CC - Item 4B - Minutes of April 27, 2021MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
REGULAR JOINT MEETING
APRIL 27, 2021
The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Low at 7:01 p.m.,
in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
PRESENT: Mayor Low, Mayor Pro Tem Dang, Council Members Armenta, Clark, and Ly
(Joined at 7:31 p.m.)
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Molleda, Assistant City Manager Kim, City Attorney Richman,
Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo, Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking,
Acting Public Works Director Ansari, and City Clerk Hernandez
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Mayor Pro Tem Dang
INVOCATION — Council Member Ly
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Low opened the Public Comment period.
Tania Castaneda Municipal Services Manaa r, Republic Services, thanked the City for
participating in the Earth Day event this past Saturday on April 24`h. We had a wonderful
turnout, and the residents loved the free compost, paper shredding and e -waste recycling
services. We are excited to calendar another community event in 6 months. Thank you for
your partnership, we are grateful to be part of the wonderful Rosemead community.
City Clerk Hernandez read the following Public Comment received via email from Jamie
De Beers Building Ops Manager, Panda Restaurant Group.
"Thank you for taking my general public comments, approximately 10 years ago, Mandy
Wong with the city of Rosemead started our business watch group. When we met we had
businesses from our surrounding area and the Rosemead Sheriff Team. I think our business
watch meeting has proven, what we all know intrinsically, which is when we all work
together, we get to know each other as people. And not just titles or labels. Only good can
come out of that, relationships are what drives us forward. I think I could go on regarding
all of the help we received over the years, but we'll focus on the latest situation to once
again showcase how supportive and resilient the rescue team is. On January 22, 2021,
Pandas corporate office had two company iPads and a personal cell phone stolen from the
front parking lot. We called Temple City station right away, and I texted Lieutenant Duong,
to let him know as well. I'd like to acknowledge the Rosemead Team, Deputy Arsela, who
called me several times to make sure that he had all of the information. Sergeant Carbajal,
who stopped by to look for himself what had taken place. Deputies Barios, and Farley,
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development AGENDA ITEM 4.11
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes ofApri127, 2021
Page I of29
Morales, Ponte, and Villanueva, who worked behind the scenes tirelessly, looking at the
video I provided. With the little information that we could give them, and whatever magic
work the police do to catch the perpetrators, our equipment was located in arrests made on
February 4. Unfortunately, Deputy Ledesma was injured while retrieving our equipment,
and we're thankful that he has since made a full recovery. On February 8, Deputy Douglas,
along with Deputy Morales and Sergeant Carbajal, brought Panda's stolen equipment back
to us. We are so very fortunate to work with, and know, an amazing team of men and
women who really do speak to serving the community. And as we all know, we serve as
we lead. Lieutenant Duong has been such an amazing asset to the Rosemead Team. We are
very sorry to see him go. But I understand why he was promoted, it speaks clearly in his
actions, and those of his team. Finally, I would also like to commend the city code
enforcement and public works for ensuring our streets stay graffiti free as possible. We
call, and within 24 hours the graffiti is removed. Many times within the hour. I thank you
again for sharing my comments and as always if you have any questions or need further
information, please feel free to contact me at (626) 692-4453 Jamie De Beers. Building
Ops Manager, Panda Restaurant Group."
City Clerk Hernandez read the following Public Comment received via email from
Pierre Beloin.
"To Whom It Concern: This email is in regards to the newly painted, yellow painted center
lines and the white side stripes on Burton Avenue. The work was performed on Friday
March 26th. First let me just say that I originally did not like the idea which I mentioned
in my email message below. It turns out its even worse than I previously thought at the
time mentioning that Burton Avenue was just a'small street'. The new look is really bad,
before our street looked nice and wide compared to a lot of streets in LA.
Now when you drive down the street it gives you a "claustrophobic" feeling with cars
parked on both side of the street each lane giving you that 'narrow' look and feeling. The
yellow painted center lines and with the shiny RPMs is really dangerous in my
opinion. For example on Walnut Grove Avenue this format is great this is a really wide
street with double lanes going in each direction.
Well, on Saturday night, March 27th when my daughter was removing stuff from the rear
passenger seat she had the rear door opened and thankfully she was leaning inside the car
a Ford pick up going south hit her rear door which also damaged the front door missed her
body by 'inches' she felt the wind swish past her and the noise scared the hell out of her
and rightfully so. Her husband came running out of the house and saw what had happened
he jumped in the car and chased the hit and run driver of the other car and caught up with
him at Circle K. 911 was called and the police met them at Circle K information was
exchanged by both drivers but the police did not write up a "accident report" as a "hit and
run' accident because my son-in-law caught up with the driver so it is not considered a 'hit
and run accident' I don't agree with that but that is another story. I really think this could
open up the city for future lawsuits, you can take a close look yourself park on the street
and open the driver's side door(s) and see where it stops to me that puts the driver and/or
people entering/exiting on the driver's side in a dangerous position but that is only my
opinion. We'll see what happens in the future.
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes ofApri127, 2021
Page 2 of 29
Thank you and have a good day!
Pierre Beloin"
Mayor Low asked staff to look into this matter and provide Council with an update.
City Clerk Hernandez read the following Public Comment received via email from
Jessica Ciero.
"To Whom it may Concern: I'm writing this email to express the safety issues that have
been posed by the City of Rosemead painting in new traffic lines on the residential street
of Burton Ave during the week of 03/22/2021.
1 have been a resident at 3237 Burton Ave address for over 20 years and during that time I
have seen my fair share of police chases, street closures, and various people speeding
through the street. The recent addition of these painted traffic lines have not only narrowed
our street space but have now created additional safety issues and personal property
liabilities for the residents of this street.
On March 27 (Saturday), my car was parked in front of my residence and I was reaching
in my car from the rear driver side door to get some items from my vehicle. As I was
leaning in, a truck hit the door of my car and the driver sped off. If it wasn't for my husband
being courageous and chasing this individual down with his car thereafter, we would not
have been able to get a hold of this person to exchange information at Circle K.
Further, to add injury to insult of being a victim of this hit and run driver, my insurance
adjuster informed me that I may be at fault for this accident because my driver side door
was open to the side of the road and I can be assigned liability for this accident. Since I
personally wasn't injured or driving my car, these traffic lines have now created a monetary
liability for me to pay for this accident and cause my insurance rates to rise.
If the City of Rosemead is concerned about safety, then I'd suggest stop being cheap and
install some speed bumps or dips. This is the only way you are physically going to stop
speeding drivers from going too fast, these traffic lines do nothing! Drivers have and still
continue to use our street as a shortcut to Garvey / Walnut Grove and speed down it going
40+ since the installation of these traffic lines. These traffic lines have only created more
safety hazards and narrowed space for both those who are parked on the street and delivery
drivers being too close to crossing traffic.
Enclosed are pictures from my accident and before/after pictures of the street of Burton
Ave. Before these traffic lines were put in place, when drivers would see residents getting
in their car, they would shift their vehicle to the opposite side of the road to accommodate
for safety for that person to get in their vehicle. Now that these traffic lines have been
installed, drivers are more nervous about following the traffic lines that they are getting too
close to parked vehicles and now we can't get in our car safely. I now have to drive up on
the driveway sidewalk to make sure I feel safe to even get in my vehicle.
So, I beg of you for the safety of the residents of our street, PLEASE REMOVE THESE
TRAFFIC LINES. I am very fortunate I'm not injured, but next time it may not be so lucky
for someone else. I think these tragedies can be avoided if the City were to understand these
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021
Page 3 of 29
hardships and potential lawsuits it's creating from its residents, we are just trying to live
here safely.
Thank you, Jessica Ciero."
