a travel lane. She expressed support for pursuing traffic signal
synchronization on both travel lanes, including the use of signal technology to prioritize
buses as they approach intersections without establishing a dedicated bus lane. She also
stated that traffic signal synchronization could benefit both buses and motorists traveling
through Rosemead. She recommended implementing the synchronization improvements,
collecting data to evaluate their effectiveness, and allowing neighboring jurisdictions that are
pursuing dedicated bus lanes to demonstrate their effectiveness over the next several years.
Council Member Clark stated that if the data subsequently demonstrates that the dedicated
bus lane is effective, the City Council could revisit the issue and consider implementation at
a later date. She suggested a motion to pursue traffic signal synchronization and evaluate its
effectiveness before considering implementation of a dedicated bus lane.
Council Member Dang responded to Council Member Clark's comments, stating for the
record, he clarified his position that he is opposed to removing parking. He further explained
that it would be inconsistent to oppose a bus lane, given that the purpose of the subcommittee
was to develop a bus lane.
Council Member Clark stated that all Council Members had made clear that their
participation on the subcommittee should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the
proposal. She recalled that the Council had discussed the importance of being "at the table"
so that the City would have a voice in decisions affecting it, rather than having decisions
made without its input. She noted that one of the issues discussed by the Council was the
commitment not to remove parking or take away a dedicated travel lane. Council Member
Clark emphasized that, although the proposal had since been modified to apply only during
rush hours, it would still constitute a dedicated lane, which was contrary to what the Council
had previously stated.
Council Member Dang stated that he stood by his previous statement and did not intend to
change his position. He reiterated that his agreement was based on the understanding that
parking would not be removed and expressed his view that the subcommittee had fulfilled
that commitment. He then discussed the implications of neighboring cities committing to the
program. He explained that buses would be traveling from El Monte and could potentially
stop at Rosemead's border if the City did not participate. He stated that, based on his
questions to the Metro team, the City would not receive traffic -signal synchronization or
transit -priority measures if it chose not to participate. He recalled asking Metro where the
funding would come from if Rosemead declined to participate and stated that Metro indicated
there would be no funding available to the City under those circumstances. He further
explained that the City would not receive equipment or signal controls that would allow
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 19 of 36
buses to receive priority at intersections. He also emphasized that traffic -signal
synchronization involves more than providing priority to a bus at a single intersection. He
explained that changes at one intersection could affect traffic patterns throughout the
surrounding roadway network, potentially shifting traffic and congestion to other lanes and
intersections. He noted that synchronization is therefore a complex process rather than a
simple mechanism that can be activated at individual intersections. He questioned whether
Metro would have an obligation to address traffic impacts resulting from the City choosing
not to participate in the program. He stated that, because neighboring cities had committed
to the program, Rosemead would be affected by the regional changes. Council Member Dang
suggested allowing the proposed lane while designating it as a high -occupancy vehicle
(HOV) lane that would also accommodate buses, rather than designating it solely as a
dedicated bus lane. He characterized this as a possible compromise and stated that, in his
view, taking no action could result in greater difficulties for the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Low requested clarification regarding the three components presented by
the consultant, including the dedicated bus lane, traffic signal synchronization, and the use
of funding for bus stops. She asked whether the City could proceed with traffic signal
synchronization and bus stop improvements if it chose not to implement the proposed bus
lane, or whether participation in the components was contingent upon one another. She stated
that he had understood that the City could decline the bus lane while continuing to work with
Metro or other agencies on signal synchronization and bus stop improvements.
Greg Kyle, San Gabriel Council of Governments Consultant, confirmed that the City may
determine which components it wishes to include as part of the project.
Mayor Pro Tem Low asked whether the City could proceed with traffic signal
synchronization without implementing the proposed bus lane.
Mr. Kyle confirmed that traffic signal synchronization could still be included.
Mayor Pro Tem Low further asked whether bus shelter improvements could also be included.
Mr. Kyle confirmed that they could.
Mayor Pro Tem Low thanked the consultant for the clarification.
Council Member Ly addressed Council Member Dang and provided clarification regarding
the subcommittee's discussions with neighboring cities. He explained that the participating
cities did not enter the discussions with a unanimous position or a single approach. Some
cities advocated for more extensive implementation, while others, including the City, tools a
more limited approach. He noted that neighboring city of Monterey Park, was considering
multiple components, including preserving parking, implementing dedicated bus lanes, and
establishing dedicated bicycle lanes. He also noted that, as previously discussed by the
consultants, El Monte had already begun implementing portions of its Complete Streets plan,
including dedicated bicycle lanes. He added that, if the City proceeded with the project,
coordinating with neighboring jurisdictions could improve the effectiveness of traffic signal
synchronization and overall traffic flow. He expressed support for the suggestion to consider
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 20 of 36
adding a high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) component to the proposed lane and recommended
that the City formally request that option.
Mr. Ly acknowledged that the Council could choose not to implement the proposed bus lane;
however, he emphasized that the Council should consider the potential impacts of
neighboring cities implementing their portions of the project. He stated that the City would
need to discuss how it intends to address traffic conditions at the City's entry and exit points,
which could experience increased congestion as a result of the surrounding jurisdictions'
improvements. He expressed concern that existing levels of service could deteriorate further
if the City does not coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions.
