CC - Minutes 03-23-10Minutes of the
JOINT CITY COUNCIL
AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
March 23, 2010
The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council and Community Development Commission was called to
order by Mayor Taylor at 6:03 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley
Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member/Commissioner Low
INVOCATION: Vice-Chair/Mayor Pro Tern Ly
PRESENT: Mayor/Chairwoman Clark, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-Chairman Taylor, Council Member/Commissioner
Armenta, Council Member/Commissioner Low, and Council Member/Commissioner Ly.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Montes, Community Development Director Wong,
Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott, Economic Development
Administrator Ramirez, Public Affairs Manager Flores, Deputy Public Works Director Marcarello, and City
Clerk Molleda
1. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE- None
2. COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Claims and Demands
Resolution No. 2010 -10
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2010 -10 for payment of Commission
expenditures in the amount of $817,107.08 demand nos. 10076 and 11247 through 11247.
Vice Chair/Mayor Pro Tern Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner/Council Member
Polly Low, to approve Consent Calendar. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 1 of 29
3. MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM INSTALLATION CEREMONY
Chair/Mayor Gary Taylor presented former Mayor Clark a plaque in recognition of her outstanding
leadership and dedication as Mayor for the City of Rosemead from March 2009 through March 2010.
City Clerk Gloria Molleda administered the Oath of Office to Mayor Gary Taylor; Mr. Taylor signed the Oath of
Office and was then seated back at the dais.
City Clerk Gloria Molleda administered the Oath of Office to Mayor Pro Tern Steven Ly. Mr. Ly signed the
Oath of Office and was then seated back at the dais.
Jose Hinoios - Chamber of Commerce President presented Council Member Margaret Clark with a plaque
in gratitude of her support to the Rosemead Business Community and the Rosemead Chamber of
Commerce.
Barbra Messina - City of Alhambra Council Member congratulated Council Member Margaret Clark on a
wonderful job as Mayor. Mrs. Messina attested that Mrs. Clark was all about Rosemead and represented the
City with the utmost integrity.
Ms. Gomez - representative of Careers Partners presented Mrs. Clark with a Certificate of Recognition for
her outstanding services in the City of Rosemead.
Mitchell Ing - City of Monterey Park Council Member congratulated Council Member Margaret Clark for her
outstanding job during her position as Mayor and he also congratulated Mayor Gary Taylor and Mayor Pro
Tern Steven Ly for their new positions.
Mayor Gary Taylor thanked Mrs. Clark and stated that he knew how hard she worked.
Council Member Margaret Clark thanked everyone for their support and stated that it had been a wonderful
year but was glad Mr. Taylor was taking over as Mayor.
Mayor Gary Taylor recessed the meeting and announced that there would be cake and refreshments to
celebrate the new Mayor and Mayor Pro Tern installations; recessed at 6:16 p.m.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 2 of 29
City Council
Meeting Agenda
The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Clark at 7:00 p.m. in the
Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Low
INVOCATION: Mayor Pro Tern Ly
PRESENT: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tern Taylor, Council Member Armenta, Council Member Low, and
Council Member Ly.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Montes, Community Development Director Wong,
Director of Finance Brisco, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott, Economic Development
Administrator Ramirez, Deputy Public Works Director Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda
4. PRESENTATIONS
Proclamation of Recognition for Deputy Sheriff David Lopez - Postponed to next meeting
Presentation was postponed to the next City Council meeting
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Brian Lewin - thanked city staff for putting together the city yard sale and suggested that in the future the
yard sale should be an additional hour or two longer.
Phon L - Field Representative of Mike Eng's Office thanked Mrs. Clark for her service and her leadership.
Mr. Ly also thanked Mayor Taylor and Mayor Pro Tern Ly for their new positions and wish the city the best of
luck for the upcoming year. A Certificate of Appreciation was given to Mrs. Clark as well as Mr. Taylor and
Mr. Ly.
Mayor Gary Taylor announced that Item 8A would be moved up on the agenda for discussion.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 3 of 29
8. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
A. Vietnamese American Heritage and Freedom Flag
The Vietnamese Refugee Community of Los Angeles County is requesting that the
Rosemead City Council support the Vietnamese American citizens of the City of Rosemead
by adopting Resolution No. 2010-21 acknowledging the Vietnamese American Heritage and
Freedom Flag as a symbol of freedom and democracy in Vietnam. In addition, the
Vietnamese Refugee Community of Los Angeles County would like the City Council to allow
them to display the flag side by side with the American flag on the light posts on Valley
Boulevard (from Walnut Grove to Rosemead Boulevard) from Saturday, April 24, 2010 thru
Friday, April 30, 2010.
Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2010-21 acknowledging
the Vietnamese Heritage and Freedom Flag as a symbol of freedom and democracy in
Vietnam and allow the Vietnamese Refugee Community of Los Angeles County to display
the Freedom Flag from April 24, 2010 through April 30, 2010.
City Manager Jeff Allred reviewed the staff report
Long T. Nguyen - Representative of the Vietnamese Refugee Community County thanked the Mayor and
the City Council for their consideration of this item. Mr. Nguyen added that this year this Country would
commemorate 35 years since the Vietnam War; April 30, 1979. He asked that Council approve the permit to
allow the Vietnamese Heritage and Freedom Flag to be displayed from April 24th through April 30th, 2010.
Mayor Pro Tem Steven Ly- stated that as a child of immigrants and as a child of parents who came to
America on a boat from Vietnam and spending a year in Indonesia in a refugee camp this flag really
represented the freedom and sacrifice of the Vietnamese and Chinese community in America. Mr. Ly stated
that the flag symbolized that freedom and the sacrifice that the people had to go through. He added that it
was important that this City that was made up of a lot of immigrants of different cultures understand that
everyone paid a price and sacrificed to be in America and enjoy the freedom. Mr. Ly urged the Council to
support this resolution.