Council Member Armenta asked for clarification, if that is a double solid yellow line in the
provided photos? Emphasized that you cannot cross a double solid yellow line.
Mayor Low asked if staff could provide that information at this time.
City Manager Molleda responded we can look into that and provide that information
at a later time.
There being no further comments, Mayor Low closed the Public Comment period.
2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Business Recognition of Tito Auto Trim for 50 Years of Service to the City of
Rosemead
The City Council recognized Tito Auto Trim for their 50`t' anniversary of serving
the Rosemead community and wished them well in their future.
B. Declaring the Month of April 2021 as "Earthquake Preparedness Month" in the
City of Rosemead
Emily Holland Public Policy Specialist, Governor's Office of Emereency Services,
thanked Council for recognizing the importance of earthquake preparedness month.
Informed that earthquake warnings can now be provided through apps and wireless
emergency alerts; noted more information can be found at www.earthquake.ca.gov.
Mayor Low thanked the Governor's Office and City staff for ensuring our city is
taking appropriate preparedness measures.
C. Service Recognition of Outgoing Los Angeles County Sheriff and Rosemead Chief
of Police, Lieutenant Tony Duong
The City Council presented a plaque to Outgoing LA County Sheriff and Rosemead
Chief of Police, Lieutenant Tony Duong.
Chief of Police Duong expressed appreciation to the Council for the honor of
serving the Rosemead community.
D. Presentation from Parent Engagement Institute - Parent, Family Engagement and
Community Services, Inc.
David Marquez of Parent Family Engagement and Community Services, Inc.,
also known as Parent Engagement Institute, presented a PowerPoint presentation;
indicated our organization is dedicated to a family education program that will
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021
Page 4 of 29
allow parents to learn how to help their children reach their full potential. Asserted
that serving the community is in our hearts; noted although we are not a food bank,
we support five food distribution centers throughout Los Angeles with thousands
of pounds of food and fruits for low-income families most in need. Our current
headquarters is in the City of Hawaiian Gardens and we would love to expand by
establishing a family education center (to include utilities and Wi-Fi) in the City of
Rosemead so we can provide our different type of services. Why did we choose the
City of Rosemead? Rosemead is a very diverse community in need of our education
program and resources. One of your residents, Olga Grand, asked why not bring
this program to Rosemead where a lot of families can benefit from it. We are
currently presenting our parent education workshops at schools in surrounding
school districts such as El Monte Union High School District. Our workshops are
available Monday — Friday, and sometimes Saturdays, a.m. and p.m.; noted the
number of training sessions per week and the type of workshops presented may
vary depending on the needs of the community. The program will cover subjects
such as technology classes, parenting classes, college bound, career awareness,
early child development, as well as job and life skills for youth. Mr. Marquez
explained the Skill to Pay the Bills program that helps parents and their children
with the financial part of their education. Stated he is excited to share about their
proven system and would be happy to provide recommendation letters that attest to
their successful track record.
Council Member Clark indicated support for the Skills to Pay the Bills; inquired
about which facility in Rosemead that the organization was proposing.
Mr. Marquez responded this is a proposed plan, however, we do not have a specific
place in mind. Noted with the City's approval we hope there will be some facilities
we can look at.
Council Member Armenta asserted that the former Public Works building that
used to be a clubhouse is now vacant. Noted Council Member Ly had looked at
that facility in the past to partner with the Boys and Girls Club; stating there is a
cost share to partnering with the city. Asked Mr. Marquez what would this proposed
plan cost the city?
Mr. Marquez explained the cost to the city would be simply to provide a facility,
pay for utilities and the Wi-Fi; there would be no cost to the families and
community.
Council Member Armenta emphasized all they are asking for is a space; reiterating
we have a vacant building equipped with Wi-Fi already.
Council Member Ly stated this youth program is something needed in the
community that has been lacking. Asked Mayor Low how she would like Council
to proceed with tonight's discussion.
Mayor Low asked if it was more appropriate for Council to meet with Mr. Marquez
individually to ask their specific questions.
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021
Page 5 of 29
City Attorney Richman expressed concern for Council to meet with Mr. Marquez
individually as that could pose a Brown Act violation; suggested if Council desires
to bring this item back to a future meeting for further discussion.
Mayor Low directed the Council to provide any questions regarding this program
to the City Clerk who will forward to Mr. Marquez to answer and present at a
future Council meeting.
Mr. Marquez expressed appreciation for the opportunity to present this item for
Council's consideration and looks forward to further discussion.
3. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Public Hearing and Approval of the 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan as Required
by the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME investment
Partnership (HOME), and Community Development Block Grant — Coronavirus
(CDBG-CV) Programs
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provides funding to
states, counties and cities in the form of Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) and Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) funds. Since the City of
Rosemead is an Entitlement City, the City is eligible to receive both CDBG and
HOME funds which it has for many years.
Before Rosemead can receive these funds, federal regulations require that a
Consolidated Plan (i.e., five-year plan) be adopted by the City that serves as the
federal planning document for those jurisdictions receiving Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME)
Program funds. The Consolidated Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2020.
In addition, federal regulations also require the adoption of an Annual Action Plan
to the Consolidated Plan that operates on a single program year established by the
City (i.e., July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022). As required by federal requirements,
the City will submit its One Year Annual Action Plan to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by May 15, 2021.
The purpose of this public hearing is to provide the public with an opportunity to
comment on the programs and activities proposed in the FY 2021-2022 Annual
Action Plan. The City of Rosemead views the Annual Action Plan requirements as
an opportunity to reassess its housing needs and priorities, as well as its programs
and resources in a manner that will best meet the affordable housing and community
development challenges of the Rosemead community.
Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions:
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony on the Annual Action
Plan; and
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes ofApri127, 2021
Page 6 of 29
2. Approve the FY 2021 - 2022 Annual Action Plan including CDBG, HOME,
and CDBG-CV3 funding recommendations, and authorize the submittal of
the Annual Action Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development; and
3. Authorize City Manager to execute all appropriate and necessary documents to
receive funding and implement approved use and make necessary budget
adjustments based on HUD's final allocation amount; and
4. Authorize City Manager to execute sub -recipient agreements with the non-
profit organizations receiving CDBG, HOME, CDBG-CV3 allocations in
the Action Plan.
Assistant City Manager Kim stated for the next Fiscal Year 2021-22, HUD has
notified Rosemead that we'll be receiving $738,492 in CDBG funding and
$337,512 in HOME funding; presented a PowerPoint of a matrix of how these funds
will be spent.
In reviewing the HOME funds recommendations, it would be appropriate for the
City Council to remember that no more than 10% ($33,751) can be used for
administrative and program delivery activities. At least 15% ($50,627) must be set
aside for CHDO, as constituted under the regulations. The balance of funds can
only be used for housing activities. Unexpended amounts were carried over from
the FY 2020-21 budget for Owner -Occupied Rehabilitation Loans and the
affordable housing program. In addition to the activities above, the city is currently
pursuing an opportunity to develop affordable housing.
It should be noted that under the CDBG program, eligible projects must either
provide benefits to low- or moderate -income persons, eliminate slum or blighted
conditions, or be an urgent need. In addition, at least 70 percent or more of the
FY 2021-22 entitlement total must be used for activities benefiting low- and
moderate -income residents of Rosemead. Of the HOME funds received, funds can
only be used for housing activities benefiting low- or moderate -income persons.
As a recipient of CDBG funds, the City of Rosemead is eligible to receive $528,646
in Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus (CDBG- CV) Round 3 funds
from the U.S. Department of HUD. CDBG-CV funds must be used to prevent,
prepare for, or respond to the Coronavirus pandemic, and may not be used to
supplant other funding sources. Additionally, CDBG-CV funds must meet a CDBG
program national objective, and the activity must be CDBG-eligible. HUD also
provided for communities to accept several regulatory waivers that facilitate the
rapid use of CDBG-CV funds.