Council Member Ly stated that he and Mayor Armenta had worked to reduce the potential
impacts on the City during discussions with the neighboring jurisdictions. He noted that the
discussions resulted in preserving parking and limiting the proposed dedicated bus lane from
operating 24 hours a day. He further noted that the proposal had been narrowed to peak -hour
operations and that the anticipated delay at one intersection was approximately 20 seconds.
He characterized these changes as significant improvements that could benefit pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists. He concluded that, if the Council chose not to proceed
with the proposed components, the City would need to undertake further work to determine
how to address the effects of the improvements being implemented by neighboring cities.
Council Member Dang provided an example regarding Rosemead Boulevard near the
railroad undercrossing. He noted that, within Temple City, the roadway is generally a two-
lane street with parking pockets along the sides and bicycle and/or bus facilities. He stated
that traffic signal synchronization had been implemented along that portion of the roadway
and observed that traffic generally flows more smoothly after entering Temple City and
continuing toward Las Tunas Drive. He stated that, in contrast, traffic congestion in the City
builds along Rosemead Boulevard from Garvey Avenue through the Target Plaza area and
toward Mission Road. He attributed the congestion to what he described as a lack of adequate
traffic signal synchronization and stated that Caltrans had not addressed the synchronization
issues. He suggested that the City should seek assistance from Metro in addressing the issue.
Mr. Dang emphasized that traffic signal synchronization involves coordinating a series of
signals rather than adjusting individual intersections. He explained that changing the timing
at one intersection can create traffic issues at another, requiring a comprehensive approach
to signal coordination. He stated that the proposed regional project presented an opportunity
to develop a comprehensive traffic signal synchronization plan covering the larger corridor
from El Monte to Monterey Park. He expressed the view that the size and regional nature of
the corridor would benefit from coordination and planning at the Metro level rather than
being addressed independently by individual cities.
Mayor Armenta stated that her decision to serve on the subcommittee was based on ensuring
that local businesses would be protected, particularly by preserving existing parking. She
emphasized that she advocated during the subcommittee meetings against removing parking
and noted that the discussions were intended to identify an approach that would benefit the
region as a whole. She explained that, at the time of the discussions, the options presented
were either a fully dedicated bus lane or an alternative that would involve the removal of
parking. She stated that the subcommittee discussed various scenarios and asked questions
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 21 of 36
regarding the potential impacts. Participants ultimately agreed that parking would be
preserved and that a 24-hour dedicated bus lane would not be implemented. Instead, an
existing travel lane would be converted to a bus lane during peak hours. She characterized
the peak -hour bus lane proposal as a compromise because it would preserve parking and
would not operate as a dedicated bus lane on a 24-hour basis. She also addressed what she
described as misinformation regarding the anticipated number of buses and potential impacts
on businesses, including concerns that frequent buses would prevent customers or business
owners from entering or exiting parking spaces in front of businesses.
Maya Bouchet, San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Consultant, explained that
during the proposed peak -hour periods, buses would operate approximately every seven and
a half minutes, resulting in approximately seven to eight buses traveling in each direction
during those periods. She stated that, because the proposed bus lane would carry fewer
vehicles than the existing travel lane, it could, in theory, make it easier for vehicles to exit
parking areas along the corridor.
Mayor Armenta asked the consultant to clarify the proposed operating hours and requested
an update regarding which cities had formally approved moving forward with the project.
Ms. Bouchet stated that the proposed peak -hour operating periods were from 7:00 a.m. to
9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., noting that the schedule was consistent with other
bus lanes implemented throughout the region. She reported that the Cities of El Monte and
South El Monte had approved moving forward with the project based on the action under
consideration. She stated that the project was being presented to Rosemead at the current
meeting and was scheduled to be presented to Monterey Park the following week.
Mayor Armenta asked about the length of. the Garvey Avenue corridor within the City of El
Monte.
Ms. Bouchet stated the following corridor lengths:
• -El Monte: 1.59 miles
• South El Monte: 0.70 miles
• Rosemead: 2.30 miles
• Monterey Park: 4.17 miles, consisting of the Atlantic Boulevard and Garvey Avenue
corridors
She clarified that the combined corridor length within El Monte and South El Monte was
approximately two miles, while the Rosemead portion was approximately 2.3 miles.
Mayor Armenta asked about the anticipated timeline for implementation of the project. She
noted that there were only a few months remaining in 2026 and questioned whether
construction or implementation would begin in the near term. She asked when the project
was expected to commence.
Ms. Bouchet explained that the project schedule would depend on direction from each
respective City Council, which would allow the project scope to be finalized. The next step
would be for the COG to present a funding request to the Metro Board based on the requested
improvements identified by each participating city. The Metro Board would then formally
Rosemead 00) Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 22 of 36
consider and vote on the budget request. She stated that, given the goal of accelerating the
proposed improvements, environmental clearance and design activities were anticipated to
proceed concurrently. She noted that the COG would work with the participating cities to
establish an appropriate project schedule and indicated that construction could potentially
begin in mid-2027, subject to the necessary approvals, funding, environmental clearance,
and design. Regarding construction, she emphasized that final design plans had not yet been
prepared and would depend on direction from the City Council. The proposed improvements
were expected to be minimally invasive from a construction standpoint. Improvements could
include slurry seal and pavement treatments, new or modified signage and striping, and
minor traffic signal upgrades. She further explained that bus shelter improvements were not
expected to require substantial excavation, although some sidewalk modifications may be
necessary to address Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements.