Quoc Bao Tran - Representative of Union Student Association asked the City and Council to approve this
permit. Mr. Tran added that it would be a great pleasure for his people and also the veterans that served in
the Vietnam War 35 years ago.
Juan Nunez - asked Council not to grant this permit because this would be opening the doors for other
people; he added that there is more than just one nationality that lived in the area.
Council Member Polly Low stated that in the City of Rosemead there was a large Vietnamese community
and that it was important to embrace the American way as well as to remember their heritage. Mrs. Low
stated that she was the one who asked that this item be put on the agenda and hoped to get the Council
support.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 4 of 29
Council Member Margaret Clark stated that she was very supportive of the war of Vietnam for the freedom
of the people and that her only concern with this was having the flag on the same level of the American flag.
Mrs. Clark added that someone had mentioned to her that no other flag should be on the same level of the
American flag and asked if there was a way to display the Freedom flag at a slightly lower level.
Council Member Polly Low stated she agreed with Mrs. Clark and thought that the American flag should
hang slightly higher.
Mayor Gary Taylor stated he supported this item because his son's father-in-law had to flee from Vietnam in
a wooden boat with his nine children and were at sea for five days before being rescued and coming to
America.
Council Member Sandra Armenta stated she also supported this item and that this was a symbol of
freedom for the Vietnamese community and asked that the American flag be displayed slightly higher than
the Freedom flag.
Mayor Pro Tern Steven Ly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low, to approve
Resolution No. 2010-21 acknowledging the Vietnamese Heritage and Freedom Flag as a symbol of
freedom and democracy in Vietnam AND allow the Vietnamese Refugee Community of Los Angeles
County to display the Freedom Flag from April 24, 2010 through April 30, 2010 AND follow the
American Flag protocol when displaying the two flags. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
6. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Zone Changes 10-01 the Zoning Classification of Eight (8) City Parks to the 0-S (Open
Space) Zoning Designation
The City of Rosemead proposes to change the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to
the 0-S (Open Space) zoning designation. The proposed zone change will bring the zoning
designation of these parks into consistency with the City's existing General Plan goals and
policies, as required by State law. The following parks will be affected by this zone change:
Angelus Park, Garvey Park, Guess Park, Klingerman Park, Rosemead Park, Sally Tanner
Park, Triangle Park, and Zapopan Park.
Recommendation: That the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 887 for first reading
changing the zoning classification of eight (8) City Parks to the 0-S (open space) zoning
designation.
Assistant Planner Lily Trinh reviewed the staff report.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 5 of 29
The Public Hearing opened at 7:21 p.m.
Juan Nunez - asked if this zoning affected any property surrounding these parks.
Ms. Trinh stated no, it would not.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:23 p.m
City Attorney Joseph Montes read the Ordinance title and stated that Ordinance No. 887 was before Council
for first reading.
Mayor Pro Tem Steven Ly stated that he knew the City was consistently trying to get more open and green
space to add to the City's portfolio of different parks; asked what the process would be in the future so that
this proposal doesn't happen again.
Community Development Director Stan Wong stated that in the future if the general plan designates the new
property other than open space and Council wants to designate the land as open space then it is necessary
to change the zone to reflect its space.
Council Member Margaret Clark made a motion; seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to
introduce Ordinance No. 887 for first reading changing the zoning classification of eight (8) City Parks
to the 0-S (open space) zoning designation. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
B. Municipal Code Amendment 09-03, Amendment 09.03, Amending Chapter 17.12 of
Title 17 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code Relating to the Amortization of
Nonconforming Poultry Slaughter Businesses
The City Council has directed actions towards the elimination of poultry slaughter business
operations within the City. Accordingly, staff and the City Attorney have drafted an Ordinance
to amortize poultry slaughter businesses in the City within three (3) years from the effective
date of this Ordinance.
As an addition to any amortization period contained within the ordinance, staff and the City
Attorney have prepared a provision that could be inserted into the Ordinance at the Council's
discretion, which would create an application and hearing procedure for any affected business
that believes it cannot meet the amortization period.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 6 of 29
Recommendation: That the City Council determine whether to adopt an ordinance and any
modifications thereto; and, if so, approve the negative declaration and introduce Ordinance
No. 883 for first reading amending Chapter 17.12 of Title 17 of the City of Rosemead
Municipal Code relating to the amortization of nonconforming poultry slaughter businesses.
Senior Planner Paul Gary reviewed the staff report.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:28 p.m.
Colin Lennard - "I'm with the law offices of Fulbright & Jaworski and as you know I was here once before
you and I was before the Planning Commission and I will try not to repeat what I already said the first time I
was before you. I think it is well to note that we have filed a petition with the City Clerk tonight containing
approximately 2300 signatures in favor of keeping Cal Poultry in business and not adopt the ordinance that
you have before you. Among those signatures are many residents who lived very very close to the business
of Cal Poultry; and as I've said those have been filed with the City Clerk. Again, I want to emphasize the real
issue before this Council is odor; where the odor exists and how we can mitigate those odors. We have
offered to this City Council now 3 times 3 different proposals that would allow Cal Poultry to attempt to fix the
odor issue by hiring their own consultants, paying for it under oversight of the City. As I said... (inaudible) 3
times, different forms and have been (inaudible) 3 times with no counter proposal whatsoever from the City.