Mayor Low opened the Public Hearing for Public Comment.
Teresa Eilers, Resident, expressed that she is dismayed that the City's budget
is only allotting $5,000 to address homelessness in Rosemead. There is extreme
flexibility with public relief funds and strongly encourages the City to reexamine
this year's Action Plan and proposed Budget. Ascertained that the following items
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021
Page 7 of 29
— the Owner -Occupied Rehabilitation Loans, Asbestos and Handyman Grants were
budgeted for last year, however the funds were not spent; inquired if any of
those funds can be reappropriated to be used on homeless services such as for
Family Promise, hotel vouchers or temporary housing. Applauds Rosemead for
using some of the CDBG funds for emergency rental assistance while serving
20 families. I know the city only spent half of that this year, hopefully next year the
city can spend all of it and possibly ask for more funds to do homelessness
prevention and rental assistance work. Suggested more outreach efforts so that
the public is aware of these funds and services available. Indicated support for
Rosemead's participation in the Homelessness Divergent Program with the COG
in the amount of $15,000; noted if the city does not use those funds within the next
six weeks, then they will lose them. Offered the Council and staff some housing
solutions that cost cities little to no money: inclusionary housing ordinances, stricter
rent control policies, prioritizing the creations of ADUs that will allow affordable
housing and creating congregational overlay zones that allow Churches to build
affordable housing on their properties. Thanked staff for their efforts.
Melissa Odotei Executive Director, Family Promise for the San Gabriel Valley,
stated Family Promise is a proud partner with the city in efforts to address
homelessness amongst families through a year-round rotational shelter within
congregations of Rosemead. Noted we do not have a limit as to how long a family
can be in the shelter; however, we do assist these families with finding permanent
housing, typically within 3-6 months. Throughout COVID, we have continued to
provide temporary housing at hotels with the city's help. We ask that you continue
to strengthen the programs and resources directed to high priority areas such as
homeless prevention and interim housing. With the growing homelessness needs,
we welcome the opportunity to further grow and deepen our relationship with the
city and surrounding communities as this is a regional issue. We would also like to
offer our funding sources through our national HUD office and relationships we
have fostered with other organizations across the San Gabriel Valley.
There being no further comments, Mayor Low closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member Clark inquired how much have we given to Family Promise inj
the past? Opined $5,000 seems very low. Asked why we are increasing Housing
Rights Center, but not Family Promise. Expressed we need to increase Family
Promise because of the growing need.
Assistant City Manager Kim responded our assistance in the past has consistently
been $5,000.
Priscila Davila of Priscila Davil & Associates, reiterated that staff is recommending
$5,000 to Fair Housing because they are receiving a lot of calls these days with
people struggling to pay their rent and back -rent.
Mayor Low clarified Council Member Clark is asking if it is possible to allocate
some of the CDBG-CV money to the Housing Rights Center because of the cost of
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021
Page 8 of29
increase due to COVID and then take that increase they received and appropriate it
to Family Promise.
Ms. Davila referred to the CDBG CV -3, stating we have money we allocated for
social services, specifically $100,000 for the food bank; indicated we could reduce
that and move some of it to Family Promise. The difficult part with CDBG funds
is you are limited and only allowed to allocate a maximum of your 15% yearly
allocation; every year the city does use those funds and that 15% is not allowed to
be carried over.
Mayor Low asked if she was understanding correctly that if we want to increase
the amount for Family Promise with CDBG funds, we can only take it from the
Housing Rights Center, senior nutrition services or summer youth employment
programs?
Ms. Davila confirmed that is correct. Under the CDBG-CV3 funds we are able to
reduce the amount in the food bank to give that portion to Family Promise.
Assistant City Manager Kim asked Ms. Davila how much money can we allocate
from CDBG-CV3 to Family Promise?
Ms. Davila replied because it is CDBG COVID related funds, there is no cap on
that; indicated we can give to Family Promise and increase Fair Housing.
Assistant City Manager Kim stated we can allocate $5,000 from CDBG and
another $5,000 from CDBG-CV, for an accumulative amount of $10,000 to
Family Promise.
Mayor Pro Tem Dang indicated he is okay with the suggested allocations.
Council Member Armenta concurred with Council Member Clark to allocate more
funding for Family Promise as it is the only program that keeps families together
and they partner with Evergreen Baptist Church; Emphasized our funds should be
going to the residents of Rosemead and not other cities. Requested data as to how
many Rosemead residents are being are being serviced through Housing Rights
Center. Inquired if any of these funds under Economic Development and Social
Services (referenced the last slide of the PowerPoint) can be reallocated for other
programs or is it only to specific programs.
Mr. Kim responded for CDBG-CV funds, yes. Added that the two programs with
CDBG-CV funds were established last year —the Small Business Assistance (SBA)
Program and the Food bank. SBA Program is through a grant, which provides rent
relief towards commercial businesses; noted we processed about 14 applications,
which helps our businesses currently stressed with rent during COVID. The Food
Bank, the city partners with a couple of organizations to provide food to residents.
Affirmed these programs are helping our residents and businesses.
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021
Page 9 of29
Mayor Low agreed with her colleagues to increase Family Promise's allocated
amount.
Council Member Armenta stated while we want to help everyone through the Food
Bank, it is important that we focus on Rosemead residents. Asked if they are
tracking how many participants are Rosemead residents?
Ms. Davila asserted that we are required to only use Rosemead CDBG-CV funds
for Rosemead residents.
Council Member Armenta noted on social media, the Food Bank announcements
indicates all are welcome and does not specify only for Rosemead residents.
Ms. Davila responded all are welcome, however we are only reimbursing them for
backup documentation for Rosemead residents.
Council Member Clark asked if that meant they are checking who is coming, where
they are from and only reimbursing for Rosemead residents.
Ms. Davila confirmed that is correct; explained they are leveraging their resources
they have from other funding, not Rosemead CDBG-CV funds.
Council Member Armenta said more money needs to be allocated to other homeless
efforts aside of Family Promise; we need to reevaluate what we can do to help these
families becoming homeless.
Council Member Armenta raised an issue about first-time home buyer assistance,
there is no way you are going to get a large enough house for $500,000; asked if
we could raise that bar.
Assistant City Manager Kim stated you have identified something we have been
talking about and the need to increase that amount as well as the loan limit;
indicated we are hoping to bring something to Council in the near future.
Ms. Davila directed attention to Appendix A of the Annual Action Plan, stated we
did a new homes sales data which specifies single-family homes and condominium
homes; noted we are asking HUD to increase those limits for Rosemead to
$636,500.
By consensus, the City Council took the following actions:
1. Approve the FY 2021 - 2022 Annual Action Plan including CDBG, HOME,
and CDBG-CV3 funding recommendations, and authorize the submittal of
the Annual Action Plan with the amendments provided to the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development; and
2. Authorize City Manager to execute all appropriate and necessary documents to
receive funding and implement approved use and make necessary budget
adjustments based on HUD's final allocation amount; and
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes ofApri127, 2021
Page 10 q(29
3. Authorize City Manager to execute sub -recipient agreements with the non-
profit organizations receiving CDBG, HOME, CDBG-CV3 allocations in
the Action Plan.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
ACTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Dang and seconded by Council Member Armenta
to approve Consent Calendar Items A -F. Council Member Armenta pulled Consent
Calendar Item G. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote
AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low, Ly NOES: None ABSENT: None
A. Claims and Demands
• Resolution No. 2021-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS
AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $431,060.14 CHECKS
NUMBERED 108760 THROUGH NUMBER 108811, DRAFTS
NUMBERED 5009 THROUGH NUMBER 5021, AND EFT
NUMBERED 50514 THROUGH NUMBER 50524 INCLUSIVELY
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2021-15.