Overall, the anticipated construction consisting primarily of relatively minor improvements
rather than extensive roadway excavation or reconstruction.
Mayor Armenta asked whether traffic signal synchronization could be implemented and
evaluated between the current time and the anticipated start of construction. She asked
whether the City could use this interim period to measure whether synchronization would
improve or alleviate existing traffic conditions. She stated that she was seeking a potential
compromise that would address_ the concerns raised by the Council. She suggested
implementing synchronization on a trial basis, if feasible, to determine whether it produced
measurable improvements before construction begins. She requested that staff and the
consultants explore whether such an approach was possible.
Ms. Bouchet expressed appreciation to the City Council for its questions, discussions, and
feedback regarding the proposed project. Regarding traffic signal synchronization, she stated
that the feasibility of implementing synchronization prior to construction would need to be
evaluated. She expressed concern about the project timeline and whether there would be
sufficient time to implement and evaluate signal synchronization while simultaneously
preparing the design package and coordinating construction of the remaining improvements.
She ,explained that coordinating separate design packages, contractors, and construction
schedules could present_ logistical challenges. She noted that the construction bidding and
procurement processes generally require more time than anticipated and expressed concern
that there may not be sufficient time to complete a separate synchronization effort while
maintaining the overall project schedule. She acknowledged the creativity of the proposed
approach and stated that it could be explored further but cautioned that the City should
consider the logistical and scheduling challenges associated with delivering the complete set
of proposed improvements within the available timeframe.
Mayor Armenta asked whether funding for the proposed project was guaranteed, noting that
approval to proceed with the project would not necessarily ensure that funding would be
secured or that the project would ultimately move forward.
Ms. Bouchet confirmed that funding was not guaranteed and that the project team had
discussed the proposal with Metro and that Metro was aware that a budget request would be
submitted and had expressed support for the project. However, emphasized that funding
would remain subject to consideration and approval by the Metro Board. She clarified that
Rosemead 00Council Regular Meeting
Minutes ofSeptember 8, 2026
Page 23 of 36
the current action would authorize submission of the funding request and would not
guarantee that the requested funding would be awarded.
Mayor Armenta stated that given the uncertainty regarding funding, she was interested in
determining whether traffic signal synchronization could begin during the interim period.
She explained that initiating synchronization efforts could provide the City with data to
evaluate the potential effects of synchronization, particularly if project funding was
ultimately not secured. She stated that given broader uncertainties regarding federal and state
funding, she wanted to take a practical approach and explore what could be done in the
meantime to generate data demonstrating the potential traffic impacts and benefits of
synchronization, both if synchronization were implemented and if it were not.
Council Member Ly responded that in order to implement traffic signal synchronization
along Garvey Avenue prior to the Metro funding process, the City would likely need to fund
the synchronization independently using local funds. He explained that doing so would
separate the synchronization work from the project and timeline associated with the Metro
funding request. He noted that the primary issue was the project timeline. He explained that
once funding is submitted to and approved by Metro, multiple components would need to be
coordinated, including roadway striping, traffic signal improvements, associated software
and hardware, and bus shelter improvements. He stated that the approach proposed by Mayor
Armenta could be feasible but would require the City Council to identify and approve a
separate funding source for the traffic signal synchronization rather than relying on the
funding request being submitted to Metro.
Mayor Armenta stated that implementing traffic signal synchronization solely within the City
of 'Rosemead would not provide a complete assessment, as effective synchronization would
need to consider the entire corridor extending from El Monte to Monterey Park. She asked
whether the consultant had any data or estimates regarding the cost and time required to
synchronize the traffic signals along the entire corridor from El Monte to Monterey Park.
She noted that modern technology could potentially assist with the process and referenced
the presence of software engineers in the audience. She asked how much time would
realistically be required to synchronize the signals along the corridor.
Ms. Bouchet explained that there are several approaches to traffic signal synchronization;
however, effective implementation generally requires certain hardware and communication
infrastructure. She noted that, in order to effectively monitor and manage the synchronized
system, communication infrastructure and upgraded signal controllers would be necessary.
She explained that signal controllers function as the computers that operate the traffic signals.
In addition, stated that hardware improvements would be required in programming the signal
controllers and establishing appropriate signal timing. She emphasized that the necessary
hardware infrastructure would need to be established before effective synchronization could
be implemented and that the specific requirements would depend on the existing signal
infrastructure in each participating city. She acknowledged that modern technology could
assist with signal timing but noted that upgrading the necessary infrastructure requires both
time and funding.
Rosemead Cio1 Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 24 of 36
Council Member Clark stated that she had been informed by a former retired City employee
that traffic sensors may already be installed on the signal poles within Rosemead. She
suggested that, if the existing infrastructure is in place, implementing traffic signal
synchronization may be less complex than anticipated and recommended that staff verify the
existing equipment. She provided an example from Jackson Street between Garvey Avenue
and Graves Avenue, recalling that traffic sensors had been installed approximately 20 years
earlier by the City's former engineer, Ken Rukavina. She stated that the system allowed the
traffic signal to change to green as vehicles approached the intersection and described the
system as effective. She noted that technology has advanced since those improvements were
made and suggested that the city explore whether similar technology could be implemented
or expanded along the corridor. She expressed support for pursuing traffic signal
synchronization regardless of the outcome of the proposed bus lane project. She stated that
improved signal synchronization could allow both general traffic and buses to move more
efficiently through the corridor and could provide measurable data regarding travel times
and traffic flow. She recommended determining the cost and feasibility of implementing the
improvements and obtaining data that could be used to evaluate their effectiveness.