There has been many many times statements about existing and past violations of Cal Poultry and that there
exist right now existing violation on behalf of Cal Poultry. Let me make it as clear as possible that there are
no existing written outstanding code violations against Cal Poultry. The repeated references to these
violations are holes and minor code violations that in 2003 and 2006, 7 and 4 years respectively, and one
written violation in 2008. In August of 2003 there was a citation for inappropriate waste discharge, that was
corrected and there is no outstanding written existing violation. In April of 2006 they were cited for no
business license or occupancy permits and unpermitted signage; all of which were corrected and there are no
outstanding written violations. In October of 2006 they was issued a stop work notice regarding interior
improvements; regarding the operation and wall between 8932 and 8942; Cal Poultry complied, closed the
connection between 8932 and 8942 and there is no outstanding written existing violation. In November 2006,
was a notice from the Water Board requiring Cal Poultry to apply for what is call a general permit; Cal Poultry
applied and presently has that permit and there is not outstanding written existing violation. In April of 2008
and that's the only one that existed after 2006; In April of 2008, there was a notice by the Water Board for
discharging waste to a storm drain; Cal Poultry submitted a report to the Water Board with corrective action
and there is no outstanding existing violation against Cal Poultry. None of these violations exist today or are
outstanding today or have been repeated today. The last point I would like to make is that in the event that
this Council chooses to adopt the ordinance before you; you haven't' resolved the odor issue. That will
continue to exist if there is any odors that has not been solved; the reason it won't be solved is, you cannot
expect any reasonable business person to expand capital and make improvements when that business is
going to be required to cease in 3 years; that just doesn't make any sense. Again what I would suggest to you
is that if this City is interested in correcting a problem at Cal Poultry give them the opportunity to correct them.
If they can't correct it you always have your alternatives available to you with the existing ordinance but to
shut the business down for no reason at all, without giving them the opportunity to correct it again, it doesn't
make any sense."
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 7 of 29
Robert Dawson - "Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, thank you. I am Robert Dawson I'm a litigation
partner for Fulbright & Jaworski Counsel for Cal Poultry. Members of the City Council if we continue down
this road of passing this ordinance inevitably and unfortunately it will result in very complicated and very
expensive litigation for all concerned including the City of Rosemead; litigation can cost hundreds of
thousands of dollars Money that could obviously be well spent and better spent on other things. You know
our position; our position is that this ordinance is discriminatory; that this ordinance is not supported by a
rational basis. That it constitutes a wrongful and unfair and unwarranted taking of folks businesses and
property without a rational basis. There is no health (inaudible) issue that supports the passing of this
ordinance. The only thing that this (inaudible) forward is the desire of a small group in the community that
wants the ordinance passed. But as you can see again repeatedly when this issue comes before you the
huge wave of support from the community for Cal Poultry; you've heard now about the signatories to the
petition, over two thousand people signed and many of them living very close to this business. There is no
health or safety need for this business to be shut down. The repeated references, which have been made
over and over to ongoing lists of violations, legal violations, if this goes to litigation it is likely that those
allegations would be viewed as no more than evidence of malice against this business because they are so
clearly incorrect. There is still time to reverse course on this and to consider ways in which the legitimate
issues which are before you can be resolved in a reasonable and fair way and I will urge the Council not to go
through the road of litigation but instead to go down the road of trying to find a fair resolution and first of all to
give this business the opportunity, which it has sought and asked for repeatedly to address the odor issue. It
is very fixable, it is not that serious and they are waiting for the opportunity to do that. Now I please urge you
to take any opportunity you have to avoid going down the road of litigation because it will not serve the
community well, thank you."
Mayor Taylor asked if the owner of Cal Poultry was present and asked if she wanted to make any statements.
Dana Phu - owner of Cal Poultry stated that she had spoken during the last meeting and she wanted to keep
that on the record.
Marlene Shinen -stated she didn't reside in Rosemead, she stated that Dr. Lilian Sacco passed away on
March 13, 2010, she was a Rosemead resident who for years was active in this city government, working
relentlessly to help those in need. She earned her doctorate in English, graduated from USC with a 4.0; Ms.
Shinen stated that tonight she stood to support Ms. Sacco's cause with her work. Ms. Shinen stated that they
submitted a complaint to the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury.on February 16, 2009 and read the
complaint to the City Council. Ms. Shinen asked the City Council why they haven't listened to the people of
the City of Rosemead; she concluded by stating that Dr. Sacco's time had expired and so had Council's.
Jean Hall - commended this Council for their hard dedication for the past year; she stated she spoke for a lot
of residents when she said that it has' been a pleasure to attend these meetings and see the results of their
efforts. Mrs. Hall stated that if the decision regarding Cal Poultry would be put on her hand she would vote
for a complete shutdown of the business to be effective now; she added that unfortunately the reality was that
the City would be paying millions of dollars in attorney fees and court cost. Mrs. Hall stated that she has
observed Cal Poultry over the years operate under the special non-conforming status, ignoring deadlines,
polluting the air, and unsightly feathers and dead chickens in plain sight on Garvey Avenue. Mrs. Hall stated
that what bad message that was for prospective business owners who were looking to open up a business in
Rosemead. She added that being a long time resident herself she has seen over the past 20 years how Cal
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 8 of 29
Poultry uses their entitlements to do as they please; it's time for this business to agree to a compromise with
the City so that both parties can move on. Mrs. Hall stated that the slaughtering of animals should not be
allowed unless it is in the suitable density area and away from residents; other suggestions have been
mentioned, such as, that the slaughtering part could be done in their Azusa location.
Mayor Pro Tem Steven Ly stated the he was aware of the time limit for each speaker; however, this was a
very important issue and asked that if it's the Mayor's pleasure to have more liberal discretion on the use of
the time for today.
Mayor Gary Taylor asked Council what they thought was a good time limit for the speakers.
Council Member Sandra Armenta stated she thought 4 minutes would be fair because there were a lot of
speakers wanting to address the Council.
Council Member Polly Low also asked the audience to please silence their cell phones.