• Resolution No. 2021-06 SA
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AS THE
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF
$500.00 NUMBERED 10312 INCLUSIVELY
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2021-06 SA.
B. Approval of Minutes
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt the special meeting minutes of
April 13, 2021.
C. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 998 - Municipal Code
Amendment 21-01 — Residential Small Lot Ordinance
At the April 13u' meeting, the City Council held a Public Hearing and introduced
for first reading Ordinance No. 998, amending various sections of the Rosemead
Municipal Code Title 17 ("Zoning") by defining and establishing standards to allow
the construction of homes on small lots with fee -simple ownership in the R-3
("Medium Multiple Residential") zone. The Ordinance is now being presented for
adoption by the City Council.
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the second reading and adopt
Ordinance No. 998 by title only, entitled:
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes ofApri127, 2021
Page 11 q(29
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, FOR THE APPROVAL OF MCA 21-01, AMENDING
TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ADDING DEFINITION FOR SMALL LOT AND AMENDING
THE DEFINITION FOR LOT AREA TO SECTION 17.04.050;
AMENDING SECTION 17.12.010.0 TO INCLUDE SMALL LOT
SUBDIVISION IN THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT; AMENDING
VARIOUS SECTIONS OF 17.12.020 INCLUDING TABLE
17.12.020.1 PERTAINING TO RESIDENTIAL USES AND SMALL
LOT SUBDIVISION; AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF
17.12.030 INCLUDING TABLE 17.12.030.1 PERTAINING TO
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING
SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION; ADDING SECTION 17.12.030.B.2.g
FOR SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION IN THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT;
AMENDING SECTION 17.136.030.A TO ADD SMALL LOT
SUBDIVISION IN SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW
REQUIREMENT
D. Building and Safety Services Contract Extension
On May 31, 2018, the City Council approved a three-year agreement with Interwest
Consulting Group, Inc. to perform the Building and Safety Division services
(building plan check and permitting) as required for enforcement of the City and
State building laws and codes. The existing agreement is set to expire on June 30,
2021. In accordance with the original agreement, the City Council may extend the
term of the agreement for up to two additional years. At this time, staff is
recommending Council approve the extension for one year. If approved, the annual
compensation will remain the same. Total payment to Interwest shall not exceed
forty-seven percent (47%) of net plan check fees and forty-seven percent (47%) of
net building permit fees collected.
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize a one-year extension for the
term of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022 with Interwest Consulting Group, Inc.
for Building and Safety Division services as described in the scope of services per
the original Professional Service Agreement.
E. Approval of the Traffic Commission Recommendations from the March 11, 2021,
Traffic Commission Special Meeting for Traffic Calming Measures at the
Intersection of Encinita Avenue and Pitkin Street
At the March 11, 2021, Traffic Commission Special Meeting, staff presented traffic
calming measures along the intersection of Encinita Avenue and Pitkin Street.
The presented recommendations were approved by the Traffic Commission to be
brought before the City Council for final approval.
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the following items:
1. Install Bollards along the bulb out, made of concrete approximately 4 -feet apart,
with a total of 11 bollards in the northern section, and 6 bollards at the southern
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes ofApri127, 2021
Page 12 of 29
portion of the bulb out (17 total). The Bollards should be concrete or steel
painted in yellow and black following guidelines per CAMUTCD Section 2C.
2. Install an Intersection Warning (WI -7) Sign with a Type N-1(CA) sign below
at the edge of the bulb out, as shown in Figure 4, facing WB traffic on Pitkin
Street. This would add a visual cue that Pitkin Street dead ends at Encinita
Avenue. Installation should follow guidelines per CAMUTCD Sections 2C.47
and 2C.65.
3. Refresh all existing curb markings at intersection in this area.
F. Approval of the Traffic Commission Recommendations from the March 11, 2021,
Traffic Commission Special Meeting for Traffic Calming Measurers at the
Intersection of Pistache Lane and Mission Drive
At the March 11, 2021, Traffic Commission Special Meeting, staff presented traffic
calming measures along the intersection of Pistache Lane and Mission Drive. The
presented recommendations were approved by the Traffic Commission to be
brought before the City Council for final approval.
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the following items
I. Install approximately 29 -ft of red curb along the north side of Mission Drive
beginning from the east side corner of Pistache Lane and Mission Drive. The
additional red curb will improve line -of -sight for left turning vehicles and will
prevent vehicles from parking too close to Pistache Lane. This will remove
approximately I parking space along the north side of Mission Drive, just east
of Pistache Lane. Approximately 52 -feet of available parking will remain to
accommodate approximately 2 vehicles to park along the north side of Mission
Drive, just east of Pistache Lane.
2. Install approximately 12 -feet of red curb along the north side of Mission Drive
beginning from the west side corner of Pistache Lane and Mission Drive. The
additional red curb will improve line -of -sight for right turning vehicles and will
prevent vehicles from parking too close to Pistache Lane. This will remove
approximately 1 parking space along the north side of Mission Drive, just west
of Pistache Lane. 57 feet of available parking will remain to accommodate
approximately 3 vehicles to park along the north side of Mission Drive, just
west of Pistache Lane.
CONSENT ITEMS PULLED FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION
G. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-17, amendment to Capital Improvement Program
Budget to Include the City's Four 710 North Mobility Improvement Projects
Selected by Metro; Approval of Funding Agreements with Metro for the Four
Projects; and Award of a Professional Services Agreement With Transtech
Engineers, Inc. for Program & Project Management Services of the Four Projects
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021
Page 13 of 29
Through the recent Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (L.A. Metro)
710 North Mobility Study, the City's Public Works/Engineering identified and
applied for qualifying projects under the program. The City was successful in
receiving a total allocation of $27,000,000 for the following four (4) projects:
1. I-10/Rosemead Boulevard Freeway [Westbound] Ramp Improvements
($6,000,000)
2. Adaptive Traffic/Traffic Responsive Control Project [Garvey, Valley, San
Gabriel, Walnut Grove and Rosemead] ($9,000,000)
3. Traffic Signal Improvements [San Gabriel Walnut Grove at Mission, Rosemead
and Valley] ($6,000,000)
4. I-10/Walnut Grove Avenue Freeway [Westbound] Ramp Improvements
($6,000,000)
All costs under the program from initial phases through construction and
implementation, are fully reimbursable by L.A. Metro. The four (4) projects will
need to be included in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for
activity status monitoring and cost tracking as well as entering into Funding
Agreement with Metro. Additionally, there is a need for program & project
management services to assure the projects remain on schedule and within budgets
for which the City undertook an RFP Process as further discussed below.
On December 3, 2020, the City of Rosemead released a Request for Proposal (RFP)
for Program and Project Management of the four (4) L.A. Metro awarded mobility
improvement grants and four (4) proposals were received by the deadline of
January 14, 2021. The firms that submitted proposals were:
• CAV Consulting
• Interwest Consulting Group, Inc.
• JMD, Inc.
• Transtech Engineers, Inc.
The four (4) proposals were submitted to City Clerk's Office as required by the
RFP. CAV Consulting, Interwest Consulting Group, Inc., JMD, Inc., and Transtech
Engineers, Inc. were invited for an interview process by a panel, which included
Assistant City Manager, Ben Kim, the Director of Public Works, Chris Daste and
peer Director of Public Works William Wittkopf from the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. The interview process gave the panel an opportunity to meet each
firm's team of experts and assess which firm's strengths best matched the needs of
the City of Rosemead. Ultimately, the panel recommended Transtech as the firm to
provide program & project management for the four (4) 710 North Mobility
Improvement Projects based on their proposal and interview.