Mayor Armenta added that she was also aware of information from a retired employee
indicating that traffic detection equipment may already, be installed at certain intersections.
She explained that, rather than being mounted on signal poles, the sensors may be embedded
in the roadway and appear as diamond -shaped markings or devices. Mayor Armenta stated
that the sensors detect the presence of vehicles and transmit that information to the traffic
signal, allowing the signal to change accordingly.
Ms. Bauchet explained thatthereare several types of traffic detection systems, including
video detection and loop detection.
Council Member Dang stated that the consultants would have significant work involved in
developing an :effective traffic signal synchronization system. He explained that allowing
two lanes to flow <freely as they approach an intersection could create a domino effect, as
traffic movement in one lane could affect and potentially restrict movement in the other lane.
He emphasized that effective synchronization requires comprehensive traffic analysis and
coordination across multiple intersections. He noted that the process involves more than
simply allowing a bus or other vehicle to proceed through an intersection and requires
consideration of the broader traffic flow and resulting impacts throughout the corridor.
Mayor Armenta asked what safeguards would be available to the City if they proceeded with
the proposed improvements and, after several months of implementation, the changes
resulted in significant traffic problems or otherwise did not work as intended. She questioned
whether the City would have the ability to modify or reverse the improvements if they
negatively affected traffic conditions. She stated that while changes were necessary to
address existing issues, the City should have protections in place if the proposed approach
proved unsuccessful. She asked what safeguards would be available if the City proceeded
with a peak -hour bus lane that was not permanent and did not require the removal of street
parking in front of businesses. She requested clarification regarding the City's options for
addressing unforeseen impacts or returning the roadway to its prior configuration if
necessary.
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 25 of 36
Ms. Bauchet stated that the COG would review the City's concerns and could bring them
forward to Metro for further discussion. She also noted that Metro has experience
implementing similar improvements, particularly in the City of Los Angeles, and referenced
the Metro Bus Speed Working Group as an ongoing point of contact for community
feedback. She explained that the working group receives and responds to comments from
residents regarding implemented improvements. Based on feedback and observed benefits,
some improvements have subsequently been modified or enhanced. She noted that, in one or
two instances, roadway striping was adjusted in response to resident feedback and
characterized this process as part of the ongoing partnership between the agencies and the
community.
Council Member Ly referenced Mayor Armenta's earlier question regarding safeguards and
requested clarification from the consultants and COG representatives regarding the City's
authority over its roadways. Based on the information provided by the consultant and COG,
the streets remain under the City's jurisdiction and that the City retains authority over their
use. He asked whether, if the City subsequently determined that it wanted to revert the
roadway configuration to its prior condition, the City would have the ability to do so. He
requested confirmation as to whether such a change would be a feasible option.
Ricky Choi, Director of Government and Community Relations for the San Gabriel Valley
Council of Governments (COG), stated that subject to confirmation from the consultants, he
believed the City would retain the ability to revert the roadway configuration if necessary.
He noted that a specific implementation period had not yet been established but stated that it
was customary to implement such changes for at least one year. Mr. Choi explained that the
City would conduct a study during the implementation period to evaluate the effectiveness
of the changes. Following the study and reassessment, the City Council could determine
whether to extend the implementation or take a different course of action.
Mayor Armenta requested clear clarification regarding the safeguards available to the City
if the project were determined to have significant adverse impacts on the community. She
asked that the available options and protections for the City be clearly stated for the record.
Roy Choi, Manager of Transportation for the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
(COG)), explained that the project is being referred to as a "Jumpstart Demonstration
Project" because its purpose is to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed
improvements. He noted that evaluating the effectiveness of the improvements would require
an appropriate period of time. Mr. Choi stated that, if the City received complaints or City
staff identified concerns after implementation, the initial response would be to evaluate the
specific issue and determine whether modifications could be made to address it. If necessary,
additional adjustments or minor modifications could be considered based on observed
conditions and community feedback. He further stated that, if the improvements continued
to be unsuccessful despite such adjustments, the COG could discuss the City's concerns with
Metro as part of the project's future funding and implementation discussions. He stated that,
if requested by the City, the COG could communicate to Metro staff that the City wants a
mechanism established to revert the roadway configuration to its prior condition. Mr. Choi
indicated that this request could be incorporated into discussions with Metro staff and that
Rosemead 00) Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 26 of 36
any issues preventing such a mechanism would be communicated to City staff for further
consideration. Mr. Choi reiterated that the next steps, including design and construction of
the proposed improvements, are contingent upon approval by the Metro Board. He explained
that the City's direction regarding which improvements it wishes to pursue would define the
scope of the project and form the basis for the funding request to Metro. He emphasized that
the project scope must first be established through action by the City Council before the COG
can proceed with discussions with Metro regarding funding, scheduling, and
implementation.
Council Member Ly suggested that if the City Council approves the project, the requested
provision be included in the resolution. He recommended incorporating the provision into
the resolution for clarity.