Marlene Shinen - stated that the Grand Jury that in their response on March 13, 2009 that the Chinese
American Poultry Company warrants special consideration (Ms. Shinen submitted a copy of the letter to
Council, which is available in the City Clerk's office). Ms. Shinen read the violations: 10 violations starting in
7/31/03, local sewer status-operate permit, status suspended, and soapy residue in the parking lot. 8/28/03,
9/19/03 unable to process license application result of investigation indicates the bases of protest. 4/26/06,
outside storage remove all outside storage of cages, forklift and truck and unpermitted fencing in the front
yard, replace water heater cover with an approved material, ceased washing of cages, equipment or anything
else that allows water flow to drain outside the building, ceased used of vacant structure 8942 Garvey until
you reapply. 4/27/06 local sewer operating permit; 5/4/06 notified by letter; 4/26/08 of violation of Rosemead
Municipal code, you must obtain the required business license by May 10, 2010 or business will be closed.
10/05/06 interior expansion completed without approval or permits from the City or California Department of
Food and Agriculture. Opening cut through east exterior property line block wall violates Section 503 of
Rosemead Building Code. 11/09/06, notice of non-compliance for coverage under the NPDES general
permit for storm water discharges. 12/1/06 owner operator was told that he needed to enroll in a storm water
permit and prepare a pollution prevention plan. He also needed effective best management practices at the
site. 8/22/08 this facility is using their parking lot for offloading and storing cages of live chickens for
processing; excessive odor coming from the animal waste, droppings, broken eggs and dead chickens.
Robert Dawson - "Rather than responding to any of that, I like to instead urge you to please obtain an
opinion from qualified litigation counsel as to how what you just heard, with all these similar issues, would
actually come across if there is a lawsuit; how a court of law, what weight it would be given, and the extent of
which they would support the ordinance that is before you because I think you really need that advice."
Collin Lennard - "I would like to set something straight for the record. Every violation and correction that I
read to you came from the City's own documents; it came from your staff reports to the Planning
Commission. Exactly those violations, if there were any others the staff would have had them. In terms of the
Grand Jury you have no idea what the Grand Jury did or didn't do; obviously they didn't come to any
indictment or any other action otherwise Cal Poultry would of known about it and they know nothing about the
Grand Jury statement that was read to you, thank you."
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 9 of 29
Kevin Curley - stated he lived in the City of Arcadia, was an Air Quality Engineer, and a friend of the owners
of Cal Poultry. He stated that he had gone to the Cal Poultry business and walked around the outside of the
building and didn't notice any odor; inside there was an odor that you find in any poultry shop. He added that
the business was in a light industrial area and not just residential. Mr. Curley stated that there was an odor
issue depending on the weather and the time of day and that it is something that needs to be addressed; the
owners see that as well and they know it needs to be fixed.
Phyllis Tury - addressed Council and told them that they knew their complaints; Mrs. Tury mentioned Estela
and John Morales who had purchased their house 59 years ago and Amy and Alex Ramos who purchased
their home 59 years ago; these people are so good they have given so much to their community but they can
no longer enjoy their own neighborhood. Edna and Glen have lived in the neighborhood for 55 years and
have been active members of the Chamber of Commerce; Glen served on the Traffic Commission, he worked
as a crossing guard protecting Rosemead's children, and they have certainly paid their dues to the City. Mrs.
Tury stated that her father settled in Rosemead in 1921 and bought a property in 1928; that property has
been in the Tury family for 82 years and stated that they deserved to live here. She added that she could go
on and on naming numerous families who have lived in the neighborhood for 50, 60, 70 years and some that
had lived here since before Rosemead's incorporation. She stated that now it was the City's turn to work with
them and help provide them with the City they so richly deserve; she asked Council to take in consideration
what her neighborhood has been forced to live with and stated none of them would like to live where she did.
Adolfo Ponce - stated it was good to hear the opposition; if it wasn't for the citizens in that neighborhood
they wouldn't be here opposing. Mr. Ponce stated that they can no longer live under those conditions
anymore and that the City had this business under radar for a number of years. He stated that the only
reason Cal Poultry had corrected their violations was because the people of Rosemead had brought those
issues to the City's attention; otherwise, they would be continuing the old type of business. Mr. Ponce
suggested that Cal Poultry get one year then they need to move out because they need to relocate; they
have outgrown their facility and the citizens of Rosemead deserve to live in a community that they are proud
of.
Joan Hunter - stated that Cal Poultry had been discussed for the past 4 years and denied; slaughtering is
undesirable for those who have lived so closed to the facility and have had to endure these odors. Cal
Poultry has been cited many times and they still continue to do the same as soon as they think the City is not
watching. Mrs. Hunter stated that Cal Poultry had the right to stay in business and sell chickens; however,
they should be slaughtering somewhere else. She stated that they have a facility in Azusa and suggested
that they slaughter there and bring the chickens into Rosemead, therefore eliminating the odor. Mrs. Hunter
stated that 3 years was too long to allow Cal Poultry to continue doing what they are doing and it wasn't fair
to the residents who have lived in Rosemead longer than Cal Poultry has been in business.
Joshua Thai - stated that for many years Cal Poultry had been in business in the City of Rosemead and has
provided great service and has provided revenue for the City of Rosemead. He asked that in this fragile
economy was it smart to close a business that generated revenue for the City. Mr. Thai stated that the main
concern is the violations that Cal Poultry has made but that he noticed that they had work diligently to correct
those violations. He asked that Council revoke the ordinance and allow Cal Poultry to stay in the City of
Rosemead.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 10 of 29
Julie Gentry - stated that Cal Poultry has been in violation for many years and that now they were acting like
they had their act together. Mrs. Gentry stated that they will just continue to keep doing whatever they feel
like doing; they have been a bad neighbor since 1991. She added that it was time not to allow them to stay in
Rosemead and that enough had been enough; no other surrounding city allows this type of business. She
stated that America was a melting pot, which included immigrants but that with that came responsibility and
following rules and following codes.
William Su - stated that many violations had been pointed out and discussed but stated that the main point
was that there is not current outstanding violation. He added that everyone makes mistakes but if you make
a mistake you corrected and that is what Cal Poultry has done. Mr. Su stated he didn't understand why Cal
Poultry had to move since no other city in California would issue that kind of license. He suggested that the
residents move out instead; he asked that Council please listen to the majority who had shown support for
Cal Poultry.