Amongst other factors considered through the competitive process, Transtech's
familiarity with the projects, their assistance in securing the $27,000,000 in 2019,
their understanding of scope and recommendation of priorities in the four projects,
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021
Page 14 of 29
their demonstration of their experience and understanding of the requirements,
policies and procedures with METRO, Caltrans and Los Angeles County, which
will be involved in the review, approval and processing of these projects at various
levels, their understanding of the regional issues in the San Gabriel Valley as they
are also assisting several local cities that are also recipients of L.A. Metro's funding
under 710 North Mobility Program, and readiness to include relinquishment of
Rosemead Boulevard (State Highway 19) from Caltrans if approved by the City
Council, set them apart from other proposers.
Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions:
Adopt Resolution No. 2021-17, amending the City's 2020-2021 CIP Budget to
include the four (4) 710 North Mobility Improvement Projects to be funded
according to project priority, through multiple fiscal years, and according to
L.A. Metro programmed funds; entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE FY 2020-21
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET TO
INCLUDE THE CITY'S FOUR (4) 710 NORTH MOBILITY
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE FOUR (4) 710 NORTH
MOBILITY PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AND THE LOS ANGELES
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the four (4) funding agreements with
L.A. Metro for the 710 North Mobility Improvement Projects for a total of
$27,000,000 in grant funding and take any steps required to finalize such
agreement with Metro including any non -substantive edits that may be required
in consultation with the City Attorney; and
Award a Professional Services Agreement with Transtech Engineers, Inc. to
provide Program & Project Management Services of the four (4) 710 North
Mobility Improvement Projects at a Not -To Exceed budget of $1,500,000 to
allow the projects to be completed on the timeline provided by Metro for the
use of the Funds.
City Manager Molleda presented the Staff Report.
Council Member Armenta asked why the Acting Director of Public Works was
not presenting tonight.
City Manager Molleda directed the question to the City Attorney.
City Attorney Richman stated currently Transtech is sitting in that position per the
City's request because we have an absence of our current Director of Public Works,
so it was more appropriate for our City Manager to present.
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021
Page 15 of 29
Council Member Armenta emphasized our Acting Director of Public Works is
an employee of Transtech; opined for the recommendation to go to Transtech
seems questionable. Asked for the record if Transtech was involved in writing the
specs and design of the 710 North Mobility Study RFP?
City Manager Molleda replied as far as I am concerned, Transtech was not.
Council Member Armenta stated it was my understanding that our current contract
with Transtech included consulting on program and project management services
in the scope of services.
Ms. Molleda responded that the management services is for ongoing projects; noted
we weren't expected to receive this funding, so this is not considered an on-going
project. Clarified the $1.5 million would be coming out of the $27,000,000 grant.
Council Member Armenta pointed out that whichever firm is selected will receive
the $1.5 million as part of their consulting fees.
Ms. Molleda affirmed that is correct.
Council Member Armenta inquired why we have allocated $6,000,000 to the
I-10/Rosemead Boulevard Freeway [Westbound] Ramp Improvements project
when Rosemead Boulevard is considered a state highway, which is owned and
maintained by Caltrans, including the on -and -off ramps; expressed confusion as to
how we are able to make improvements to areas outside of Rosemead's jurisdiction.
City Manager Molleda explained these are projects that Metro approved; stated
there was interest expressed by some Council Members to acquire Rosemead
Boulevard, however that won't happen until we bring it back to Council.
Council Member Armenta indicated there is a lot of discussion regarding Rosemead
Boulevard; pointed out that part of Rosemead Boulevard was relinquished back
to Temple City with that acquisition, Temple City had to be responsible for
the upkeep.
Mayor Low interjected, stating we should not be discussing the acquisition of
Rosemead Boulevard and only whether this not under the city's jurisdiction, but if
the work we are proposing is approved by metro then they are well aware and giving
us their approval.
Council Member Armenta stated that Metro and Caltrans are two separate agencies
where sometimes they don't agree on things. For the City Manager to make the
suggestion that we are thinking of having Rosemead Boulevard relinquished
back to Rosemead down the line. How do I know that this $6,000,000 isn't going
towards that. I want to ensure that Caltrans understands that we are making all these
improvements, I'm sure they are happy because they don't have to pay to fix
anything. Just because Metro approves it, that should not mean that Caltrans is not
part of the discussion as well.
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of Apri127, 2021
Page 16 q(29
Mayor Low stated that is a fair question. Asked the City Manager when we say
Metro approved it, does that mean it is also approved by Caltrans?
City Manager Molleda replied Metro is the one granting these funds, so I am only
assuming they have spoken to Caltrans or we wouldn't have been approved for the
funding. In regard to the $6,000,000 to relinquish Rosemead, the State pays the city
to take over the street, so the 6 million wouldn't be utilized for that.
Council Member Armenta asked so you're saying money from the state is given
back to Rosemead to upkeep Rosemead Boulevard, a state highway.
Ms. Molleda responded, no, to relinquish the street to Rosemead.
Council Member Armenia stated that is very concerning to me because we have
had difficulties with Caltrans when we want to beautify Rosemead Boulevard, even
just to put planters there, right before Temple City Boulevard. Emphasized if we
are having difficulties in that little section, what other difficulties are we going to
have when trying to repair the on -and -off ramps on Rosemead Boulevard. Inquired
if we have a grading scale that was used amongst the top 4 firms interviewed to
help Council gage from one firm to another.
City Manager Molleda indicated she was not part of the interview process, but can
look into what grading scale was used and provide that to Council.
Council Member Clark said that she has similar questions as Council Member
Annenta such as how we determine what their rate and costs are.
City Attorney Richman explained this is a contract for professional services, not a
Public Works contract which is regulated by the Public Contract Code and has to
be awarded to the lowest bidder; professional services we don't base just on
amounts. The amount is an as -needed basis. It could be difficult to say the exact
amount since it is over a several years period.
Council Member Clark referenced page 6 of the Staff Report, "Transtech also
provided a presentation to the panel for City's review for the possibilities of
potential relinquishment of Rosemead Boulevard, which is currently under
Caltrans Jurisdiction. Municipalities can seek relinquishment of all or portions of
state highways running through their jurisdictions to gain local control over the land
uses." Noted this was brought up by a Councilman that served time in federal
prison, noting it was very controversial issue; majority of Council was against it
because you take on the liability of whatever happens on the highway. This was
included in campaign literature and voters voted how we feel about it. What
surprises me is in Transtech's bid, it discusses relinquishment of Rosemead
Boulevard: "There are several benefits to relinquishing facilities that are no longer
required to serve regional and statewide needs: A reduction in tort liability for the
State." Mrs. Clark indicated she looked up "tort liability" which is all civil liability
claims for damages, negligence as from car accidents, slip and fall, medical
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021
Page 17 o(29
negligence, nuisance, intentional wrongs, breach of contract. Why on earth would
we want to reduce the State's liability and take that on?
Mayor Low reiterated the discussion of relinquishment will be a major decision by
Council, so let's not focus on the potential relinquishment rather let's discuss the
project at hand.
City Manager Molleda clarified that this project can be moved forward whether
Rosemead Boulevard is relinquished or not.
Council Member Ly stated what he finds interesting is that Rosemead lost out on a
lot of that funding in the first couple of rounds; one of the things we have been
successful in the last 2 rounds of funding is because we did retain Transtech on
our team who has deep roots in working with organizations such as Metro. Having
a team like Transtech walk us through this is a good thing. Noted there has been
precedence of Willdan was providing administrative services as our Public Works
Director while also completing projects such as the Garvey Bridge at the same time.