Mayor Armenta expressed appreciation to Mr. Choi for confirming that the option to revert
the roadway configuration would remain available. She noted that residents can sometimes
have concerns about changes initially but may become supportive after experiencing the
changes. As an example, she recalled when senior programs were temporarily relocated from
the City's community center to the Garvey Center during construction. She stated that,
although some residents initially expressed strong concerns about the relocation, they later
became favorable toward the Garvey Center. She stated that the City's goals include
improving traffic flow and working collaboratively with neighboring cities. She emphasized
the importance of having safeguards in place and conducting a subsequent evaluation to
determine whether the proposed improvements are achieving their intended results. She
noted that, while a project may appear beneficial conceptually, actual implementation can
produce different results. She stated that she anticipated Council Member Ly would present
a motion addressing these considerations and expressed confidence that the motion would
clearly identify the applicable conditions and safeguards.
She emphasized that the proposed project had evolved significantly through the regional
discussions, from consideration of removing parking and implementing a 24-hour dedicated
bus lane to the current proposal, which represents a compromise. She stated that effective
governance requires consideration of different perspectives and a willingness to compromise
in the interest of the community. ` She acknowledged the work undertaken by Council
Member Ly and herself during the subcommittee discussions. She stated that the questions
raised during those meetings were intended to address the concerns she was elected to raise
on behalf of the community. She noted that the subcommittee meetings were publicly noticed
and open to the public and that approximately five individuals participated in the meetings.
She also noted that meals were provided during the meetings. She concluded by stating that
the City should proceed with an effort to evaluate the proposed improvements while retaining
a safeguard that would allow the City to return to the existing roadway configuration if the
improvements do not produce the intended results.
Council Member Clark asked Mr. Choi to clarify his statement "we can't do that" meant the
city could not retract.
Roy Choi stated that he did not recall making that statement but clarified that the City's
request would be communicated as a safeguard in the event that, after efforts to modify signal
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes ofSeptember 8, 2026
Page 27 of 36
timing and other elements to address complaints received following construction of the
improvements, the issues could not be resolved. He explained that, in a worst -case scenario,
if all efforts were unsuccessful and the City requested that the improvements be reverted to
their current configuration, the City would need to communicate the request to Metro and
obtain its approval. He noted that reverting the construction of the improvements would
require additional funding and that Metro would need to confirm whether funding would be
available for such work. He further stated that the City would be kept informed throughout
the process, including any issues affecting the ability to revert the improvements. He added
that the City's staff and project partners would remain in contact with the completion of the
improvements and that any changes from what was presented would be communicated to
City staff.
Mayor Armenta asked Mr. Choi whether, given the minimal nature of the construction and
the fact that the project would not involve digging up or trenching the streets, the cost to
revert the improvements would also be minimal.
Roy Choi stated that the cost to revert the improvements was expected to be minimal. He
noted that Council Member Ly had suggested revising the resolution to include language
specifying that the approvals would be subject to the ability to revert the improvements to
their current configuration. He stated that, if this was the Council's direction, the COG would
need to receive that direction so it could be communicated to Metro and other funding
partners.
Mayor Armenta indicated that if the resolution included that provision, it would address the
matter.
Council Member Dang suggested revising the language in the item from "dedicated bus lane"
to "dedicated HOV lane," noting that the lane would accommodate buses and other high -
occupancy vehicles, including Rosemead Go, and therefore would not be strictly limited to
buses. He clarified that this was one suggested language change and that he had several
additional comments to address.
Mayor Armenta asked whether there was data available to determine the feasibility of
designating the lane as an HOV lane rather than a dedicated bus lane and whether such a
change would be practicable.
Mr. Kyle, noted that, in San Francisco, taxis are also permitted to use designated bus lanes.
The consultant stated that an important consideration would be defining what constitutes a
high -occupancy vehicle (HOV), including whether Rosemead Go microtransit would
qualify. He indicated that the COG could work with the City to establish the appropriate
definition and determine which vehicles would qualify for use of the lane.
Council Member Ly suggested that the Council approve the resolution as amended to include
language preserving the City's ability to revert the lane to its current configuration, while
separately directing staff to negotiate with Metro regarding the potential authorization of
additional types of vehicles to use the lane. He noted that further discussion would be needed
to determine which vehicles should qualify, including the number of occupants required for
Rosemead 00) Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 28 of 36
HOV designation and whether the designation should include Rosemead Go, Metro
microtransit, or microtransit services operated by neighboring jurisdictions such as Monterey
Park and San Gabriel. He stated that there were several components to consider and
recommended approving the resolution with direction for staff to work with Metro to
establish and stipulate additional types of vehicles that could potentially use the lane.
Council Member Dang thanked the Council for the feedback and agreed that all details would
likely not be resolved during the meeting. He stated that he wanted Metro to understand that,
if the lane were to be designated strictly as a bus lane, he would not support the proposal.
Council Member Ly stated that language could be added to the resolution to reflect the
Council's intent while allowing the specific details to be worked out at a later time. He
requested a moment to consider the appropriate language as the discussion continued.
Council Member Dang raised a second concern regarding the proposed dual use of the lane
as both a bicycle and bus lane. He stated that he did not believe the lane should serve both
purposes because bicycles would generally travel more slowly than motor vehicles,
particularly during morning rush hour, potentially affecting the movement of buses and other
vehicles.