Nicole Li - stated that she was a Rosemead resident and that she supported Cal Poultry because not only
were they providing her with her poultry but also provides convenience to Asian people to purchase fresh
chicken. She stated that if the City closed Cal Poultry it would be cutting Asian people's freedom to purchase
the best quality of chicken. Ms. Li reiterated that she supported Cal Poultry and that she needed them. to be
in the City.
Ann Din - stated that she did not think this was right and that this was discrimination against Asian people
and their business. She stated that Cal Poultry has been here for many years and that now they were being
taken away from their home; she added that she purchased chickens from Cal Poultry everyday and asked if
she would be kicked out next.
Michelle Wang - (Chinese Translator) Mrs. Low translated. She stated that she's lived in Rosemead since
1992 and that she purchases chickens there all the time and the odor doesn't bother her and that she finds
Cal Poultry very convenient. Ms. Wang added that she did not want Council to change anything.
Mario Martinez - stated he lived in Rosemead and he had previously lived on Ivar close to the business;
when he and his wife used to ride their bikes around the area and never noticed a problem. He stated that
now he and his wife buy chicken from Cal Poultry and added that he felt it was a direct attack on a small
business; it didn't seem right. He stated that they should be allowed and given the right to stay in the
community just like everyone else.
Huey Loong - stated he has been a resident of Rosemead for a long time and that his family and he have
always gone to Cal Poultry to purchase chicken and turkeys. He stated he was very disappointed that the
City was trying to close the business down and urge Council to think their decision carefully; because this
was part of the Asian culture.
Faye Reynolds - stated she has been a Rosemead resident for over 50 years; she was very upset to see all
these people stand up and speak on behalf of Cal Poultry because the people didn't live in Rosemead and
don't have to live with the odors. She stated that if they wanted fresh chickens and ducks to bring them into
the City after they had been slaughtered. Ms. Reynolds stated that during the summer that area stunk, there
were flies, and it drew rats; many generations have lived in Rosemead and they did not deserve to live like
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 11 of 29
that
Brian Lewin - stated that he hoped Council had taken extra time to give more consideration to this matter
and find an equitable solution for both parties. He stated that about a year ago when Council considered this
issue they had run into a difficulty and that the odor problem that seems to be the biggest issue, could not be
made without making structural modifications. The problem was because Cal Poultry was a non-conforming
use they were not allowed to make the needed structural modifications to resolve the issue. He suggested
that the City write an ordinance that would allow such non-conformance business uses to make structural
modifications and allow them to comply with city code issues. Mr. Lewin asked the City Attorney if such an
ordinance could be possible.
City Attorney Joseph Montes stated that currently the City's non-conforming use and non-conforming building
ordinance prohibits expansion of the building or use. If the Council wished to consider an ordinance that
would modify that to allow the expansion to address health and safety code enforcement issues that
something that could be looked at and drafted for the Council's possible consideration.
Nancy Enq - (Mr. Taylor announced that Mrs. Eng had to leave but would like the record to show that she
submitted a letter with her comments.) Copy of that letter is attached to these minutes and is available in the
City Clerk's office.
Juan Nunez - stated he understood there had been numerous violations made by Cal Poultry and asked for
the number of the violations.
Mayor Gary Taylor stated that he knew the violations had been going on for many years and there were a
half dozen but he didn't have the cited violations.
Council Member Margaret Clark stated that on the staff report it references 16 entries
City Manager Jeff Allred asked Mr. Nunez to come in to City Hall tomorrow and he would be provided with a
copy.
Barbara Murphy - stated that back in 1989 or 1990 there was a City Council meeting similar to this one
when the Council decided to change the necessary square footage for R-2 properties in the City from 7500
sq. ft. to 9000 sq. ft. even though the place was as full as tonight. She stated that the City told residents not
to worry because they would be legal non-conforming and would be grandfathered in; she stated she
understood that Cal Poultry was legal non-conforming grandfathered in and now Council wants to change "
that. Ms. Murphy asked the City Attorney that if the future with a different City Council could they decide that
for whatever reason they can also rescind grandfathered in, which will make all of the properties legal non-
conforming and will never be able to sell one. She added that she was very concerned when Council is
taking away grandfathered in to any property owner or property and what affect that has on the rest of the
people.
Mayor Pro Tem Steven Ly asked the City Attorney to explain how legal non-conforming worked in the City of
Rosemead and what it actually means to grandfather in a property.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 12 of 29
City Attorney Joseph Montes stated that cities routinely update their zoning codes and general plans; any
time you update a zoning code or a general plan you will be potentially changing rules and existing building or
existing uses are no longer conforming and at every city they treat those situations differently. Cities have
the opportunity to adopt an ordinance that says that anyone who lawfully started a use or lawfully created a
building and the rules changed after they did that can continue with that use. Typically what it says though is
that you can't expand that use without coming into conformity with the new rules. For certain type of uses,
sometimes cities would adopt and include a non-conforming use or building ordinance and amortization
period. Typically you see that with signs, sometimes you see it with adult businesses but it is an effort to
change the rules if the people who created a building or use, when the rules allowed that building or use,
time to finish or transition that use to something else and that's called an amortization period or ordinance.
That's a long way to say that yes, cities can adopt amortization ordinances to amortize out grandfathered
uses.
Martin Reyes - (Patricia Martinez translated for Mr. Reyes) stated that he works for Cal Poultry and didn't
think it was fair that he was worked there for 14 years and why now after so long the City wanted to move the
business away or close the business. He stated that he had a family to support and asked if Council will be
helping him to find a job. Mr. Reyes stated that about two months ago Channel 7 was at their location and
two days earlier someone had gone to Cal Poultry property to throw chickens outside the business.
Council Member Margaret Clark stated she didn't understand the comment.