Do we think this firm is capable of performing for us at a value that is fair to the
taxpayers? I think the answer is yes. I am in support of Transtech being selected.
Council Member Armenta stated she testified in front of the Metro Board for Round
3 funding that Rosemead was able to receive from my job. It was more political
because of the southern and northern hub of the 710. That's why many San Gabriel
Valley cities did not receive allocations.
Council Member Ly agrees with Armenta, sometimes Metro can be political and
sometimes we do too.
Mayor Pro Tem Dang opined after looking at the other bids, I do believe that with
Transtech's expertise, they are a strong candidate. To be fair to Council Members
Armenta's and Clark's point, for transparency purposes it would be nice to see
numbers to put everyone's mind at ease.
Council Member Armenta stated back on January 12, 2021, that she asked
specifically if the Release of Retention was paid and was told yes it was through
Transtech. However, it turns out we did not even have the Notice of Completion;
noted a Release of Retention cannot be paid without a Notice of Completion being
recorded by the County. Expressed this is concerning that someone who is supposed
to be the Project Manager was not aware if the Release of Retention was paid
or not.
Mayor Low asked if there is any urgency to approve this item.
City Manager Molleda indicated if this item is not approved tonight, it will hold up
the projects from moving forward. Stated that if the Council would like staff to
bring this item back to please clarify what the Council is seeking.
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021
Page 18 of29
Mayor Low asked if staff could bring back the ratings of the interview process and
the estimated costs of each proposal.
Ms. Molleda stated that Metro estimated that the cost would be 10% of the
$27,000,000; I just don't have the exact amount of what each of the contracts
submitted, but she can get that to Council.
City Attorney Richman reiterated I don't see each proposal submitting a cost
because the understanding that it is a six-year project, with a limit that each project
management can be for each project that Metro has given. They must show that it
is appropriate for Metro to approve the reimbursement.
Mayor Low conveyed she understands now that the management cost can only be
a certain percentage of the project, so that means each of these companies will
operate based on whatever limit they have at that percentage.
Mayor Pro Tem Dang stated the cost is capped.
Council Member Armenta indicated the project is an amount not -to -exceed $1.4
million.
Council Member Clark asked wouldn't they put in at least an hourly cost of what
they would receive.
Mayor Low stated it is kind of like CDBG money, the max you can spend is 15%
of administrative costs.
Council Member Ly asked Assistant City Manager Kim, who served on the
interview panel if pricing was part of the conversation?
Assistant City Manager Kim replied no, the interview was based off experience and
knowledge of the project.
Council Member Ly ascertained this sounds like it was more of a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) than a Request for Proposal (RFP) as we were looking for a
firm that meshed with Rosemead.
City Attorney Richman affirmed that is correct, that we were looking for
professional services to fit our needs.
Council Member Ly added because there was a limit of 10%.
City Attorney Richman replied yes because they would be familiar with Metro's
parameters for their services.
Mr. Ly requested Mr. Kim to explain what went through the interview process,
specifically why you quantitatively or qualitatively decided to go with Transtech.
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes ofApri127, 2021
Page 19 q(29
Assistant City Manager Kim shared the panel of three met over Zoom with
each individual vendor that submitted a proposal. They described their firm's
background, proposed project management that will be assigned to the city and
project itself, their experience and knowledge to this particular project. It was a
very detailed discussion with the firms. Quite a bit of discussion of who will be
assigned and who would best serve the City of Rosemead and with this project.
Council Member Ly followed up with asking how did you determine ranking?
Mr. Kim replied after the interviews were completed, the panel had an extensive
discussion of each firms' strengths and weaknesses; it was a unanimous decision
that we thought Transtech was the most knowledgeable and provide the best service
to Rosemead.
Mayor Low expressed after hearing this additional information and understanding
the costs that she is comfortable proceeding with Transtech. We have always had a
good working partnership with them.
Council Member Armenta asked Mr. Kim if he was part of the RFP Bidding process
to come up with the specs.
Mr. Kim replied no he was not.
City Manager Molleda stated it was our Public Works Director.
Council Member Armenta asked if he came up with the Engineering specs?
City Manager Molleda indicated he was in charge of the RFP process, however,
as you know he is on leave, so I am limited on the information as I do not have
communication with him.
Council Member Armenta asked so he is the only one who was part of the RFP
process including writing the specs?
Ms. Molleda responded I don't think that there are specs in the RFP, it was just the
general RFP and we can provide that to you.
Council Member Armenta said that would be great to see.
Council Member Ly with the added information and knowing this was more of an
RFQ than an RFP, also whether or not there was consensus if it was Transtech, no
one was objecting to receiving the money from Metro. So if we don't approve all
three recommendations, we should at least move forward with the first two
recommendations to receive the money from Metro. If we can't get the freeway
then we can at least improve the quality of life with these improvements to the
corridor and hopefully improvement of traffic.
ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly and seconded by Mayor Low to take
the following actions:
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021
Page 20 of 29
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-17, amending the City's 2020-2021 CIP Budget to
include the four (4) 710 North Mobility Improvement Projects to be funded
according to project priority, through multiple fiscal years, and according to
L.A. Metro programmed funds; entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE FY 2020-21
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET TO
INCLUDE THE CITY'S FOUR (4) 710 NORTH MOBILITY
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE FOUR (4) 710 NORTH
MOBILITY PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AND THE LOS ANGELES
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the four (4) funding agreements with
L.A. Metro for the 710 North Mobility Improvement Projects for a total of
$27,000,000 in grant funding and take any steps required to finalize such
agreement with Metro including any non -substantive edits that may be required
in consultation with the City Attorney; and
3. Award a Professional Services Agreement with Transtech Engineers, Inc. to
provide Program & Project Management Services of the four (4) 710 North
Mobility Improvement Projects at a Not -To Exceed budget of $1,500,000 to
allow the projects to be completed on the timeline provided by Metro for the
use of the Funds.
The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES:, Dang, Low, Ly
NOES: Armenta and Clark ABSENT: None
Council Member Armenta noted for the record that for transparency's sake, we
should have had a number ranking to be able to compare which we had none of.
5. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF
A. Discussion of the Rosemead Park Walking Trail and the Parks Commission
Recommendations from the March 2, 2021, Parks Commission Meeting for
Rosemead Park Walking Trail
At the January 26, 2021, City Council Meeting, the City Council discussed the
recently completed replacement of the Rosemead Park Walking Trail.
The City Council was responding to a petition filed at the City of Rosemead. After
discussion, the City Council directed staff to provide two (2) potential alternatives
to the newly installed trail surface and to provide cost estimates for the alternatives.
The City Council also directed staff to take the options to the Parks Commission
and for the Parks Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council for
discussion at a later date. The Parks Commission recommended Option 2 which
would add an additional one -inch layer of Rubberway Pervious Pavement (PP)
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes ojApril27, 2021
Page 21 of 29
3000 (a porous material) atop the recently completed non -porous surface. The Parks
Commission recommended item would cost approximately $163,649 to complete.
Recommendation: That the City Council provide direction to staff to proceed with
one of the following options:
• Option 1: Acceptance of the Completed Surface for which there would be no
cost impact; or
• Option 2: Additional Layer Over Completed Surface for an estimated cost of
$163,649; or
• Option 3: Demolish and Replace Rosemead Park Trail for an estimated cost of
$984,463.
City Manager Molleda presented the Staff Report and asked for the Council's
direction.
Mayor Low opened the Public Comment period.
City Clerk Hernandez read the following Public Comment received via email
from Barbara Murphy.