Council Member Ly explained that bicyclists are already expected to travel on the roadway
and that technically, riding on the sidewalk may violate traffic laws. He stated that if
bicyclists were not permitted to use the bus lane, they would instead travel in the adjacent
traffic lane. He noted that, according to the consultants and COG, allowing bicyclists to use
the bus lane could provide a safer alternative because bus operators are trained to navigate
around bicyclists and other roadway users.
Council Member Dang reiterated his concern that allowing bicycles in the lane could
undermine the purpose of the proposed improvements. He explained that a slower -moving
bicycle could require a bus, HOV van, or other vehicle to change lanes to pass, potentially
causing additional vehicles to make similar lane changes. He acknowledged the safety
considerations but stated that he believed allowing bicycles in the designated lane could
diminish the intended benefits of the program.
Council Member Ly asked Council Member Dang where he would prefer bicyclists to travel
if they were not permitted to use the designated lane.
Council Member Dang asked Council Member Ly where bicyclists currently travel when the
proposed lane is not in place.
Council Member Ly responded that bicyclists currently travel on the roadway with other
traffic.
Council Member Dang stated that therefore, the proposed lane would not change the current
situation for bicyclists. However, he expressed concern that allowing bicyclists to use the
designated lane could affect traffic flow and be detrimental to the purpose of the program.
He acknowledged that professional bus operators may be trained to safely navigate around
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 29 of 36
bicyclists but noted that other motorists may not have the same training. For this reason, he
stated that he did not believe bicyclists should be permitted to use the designated lane.
Mr. Kyle clarified that bicyclists are legally permitted to use the roadway. He explained that,
for safety purposes, the intent would be to direct bicyclists to use the rightmost lane rather
than the left lane. He stated that establishing a clear expectation regarding which lane
bicyclists should use would reduce confusion and provide a safer environment than having
bicyclists travel in the left lane.
Council Member Dang stated that he had expressed his concerns regarding the proposed use
of the lane by bicyclists. He reiterated that allowing bicycles in the lane during peak hours
could impede traffic flow and undermine the 'intended purpose of the program,
notwithstanding existing laws and regulations permitting bicyclists to use the roadway. He
also commented on the proposed traffic analysis and signal synchronization. He
recommended that the analysis account for anticipated demand associated with the Garvey
Specific Plan and surrounding development. He noted that future development, such as a
mixed -use project adding approximately 200 residential units, could alter traffic conditions
after the initial analysis and require additional analysis or adjustments. He expressed concern
that making subsequent changes to the signal synchronization or program could become
difficult once the improvements were implemented. He further requested that, as part of the
project's conditions of approval, 'staff and Metro coordinate with Caltrans regarding
improvements to Rosemead Boulevard. He expressed concern that improvements to Garvey
Avenue could divert additional traffic onto Rosemead Boulevard and requested that the
impacts on Rosemead Boulevard be addressed. Regarding Valley Boulevard and Metro Line
76, he requested that Metro reconsider the increased waiting times and restore the previous
service levels. He stated that he did not want changes to service on Valley Boulevard to
encourage additional riders or traffic to shift to Garvey Avenue solely to access faster bus
service.
Council Member Dang also addressed the ability to revert the proposed improvements to
their current configuration. He acknowledged the importance of preserving that option for
the City but expressed concern that, even if the physical cost of reverting the improvements
were minimal, doing so could create operational and scheduling challenges for Metro. He
noted that the proposedprogram would be integrated into a broader rapid bus service
connecting El Monte with Monterey Park and stated that reverting the improvements could
disrupt that regional system. He concluded that, although the improvements might
technically be reversible, there could be operational and programming considerations that
would make the process difficult and potentially result in concerns from Metro. He stated
that he wanted these considerations documented as part of the discussion.
Mayor Armenta asked whether there was a response to Council Member Dang's most recent
comment, acknowledging that the outcome of any future Metro Board consideration could
not be predicted.
Council Member Ly clarified that Council Member Dang's concern was primarily whether
reverting the improvements would be technically feasible. He stated that, regardless of the
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 30 of 36
technical considerations, the resolution would include language preserving the City's legal
authority to revert the improvements as a final safeguard if necessary.
Council Member Dang confirmed that this reflected his concern.
Council Member Ly added that Mr. Dang was providing insight from an engineering
perspective based on his expertise in that area.
Mayor Armenta concluded her comments by addressing public concerns and statements that
the City had changed its position or acted in bad faith. She stated that the City had acted with
the best intentions and made every effort to reach a compromise for the benefit of the
community. She emphasized that the proposal would not eliminate parking or establish a
lane dedicated exclusively to buses on a 24-hour 'basis. Instead, the City had reached a
compromise involving use of the lane during peak hours. She stated that the Council's focus
was on what would best serve the community and those traveling along Garvey Avenue. She
added that the City had consulted with neighboring cities and reiterated the importance of
compromise and working collaboratively to address community needs.
Council Member Dang stated that based on the mayor's earlier comments, he wanted the
resolution to specifically require completion of the traffic signalization work.
Council Member Ly confirmed that the resolution already included such a provision.