Council Member Sandra Armenta stated that what he was saying was that right after channel 7 was there;
he's alleging that right after Channel 7 left, someone threw dead chickens apparently those same ones that
had been caged on their property so it would look like they had dead chickens there.
Director of Community Development Stan Wong: Mr. Mayor may I speak to this issue? Just listening to the
testimonies this evening, I beg to differ with Mr. Lennard's comment that this is only an odor issue. Odor is
an issue. The main issue this evening, from staffs point is this is a land use issue. The land use issue is that
this operation, chicken slaughter processing, is not compatible with the neighborhood. It's not compatible
with the residential character neighborhood the commercial....
Mayor Gary Taylor interrupted Mr. Wong and asked if the public hearing should be closed.and asked if there
was anyone else in the audience that wanted to speak on this item.
Ken Voonq - stated he was a resident of Rosemead for over 20 years now and that his parents have always
gone to Cal Poultry to purchase their chickens for all the holidays; he stated he wanted to continue to live in
Rosemead and wanted his children to continue living in Rosemead. Mr. Voong added that the city would be
taken away a service that he and his family have used for many years. He asked that Council make a fair
decision on this and stated that Cal Poultry had a lot of support on this issue.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 13 of 29
William Alarcon - stated he has been a resident for over 30 years; he stated that he had seen preview to
the plan from the City that is going to bring the City up to the 21St Century of aesthetic standpoint and those
residents that live south of the freeway sometimes have a complex that the north side of Rosemead gets
everything. Mr. Alarcon stated that he has walked down Garvey Avenue and knows that the street is run
down; the City has a wonderful plan for Garvey Avenue and new businesses are going to come in and see a
business that was built when Garvey was a little run down. Mr. Alarcon stated he wanted a modern City and
this wasn't the type of business that he wanted to see on a main street.
Mr. Guerrera - stated he has lived in Rosemead for 28 years and remembers the time when there were rose
fields all over the City but they had gone away; there was a time when you can have horses and cows but it
was no longer good use to the community and all that went away. He added that Cal Poultry at one time was
okay in the community but the community has now grown and he told the Council that they had the
responsibility to listen to majority of the residents of Rosemead and that 2000 people were not the majority of
57000. Mr. Guerrera stated that the question was not about having a Chinese business next door because
most of the businesses in Rosemead were Chinese owned but that the question was "do you want to live
next to a slaughter house?"
Dolores Wiedemann - she asked how legal the votes would be of the signatures on the petition submitted
that night and asked why the business owner couldn't build her house next to her business and live there.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:54 p.m.
Council Member Polly Low., I think the question I have is we do understand that this problem right now is
old and I totally understand for residents that live around that area. We definitely, definitely want to clean it
up. The question is now, your client, have violations in the past. What give me the confidence, that if we
don't go this route, what give me the confidence that your client will be willing to work with the City to clean it
up...so that the residents in the neighborhood don't have to experience the odor problem.
Colin Lennard: 2 things, councilwoman. Number one, those violations were corrected in 7 and 4 years ago.
None of those have been repeated. I think anyone with a track record of not having something for 7 or 4
years I think has credibility. There was 1 violation in 2008. That we have said, that was corrected with a
report to the water board. We have talked with the City Council many many times to provide a plan to correct
the odor problem and any other problems which you think now exist at Cal Poultry. There's no question-the
question of odor. We have said, if that is the case, we're willing to go out and spend what is necessary, and
what is recommended to this council by an independent consultant to correct the odor problem. And odor
problems can be corrected. There's no question about that. If there was any other problem that you would
see at this time we're willing to go and correct it. I can't say enough by saying, "Cal Poultry and the owners
and the residents of this community deserve an opportunity to correct whatever you suggest is a problem. If
we can't go out and correct it, and you're just going to insist on shutting us down, it doesn't make any sense.
It's inequitable, and I suggest it's a violation of the law.
Council Member Polly Low: Now what happens, we have residents that bring up issues of health. There's a
health risk. She brought this so is there a concern of chicken flu, is there a concern of disease?
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 14 of 29
Mr. Lennard: We have said tonight and I said previously when there is the Department of Agriculture that has
jurisdiction over poultry and health and safety concerning poultry. There is no outstanding violation from the
Department of Agriculture. They are the state department that has jurisdiction over the health and safety of
Cal Poultry. If there were any concerns or any violations, Cal Poultry would hear instantaneously, so would
the City from the Department of Agriculture.
Council Member Polly Low: So you're telling me that your client is willing to pay for whatever study is
needed to correct the odor problem as well as putting whatever equipment is needed to mitigate the problem.
Mr. Lennard: Yes
Council Member Polly Low: What about, the facility is a bit run down. Are they willing to work with the City
to fix up in addition to the odor problem to fix up the property so that again the City is really striving to beautify
the City? Is our client willing to work with the City to come up with a facility so that it is a nice property, a nice
business so the residents can appreciate it?
Mr. Lennard: Absolutely. You have to remember some of the things that some of the people have already
suggested; we're a manufacturing and industrial zone. We're not in a residential neighborhood. If we were in
a residential neighborhood I don't think any of us would be here today. But we're not. But to answer your
questions specifically, yes. My client is willing to do whatever is necessary to make that property in a
satisfactory manner to the City and the City Council.
Council Member Sandra Armenta: Not all violations refer to runoff to the basin. I know that the owner
bought property adjacent to that. And they also made a hole through the 2 walls. Right?
Mr. Lennard: That's correct.
Council Member Sandra Armenta: Have all the permits to be able to rectify the closure of that hole that they
made illegally, has that been rectified? Have the permits been filed? Has everything been rectified in order to
change that?
Mr. Lennard: It's my understanding that that has been corrected.
Council Member Sandra Armenta: Can any of the staff answer whether or not they have been corrected?
Director of Community Development Stan Wong: My understanding from the building inspector is that no
permit was taken out for the hole in the wall that was illegally done some time ago.