"Good evening Council Members,
My opinion on spending money trying to fix the Rosemead Park walking/jogging
trail is throwing good money after bad. Taking the solutions from the same people
and companies responsible for the trail makes no sense.
Money would be better spent in hiring a consultant who specializes in walking
trails. A consultant who would investigate all the trails in all the cities in the San
Gabriel Valley. What did they cost, who was the contractor, how long do the trails
last, residential usage, etc.
The surface on the Rosemead Park trail will not last for more than a few
years. Already, the color is washing or leeching out. The trail is now tri -colored -
red, pink and white, water puddles here and there after the sprinklers are run. It is
already showing wear and tear. Most importantly, it is not level.
Respectfully,
Barbara Murphy"
The City Council took a five-minute recess so that the City Clerk could assist the
speaker with the technical difficulties.
Mayor Low reconvened the meeting
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes ofApri127, 2021
Page 22 of 29
The next Public Comment was from Daniel Spadaro, Rosemead resident, stated the
trail has been resurfaced with some type of synthetic material and when the job
was done, the trail was left uneven. He has been in the construction business all his
life, I understand what would have been necessary to make the trail flat the way it
is supposed to be instead of in slight waves like it is. The current trail makes it
difficult for people to walk on and hurts my back, as well as others I have spoken
to. A lot of people will no longer walk on this trail, they would rather walk on the
sidewalk. I have a bad back so being able to walk this trail the past 12 years was a
blessing. Opined after taking pictures of the trail, it is clear there is no way you
could create a layer on top of whatever synthetic material is there now, otherwise
you would be creating a tripping hazard. The only way you could alleviate that is
to raise the whole Park an inch and half to compensate for the trail. At the last
meeting this was discussed the Director of Public Works Daste indicated that we
can't get that rubberized product anymore, which is not true. Mr. Spadaro shared
that he called "USSA", a company that specializes in rubberized trails; provided
their phone number: (877) 288-0045, stating they would be glad to come out and
give you a much better quote than what you have. Expressed he was insulted by a
Councilman's comment made at the last meeting that "Perhaps they should buy
better walking shoes." Offered his consultation to Council whenever needed.
There being no further comments, Mayor Low closed the Public Comment period.
Council Member Armenta asked what the cost was to replace the Walking Trail
back in December.
Ahmad Ansari, Consultant, Transtech Engineers, responded he was not sure.
Council Member Armenta stated she believes it was in the $360,000 ballpark;
inquired what was the process of replacing the Rosemead Park Trail.
Mr. Ansari directed Council Member Armenta's question to Brian Nieckula,
Principal in Charge, Mulholland Consulting, Inc.
Mayor Low reiterated the question is what the cost was to replace the Walking Trail
the last time around.
Council Member Armenta stated it's hard to believe that Option 3 is doing the same
thing as it being replaced in December, only now we are paying almost a million
dollars vs. $360,000. Emphasized 1/3 of supposedly what is being asked for now
and this is just tearing out the top and not including replacement of any subbase.
Referenced the company that Mr. Spadaro brought up on USSA. Not one complaint
of puddles in the 12 years for surface or subbase wise.
Per previous Public Works Director Marcarello, all drainage was taken care of. We
are to believe the first walking trail was poorly constructed. The complaints that we
are receiving now were not even a month after the walking trail was replaced.
City Manager Molleda confirmed that the amount for the replacement in December
was $376,181.25.
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes ofApri127, 2021
Page 23 of 29
Mr. Nieckula clarified that Option 3 assumes that you are essentially starting over
with a new trail, not to be confused with what occurred in December; emphasized
the numbers provided are just an estimate; indicated USSA is Rubberwood, to Mr.
Spadaro's point, we've spoken with the President of that company, the
recommendations are served as the basis of design but also to address residents
concern of the surface were from their recommendations. Option 2 is for that
additional layer, the cost obtained through the public bid process from access or the
contractor that did the work — those are based on some real recent numbers.
Council Member Armenta expressed she still does not understand where your
numbers are coming from; stated the contractor completely demolished and
replaced the trail back in December at $336,000.
Mr. Nieckula explained in December, the contractor did not demolish and replace
the whole trail, the existing subbase and headers were intended to remain per the
RFP that was issued by the city.
Council Member Armenta specified that not all the subbase was damaged, therefore
there were only sections of the subbase that had to be removed and replaced. I asked
you if you knew the bases were elevated for drainage and your answer was no.
It is concerning when we hire people, they need to know what they are dealing with
no matter what project. Mr. Marcarello made it clear that there was drainage both
on surface and subbase. Had we known there was any problems, we could have
noted that in the first rain, but we never had any problems. Mrs. Murphy, there are
puddles, the trail is tri -colored after only a couple of months of being replaced.
Understand Mr. Spadaro's concern on the type of material that was used on the
surface. Mr. Marcarello told me he didn't understand why they didn't just use
the same material from the past 12 years. The longevity of that trail would not
have been 12 years if there was a drainage issue, we had to replace it because of
wear and tear after 12 years.
Mayor Low stated we are getting into discussion already taken place at our last
meeting, so let's focus on the decision that Council needs to make. Not sure if it is
better to just leave things the way it is because this is costly, and have staff look for
ways to improve it.
Council Member Armenta opined the cost of Option 3 is excessive; reiterated that
1/3 of the cost from December.
Mayor Low expressed I don't think we can just select Option 3. Suggested going
with Option 1 to buy staff time to look into this further.
Mayor Pro Tem Dang explained that with Option 2, whenever you try to lay a
surface on an already existing surface, you are going to have issues bonding them
together. I am interested to see the warranty on this. I don't think it is going to
perform the way we are anticipating it to perform. The bevel element is fine if you
are running in the middle but the trail is not big enough for two people. There is a
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes ofApri127, 2021
Page 24 q(29
tripping hazard if you are not careful. From my experience, it will not work. Option
3 — the City may choose to demolish and replace the entirety of the Rosemead Park
Trail. Demolition and reconstruction of the Trail allows consideration of a wide
variety of porous surface materials and the base would be designed to be compatible
with the porous material. So, my recommendation would be to keep the trail as is
and proceed with Option 1: Acceptance of the Completed Surface for which there
would be no cost impact.
Council Member Ly stated what the consultants and Mr. Dang described makes
sense. We had a project prior to that and was lucky that it lasted 12 years. There is
no guarantee that if we build something that does not make engineered sense, we
put the city in vulnerability. If we are going to repair this, we have to repair it
correctly. We can't half fix it because we risk the integrity of the project. Grading,
concrete, and labor costs a lot of money, which is why the project is so costly. At
this point, there is no correct move forward, but I agree with Mayor Low to select
Option 1 and continue researching to figure out if there is a better way in the future.
Council Member Clark stated she does not want to accept Option 1 because then
we are saying we are okay with the state the trail is in. I really like Mrs. Murphy's
and Mr. Spadaro's ideas to get some research from a consultant that has no conflict
of interest on this, study what other cities have done and who they have used to get
it for the 1/3 of that cost.
Mayor Low reiterated that is the same thing that Mayor Pro Tem Dang, Council
Member Ly and I are saying. We want staff to continue research and come back
with better options.
Council Member Clark emphasized Option 1 is not the same.
Council Member Armenta reiterated Option 1 states we are accepting its current
condition. I would like to know the exact cost for Option 3; stated she will reach
out to USSA directly to get information and find more options.
ACTION: Moved by Mayor Low and seconded by Council Member Armenta
to direct City staff to continue to research the best option to fix the Rosemead
Park Walking trail while reducing the cost. The motion was carried out by the
following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low, Ly NOES: None
ABSENT: None
B. COVID-19 Update
This is a recurring item that will be on the agenda to update the City Council on
items related to COVID-19.