Council Member Dang requested that traffic signalization be identified as the highest
priority. He expressed concern that the project could install hardware capable of remotely
changing traffic signals without first completing the necessary traffic signalization study and
implementation. He referenced Council Member Clark's earlier comments and stated that
simply changing signal timing without proper signalization could result in traffic congestion
and additional impacts on northbound and southbound traffic. He requested that the traffic
signalization study and its implementation be completed before any changes to the traffic
signals are made, with other project components to follow thereafter.
Council Member Ly moved to adopt Resolution No. 2026-46, with the following
amendments to Section 2 of the "Whereas" clauses:
• Item A would be revised to read "Transit Signal Priority."
• Item B would be revised to read: "Side -running bus lanes operating during peak hours of
7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., with high -occupancy vehicle
capability."
Item D would be added to state that "The City and the San Gabriel Valley COG will
stipulate Rosemead's authority to revert side -running bus lanes to regular traffic lanes at
its choosing."
Council Member Ly stated that all other provisions of the resolution would remain
unchanged.
Council Member Dang asked whether the motion included a requirement regarding traffic
signal synchronization.
Rosemead Cio) Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 31 of 36
Council Member Ly clarified that the traffic signal synchronization provision, previously
listed as Item B, would be revised and designated as Item A under Section 2.
Council Member Ly clarified that the traffic signal synchronization provision was included
on page 2 of the resolution, under Section 2, "Approval of Scope of Improvements." He
noted that the section states that the City Council approves the scope of improvements for
the SGV Forward Jumpstart Project, including "A. Transit Signal Priority," which is the
terminology used in the resolution for the traffic signal synchronization component.
Council Member Clark asked about the protection language protecting the city.
Council Member Ly explained that a new Subsection D would be added to the resolution,
providing that "The City and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGV COG)
will stipulate Rosemead's authority to revert side -running bus lanes to regular traffic lanes
at its choosing."
Council Member Dang asked if there was something about Traffic study on Rosemead
Boulevard.
Council Member Ly stated that, with Council Member Dang's concurrence, the proposed
amendments would constitute the motion to approve the resolution. He further proposed
making a separate motion following approval of the resolution to address three additional
matters raised by Council Member bang and other Council Members: conducting a traffic
analysis for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, directing staff to work on defining what
constitutes a high -occupancy vehicle (HOV), and addressing traffic signal coordination or
synchronization along Rosemead Boulevard.
Council Member Dang identified another item regarding Metro Line 76, requesting that the
service be restored to its previous level and the waiting time reduced. He noted that he did
not recall the previous waiting time but recalled that staff had indicated it had been increased.
Council Member Clark asked whether Line 76 matter was included as Subsection D.
Council Member Dang clarified that he was referring to the previous waiting time for the
service.
Mr. Kyle stated that the matter could not be committed to during the meeting but could be
taken into consideration.
Council Member Ly clarified that the Line 76 matter would be addressed through a separate
motion directing City staff and was not part of the current resolution. He stated that the
distinction would avoid further confusion regarding the scope of the resolution. He clarified
that Council Member Dang was requesting increased service on Line 76.
Council Member Dang clarified that he was requesting a reduction in the waiting time,
thereby increasing the frequency of service.
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 32 of 36
Council Member Ly acknowledged that both requests were addressing the same objective.
He then stated that he would proceed with the motion to approve the resolution as amended.
Following consideration of the resolution, he would make a separate motion addressing the
additional items, including the Line 76 service request, as those matters would constitute
direction to City staff.
Council Member Dang acknowledged that the additional matters would be addressed as
direction to staff but noted that addressing improvements along Rosemead Boulevard would
require coordination and support from other agencies. He asked how that coordination could
be accomplished.
Council Member Ly stated that the matter could be discussed separately and indicated that
he had an idea for addressing it. He then confirmed that his motion was to approve Resolution
No. 2026-46 as amended and offered to reread the proposed amendments for clarification.
Council Member Ly stated that the motion was to adopt Resolution No. 2026-46 with the
following amendments to Section 2 of the "Whereas" clauses on page 2:
• Subsection A: "Transit Signal Priority."
• Subsection B: "Side -running bus lanes operating during peak hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., with high -occupancy vehicle capability."
• Subsection D: "The City and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGV
COG) will stipulate Rosemead's authority to revert side -running bus lanes to regular
traffic lanes at its choosing."
Council Member Clark stated she would like to make a substitute motion.
Mayor Armenta asked Mrs. Clark what's her substitute motion was.
Council Member Clark stated that her substitute motion was to proceed with the traffic signal
synchronization, including Subsections A and D of the proposed amendments. She further
proposed that the Council retain the option to revisit the proposed peak -hour operating
periods of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. after additional data and analysis
become available.
City Attorney Richman clarified that the proposal would revise Section 2 to provide that the
Jumpstart Project would initially consist of the transit signal priority component. She
explained that after a period of time and once additional data is available, the Council could
then consider implementing the limited peak -hour operating periods.
Council Member Clark stated that her proposal was not to approve the Jumpstart project at
this time, but to proceed with the traffic signal synchronization and revisit the remaining
components after additional data became available.
Mayor Armenta clarified that Council Member Clark's proposal constituted a substitute
motion and asked whether there was a second.
Rosemead 00) Council Regular Meeting
Minutes ofSeptember 8, 2026
Page 33 of 36
Mayor Pro Tern Low expressed concern that stating the Council would consider the matter
at a later time could create confusion. She stated that the Council needed to clarify whether
it was proceeding with the side -running bus lane component.