Mr. Lennard: That is true. My clients were advised that they did not get the appropriate permits to close the
hole in the wall. They have closed out that hole in the wall. There is no hole in the wall anymore. That was
done a number of years ago.
Council Member Armenta: What year?
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 15 of 29
Mr. Lennard: That isn't even an outstanding violation. They haven't been....
Mayor Gary Taylor. Excuse me. That was done a number of years ago?
Mr. Lennard: Yes, 2006.
Mayor Taylor When the hole was cut.
Mr. Lennard: Yes.
Mayor Taylor. The hole was repaired in 2009 was it not? Almost 3 years later?
Mr. Lennard: 2008
Council MemberArmenta: No, 2009.
Mayor Taylor. Anyway it's 2 and a half years. So they had a time when they were doing it illegally
Mr. Lennard: Well, Mr. Mayor, you know, whether it was 2 years, whether it was 2008 whether it was 2009
the question was, if it was in violation, what was the City doing about it?
Council Member Margaret Clark: Mr. Mayor, I have this "Stop Work Order", issued of 10/5/06. And it states:
"interior modifications have been made without approval or permits form the City of Rosemead." That means
Stop Work. Now, it took you, you say 2 years, we say 3 years later to fix that. Now that is outrageous. I'm
sorry.
Mr. Lennard: The question, councilmember, is that has been corrected. There is no violation...
Council Member Margaret Clark: 2 or 3 years later. Yes, you can make the statement that there is no
written violation but there are things going on right now and I'm not finished. I can't understand how you can
stand up there and say that that was okay to leave it a violation for 2 or 3 years.
Mr. Lennard: What I would suggest is that standing alone is not the reason to shut down the business that
has existed for 20 years. If there is a problem as I said to councilmember Armenta, we are willing to correct
it. If you won't let us correct it, there's nothing we can do.
Mayor Taylor. That took 3 years to correct.
Council Member Sandra Armenta: Mr. Mayor, and that (inaudible) to what councilmember Low; you're
stating that if they violate again that they're going to correct it right away. It took 3 years to fix that. And I can
guarantee that the owners knew that that was illegal since they had to cut between 2 properties that were
totally designated for different functions.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 16 of 29
Mr. Lennard: What I am suggesting is this. It's something that's been already stated by another speaker.
There is one other suggestion that I've made to the City. And that is that they'll be willing to do whatever the
City wants in terms of beautifying the Cal Poultry premises. In terms of correcting the odor which is still the
issue at hand and we will agree to whatever reasonable time limit you have. If we cannot complete it in that
time limit, or we go beyond the time limit, or in the event that we do not correct the issues then you have the
ordinances before you to come back here and adopt the ordinances.
Council Member Sandra Armenta: Mr. Mayor, again, going on from Mr. Stan Wong, the issue here is not
the odor issue, the issue here is land use. Am I not right?
Mr: Lennard: the whole issue is making the land use....
Council Member Sandra Armenta: Yes. And if we modify we have to re-zone, correct?
Mr. Lennard: No.
Mayor Taylor. Any other questions for Mr. Lennard? I think that's all the questions then
Council Member Margaret Clark: if I might there are other issues that were violations that were not
immediately enforced. April 5, 2006; they were cited for dilapidated signage and I have a picture here. This
was the sign that was there for many many years. And there was peeling paint, it was very embarrassing,
and one of the residents pointed out that Garvey needs to be improved. And it was very embarrassing to me,
I'm on several regional bodies with other council members and the Garvey Center is within a couple of blocks
of this and it was very embarrassing to me to think that if they were coming to our City to a meeting and then
if they go west on Garvey they would see that sign and the dilapidated position of it and there was nothing
done about it for many years. Then I believe it was just the end of '09 which is 3 and half years later. When
we have "stop work: order we have notice to close business here it is, "Notice of Intent to Close Business"
this was in May 4, 2006. Knowing that the City was watching I found it just incredible that they put up a new
sign, without even bothering to come into the City to find out the regulations: how big the letters should be,
where it should be put. I'm not sure what day it was done; it was probably on a Sunday when City Hall is
closed. And to me that's just another outrageous violation where our codes - a sign is not that much to worry
about. It's not that expensive, it's not that hard to do but to not even come into the city that is concerned
about other issues and put up a sign that was not even up to code, it had to come down. And that took
another 3 years to correct. So I take issue with the idea that they will always correct things and maybe right
now...I noticed the careful word spoken was that there are no existing written violations and that may be true.
But we have pictures of dead chickens in December of '09 that were just sifting right on the parkway where
people could see, children could see. Who knows what vermin were coming into those dead chickens and
that just...I have so much stuff here I don't have it at my fingertips.
Mayor Taylor what picture is that?
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 17 of 29
Council Member Margaret Clark: that's the one. That shows a dead chicken in the parkway. And that's
December, only 3 months ago. And it shows also a cage where apparently the chickens if they see a chicken
has died apparently they kick them out. And so here is a dead chicken down here and eggs rotting on the
ground. And someone spoke about odors that they didn't smell any. Well, this is March. Try August. It's
extremely hot. And everything will smell. So I just take offense at the statement that everything is fine. It
was August 12 of '97 an impact agreement signed that said they would pay $500 a month for 3 years for the
parking to mitigate the issues of traffic and parking. And apparently the payments didn't' even start for a
couple of years. And that was kind of surprising to me. Another thing I wanted to clarify: it was stated by a
couple of people including the attorneys that they pay sales tax and I have a memo here from an attorney
that says that, and everybody knows we don't pay sales tax on food. So there's no sales tax collected on the
food. They may sell ancillary items but probably minor compared to the poultry sales. So they're still not a
sales tax generator. I just wanted to clarify that. I am in favor of the option where they stay in Rosemead
have all of the chicken slaughter off site and probably at the Azusa plant that they have which is very large
facility and bring the chickens to Rosemead. They wouldn't lose any of their clientele, and there wouldn't be
anyone laid off because perhaps maybe a couple of the people that work in the slaughter business of it could
be transferred to the Azusa pant and work up there. But the rest that sell the chickens around the counters
and work in retail would stay here. So it is an option that I would like to put out there. And it would keep them
in Rosemead and the people that like to buy fresh chickens could continue to be here. So that where I'm
coming from and because there is that option on the table I would like to make a motion that we have a one
year amortization with a 3 month option to apply for extension. So that's my motion.