Recommendation: That the City Council discuss and provide further direction.
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of Apri127, 2021
Page 25 of29
City Manager Molleda stated the County of Los Angeles Department of Public
Health updated the Reopening Safer at Work Order and the following are effective
as of April 15, 2021:
1. All persons living within the County should continue to always practice Social
(Physical) Distancing and COVID-19 control measures and when among other
persons when in community, work, social, or school settings.
2. People at risk for severe illness with COVID-19 — such as unvaccinated older
adults and unvaccinated individuals with health risks — and members of their
household should defer participating at this time in activities with other
people outside their household where taking protective measures of wearing
face masks, and social distancing may be difficult, especially indoors or in
crowded spaces.
3. All Family Entertainment Center restaurants are limited to 25% indoor
capacity.
4. Institutions of higher education that have intercollegiate athletic teams that
admit the public as a live audience for any outdoor game, event, or competition,
may open while following current capacity mandates under the Order.
5. Institutions of higher education that have intercollegiate athletic teams that
admit the public as a live audience for any outdoor game, event, or competition,
may open while following current capacity mandates addressed in the Order.
6. Hotels and similar facilities may hold or host Private Events in compliance with
all current capacity mandates addressed in the Order.
City Manager Molleda asserted that the Center of Disease Control and Prevention
issued new guidelines that allows fully vaccinated individuals to not wear masks
for limited outdoor activities. LA County Department of Public Health is reviewing
these recommendations and will be updating the Health Officer Order shortly.
LA County has begun to meet the qualification for the least restrictive Yellow Tier
in the State's Blueprint for a safer economy framework. If the County maintains
current levels of declines in the case rate and positive tests, then it is possible for
the County to move to the Yellow Tier as early as May 5d . Shared as of today, there
have been 4,936 COVID-19 cases reported and 140 COVID related deaths in
Rosemead; also, as of April 23`d, a total of 26,837 residents have been vaccinated,
which is 58% of all Rosemead residents.
6. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
A. Approval of Third Amendment to City Clerk Employment Agreement
The City and the City Clerk entered into an Employment Agreement ("Agreement")
on April 10, 2018. Section 3 of the Agreement permits the City Council to conduct
performance evaluations and grant increases in salary. Pursuant to Section 3 (A)(2)
of the Agreement, the City Council conducted the City Clerk's performance
evaluation. The City Clerk received a "substantially exceeds expectations" review
with a 5 rating. A substantially exceeds expectations review entitles the City Clerk
to a 5% salary increase. A 5% increase would bring the City Clerk's total annual
salary to $113,949.06. In addition, the amendment would change the current
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes ofApri127, 2021
Page 26 of 29
severance of 9 -month pay and benefits to 12 -months pay and benefits in the event
of a not for cause termination by the City Council.
Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions:
1. Consider approving the Third Amendment to the City Clerk Employment
Agreement granting a 5% salary merit increase for a "substantially exceeds
expectations" performance evaluation; and
2. Consider approving an amendment that would change the current severance of
9 -months pay and benefits to 12 -months pay and benefits; and
3. Consider adopting Resolution No. 2021-16, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.
2020-07 ESTABLISHING THE COMPREHENSIVE SALARY
SCHEDULE FOR ALL FULL-TIME CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
City Attorney Richman indicated there is a new law that requires any items for
approval of Executive Members' salary, that you orally state what the amount is.
Asserted that the City Clerk received a "substantially exceeds expectations" review
with a 5 rating; noted a substantially exceeds expectations review entitles a 5%
salary increase, which would bring the City Clerk's total annual salary to
$113,949.06. In addition, the amendment would change the current severance of
9 -month pay and benefits to 12 -months pay and benefits in the event of a not for
cause termination by the City Council.
Council Member Armenta reiterated her concern shared at the last Council meeting,
that the last time a severance was before us, I have to be consistent, going from 9
months to 12 months during the pandemic. Very much well deserved 5% increase.
It does not matter who it is.
Council Member Clark echoed Council Member Armenta's sentiments.
Mayor Pro Tem Dang expressed that our City Clerk does a fantastic job; noted in
terms of severance pay, it is an industry standard — as indicated by our City Attorney
in the last discussion, anything from 9 to 18 months, and 12 months is just an
average.
ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly and seconded by Mayor Low to take
the following actions:
1. Approve the Third Amendment to the City Clerk Employment Agreement
granting a 5% salary merit increase for a "substantially exceeds expectations"
performance evaluation; and
2. Approve an amendment that would change the current severance of 9 -months
pay and benefits to 12 -months pay and benefits; and
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021
Page 27 of 29
3. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-16, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.
2020-07 ESTABLISHING THE COMPREHENSIVE SALARY
SCHEDULE FOR ALL FULL-TIME CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark,
Dang, Low, Ly NOES: None ABSENT: None
B. Consolidated Disposal Services Discussion
This item is presented to the City Council at the request of Council Member Steven
Ly. The current consolidated disposal services agreement expires on July 31, 2023.
Recommendation: That the City Council discuss and provide further direction.
Council Member Ly requested to table this item due to the late time.
C. Council Comments
Council Member Ly noted he and Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking have
discussed in past conversations the possibility of new programs for youth. I would
like to see that on the agenda sooner rather than later to help us transition from
the pandemic.
Mayor Pro Tem Dang thanked Republic Services for their Earth Day event,
which provided a bulky -item drop-off and free compost to our residents. Republic
Services brought up an idea of mandatory requirement to purchase compost and
donate it to the city to give them to stockpile at a selected location. Mr. Dang
brought up possibly the community gardens since we have a few of those; opined
if that does not work out logistically, another option is to store it at Garvey Center's
back parking lot. Asked Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking to reach out to
Republic Services to discuss the city's options further.
Council Member Armenta stated on Monday, April 26th, at 7:08 p.m., she emailed
City Manager Molleda to discuss some items and has yet to receive an
acknowledgment or response, therefore she asked for them now on the record.
• Back in January, I asked for trash receptacles to be placed by In -N -Out. I
would like to be updated on that directly.
• On April 16, 2021, a screenshot of a Facebook post was sent to her
regarding the condition of Garvey Park.
• Due to a lot of activity that was going on in the southern end of Rosemead,
I requested more patrolling there, but a lot of that was dealt with during
today's discussion.
• There was an incident at Rosemead Park regarding the fields.
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021
Page 28 of 29
Mayor Low asked City Manager Molleda if she had an update on any of Council
Member Armenta's requested items.
City Manager Molleda responded the email was sent last night and she was busy
today but was composing a response to send to Council Member Armenta tonight.
Council Member Armenta emphasized she understands being busy, but at least
sending an acknowledgment of the email would be appreciated.
Council Member Clark noted she attended the Earth Day/recycle event and was
excited to take a van full of a -waste. Opined that items should not be brought forth
when the public is not able to be in person during the pandemic; expressed that she
is livid that El Monte Union High School District basically kicked out Pasadena
City College (PCC) during COVID — they allowed them to keep a few rooms, but
that is not satisfactory; shared that her granddaughters love going to PCC in
Rosemead. Council Member Clark appreciates that we adopted the Resolution in
favor of PCC staying in Rosemead.
Mayor Low announced that Herald Christian Health Center is still providing
COVID vaccinations at the Rosemead Community Recreation Center; thanked all
the volunteers for assisting with this crucial service provided to the community.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Low adjourned the meeting at 10:53 p.m. The next regular scheduled meeting will
be held May 11, 2021, in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber.
Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
APPROVED:
Steven Ly, Mayor
Rosemead City Council & Successor Agency to the Community Development
Commission Regular Joint Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2021
Page 29 of29