Council Member Clark indicated that she would amend her motion to clarify that the Council
would not proceed with the side -running bus lane component at this time.
Mayor Pro Tern Low stated that she and Council Member Clark appeared to agree on
proceeding with the traffic signal synchronization and bus shelter upgrades.
Council Member Clark clarified that her proposal did not include the transit component.
Mayor Pro Tern Low suggested a friendly amendment to remove the provision concerning
the operation of the side -running bus lanes from the motion.
Council Member Dang stated he was confused on what motion items were being discussed.
Council Member Ly stated that he would introduce a third motion and indicated that,
pursuant to Rosenberg's Rules of Order, his motion would take precedence over the other
motions.
ACTION: Motion by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Council Member Dang to adopt
Resolution No. 2026-46, as previously presented, with the following amendments:
• Subsection A: "Transit Signal Priority."
• Subsection B: "Side -running bus lanes operating during peak hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m."
• Subsection D: Add the following language: "The City and the San Gabriel Valley Council
of Governments (SGV COG) will stipulate Rosemead's authority to revert side -running
bus lanes to regular traffic lanes at its choosing."
Council Member Ly further moved to direct staff to address the following four items:
1. Negotiate with the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGV COG) and Metro
regarding traffic analyses based on the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
2. Negotiate with SGV COG and Metro to establish a specific definition of high -occupancy
vehicles that would be eligible to use the lane.
3. Work with Metro and SGV COG to develop a long-term plan for traffic signal
synchronization along Rosemead Boulevard.
4. Work with Metro and SGV COG to increase Line 76 bus service along Valley Boulevard.
Motion passed (3/2) by the following votes: AYES: Armenta, Dang and Ly NOES: Clark
and Low
B. Discussion and Direction on Drafting a Letter to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department Regarding the Selection Process for Sheriff Captains
Recommendation: That the City Council discuss and provide direction.
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 34 of 36
Council Member Ly requested Council support for a letter to the Sheriff expressing concerns
about the selection process for the Temple Station Captain. He stated that qualified
candidates should be given an opportunity to interview and requested that the City Manager
draft a letter for Council endorsement and signature.
Mayor Pro Tem Low stated that she did not fully understand the process and, therefore, did
not feel comfortable joining in signing the letter without a clear understanding of what
actions were required and what had actually occurred.
Council Member Ly explained under the process previously implemented with then
undersheriff Mr. Murakami, a list of candidates for the Temple Station captain position was
presented to an interview panel consisting of city managers from the jurisdictions served by
the station, including Duarte, Temple City, Rosemead,South El Monte, and Bradbury, as
well as representatives from the unincorporated areas through the County Supervisor's
Office. He further explained that the candidates would then be interviewed by the panel. He
noted that, under the former process, certain candidates, such as a current captain applying
for the position, would receive consideration by the interview panel. He stated that the
process has since changed and reverted to the previous practice, under which the Sheriff
determines which candidates are presented for consideration. He expressed concern that the
cities now have less involvement in selecting the captain who will oversee their respective
cities.
Council Member Ly stated the current process for selecting Rosemead's Police Chief, allows
City representatives to participate in interviews and request additional candidates, with the
selection process for the Temple Station captain. He `stated that, under the current Temple
Station process, the cities must select from the candidates provided by the Sheriff and do not
have the ability to request additional candidates. He expressed concern that the cities should
have a greater role in selecting the Temple Station captain given the importance of public
safety issues, including police response times and homelessness. He stated that the City
should communicate to the -Sheriff that the, jurisdictions served by Temple Station need a
meaningful role in selecting future station captains.
Mayor Pro Tem Low stated that she viewed the matter from a different perspective. While
agreeing that the City should advocate for its interests, she noted that multiple cities are
served by the Temple Station and that each city may have different preferences regarding the
selection process. She acknowledged that different sheriffs may approach the selection
process differently.
Council Member Ly stated that Rosemead is the largest contract jurisdiction within the
Temple Station area and therefore has a significant interest in the selection of the station
captain. He noted that other council members from neighboring jurisdictions have also
expressed similar concerns. He stated that Rosemead should take a leadership role in
communicating its concerns to the Sheriff regarding the selection process. He clarified that
the concern was not with the current captain, Captain Morsi, but rather with ensuring that
the selection process adequately reflects the interests and input of the cities served by the
Temple Station.
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 35 of 36
Mayor Pro Tem. Low stated that she was not comfortable with signing the letter, however, if
the rest of the City Council wanted to sign the letter they could.
Council Member Ly stated he would have preferred that there be a full council consensus in
signing the letter. Otherwise, he was okay with not sending anything at all.
Council Member Dang stated that candidates familiar with the communities served should
be considered for leadership positions because they understand the local area, businesses,
and public safety concerns.
Council Member Ly noted the lack of consensus on the matter and suggested dropping the
item, with the option to revisit it at a later time if desired.
C. Council Comments
Council Member Clark requested that the closed session from the special meeting be differed
to the next meeting.
Council Member Dang asked if there is signage with contact information for the public to
call if they need to contact city staff at any of the parks.
Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking indicated there are posted signs at all parks with
contact information.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Armenta adjourned regular meeting at 11:19 p.m.
APPROVED: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
Sandra Armenta, Mayor
Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting
Minutes of September 8, 2026
Page 36 of 36