Council Member Polly Low. Mr. Mayor. I think I want to look at a different angle; if we go that route, my
concern it might cost the city thousands and thousands of dollars even millions of dollars, if we go into a
lawsuit. Apparently, the property owner and the lawyers here and my understanding is that these are very
good lawyers, very expensive lawyers. So if we go into a lawsuit and in case that we lose, it means that the
city has to pay for our lawyers and we also have to pay for their lawyers, as well. So I'm looking at the
spending for the city is going to be enormous; I'm very concerned about that.
Council Member Steven Ly: We need to second the motion before there is any further discussion.
Council Member Sandra Armenta: I second.
Council Member Low: So my second concern is that if we go down that path; I feel like the resident are
going to suffer because now they have to wait till the case is resolved before anything is cleaned up. So
mean while they have to live with these conditions. And my third concern is, apparently, if you look at the
audience, we have about 200 people, we have about 200 either residents or residents from neighboring cities
that have used their services that apparently really value their services and that's why they come out. And
also, actually I'm totally surprised because honestly the Asian community doesn't usually come out; they just
are a little reserved. By having 200 people out there telling us that they like Cal Poultry to me that is quite a
statement. So in my mind is, we understand the problem; I think that the questions I'm searching is , "is that
the best solution?". Getting them out is that the best solution. Some nod their head but is that the best
solution for the city if the city has to lose so much money by this case and there is a possibility that we can
fight and we can even lose the case and mean while they can still continue to operate.
Council Member Ly: This Council knows, members of this audience those who know me that this has been
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 18 of 29
a very agonizing decision and a very agonizing period for me on this issue not because I don't know where I
stand, not because I don't know what I feel about the business. Just to kind of give everyone some
background; for those of you that don't know me, who don't know my history, I moved to Rosemead when I
was 3. My parents wanted to be closer to my mom's side of the family; we moved to Barlett Street. When I
lived on Barlett Street (inaudible) Barlett Street has the Barlett Street gang and I was happy to see the
tagging disappear for a while, it's back again, which is another story for another day. But when I was about in
3rd grade I moved to Rosemead Place around that area I became neighbors with Mr. Ponce, Mrs. Tury, Mr.
Alarcon and a lot of people here. I also lived pretty closed to the Cal Poultry site; I've been to the Council
meetings in the past when this issue was discussed and I will tell everyone the story that when I was a kid I
would walk home from school every day with my brother and we would play a game. Who can hold their
breath the longest? Now those of you who know me know that I'm a pretty busy guy; I'm at home but I'm not
at home during the day as often as I would like. And I know that because of that some people complain that
my yard... thank you Phyllis because of you my yard has improved recently. But on occasion I will walk home
in the evening and sometimes I think well maybe the smell isn't as bad as I thought, you know I'm not here
during the day. I remember one evening just a couple months ago I was walking home and it was maybe 6
o'clock 7 o'clock in the evening on a summer afternoon and I walked by the Cal Poultry location on the other
side of Garvey and the odor and the stench of that was just it reminded me of my childhood, it reminded
me of the game that my brother and I played. And it is something that is very frustrating and some people
have talked about it in the past; people here on both sides have talked about the Asian community we don't
really talk that much in public and we try an avoid that. I don't know how true that is, I do know that in my
household that was something that was true because we fled from a communist country where we didn't talk
in public about the government or about whatever anything that was controversy and I certainly you wouldn't
be there the next day. So for my family we didn't really talk in the meetings but I was contrary to that and
that's why I did what I did and I am where I am but what I do know is when Marlene showed the picture of
that little girl, for those of you that can't see it its right there of the little girl holding her nose as she walks out
of Cal Poultry, that reminded me of when I was a kid walking by that area and that is something that really
has strong implant in my head. It's something that is incredibly frustrating for not just the neighbors but also
for the businesses around that area; we talk about freedom, we talk about freedom on both sides and both
sides have very legitimate claim to freedom; you have the right to operate the business as you wish you also
have the right to live peacefully. Phyllis Tury has the right to be out in her patio on a sunny afternoon on a
Sunday, drinking ice tea with her girlfriends that is absolutely right without having to worry about stenches.
So this is an issue of ....I think the best way to put it is, there is a quote of freedom, it says, "your freedom to
throw your fist around ends when it touches my face", and for both sides right now both sides are feeling that
their faces are being touched and that is why we are where we are. So here are my thoughts on a couple
things the first one is yes, this is an odor issue this is also a land use issue, this is also an animal cruelty
issue or a cultural issue. There are a lot of issues here there is not just one supersede issue that everyone
can say, hey, we solved this, everything is better. That's not the case, yes my neighbors are hurting I'm
hurting, yes this is a small business that has operated for a very long time. I think Brian Lewin said,
sometimes God works in mysterious ways and there might be a reason why its been delayed for three or so
months for us to reconsider this. Let me put it to you also this way, this issue has been delayed for the last
19 years and it is unfair to both sides that this question has been lingering for the last 19 years (inaudible) of
which for myself personally I've dealt with for the last 15 years of that 19 years. I was reading in the paper
about La Puente they have an issue regarding their marijuana dispensaries, they wrote an ordinance, they
screwed up when they wrote their ordinance and because of that all these marijuana dispensaries, where
before their ordinance was approved couldn't get it, then they took effect. Now they have a situation where
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 19 of 29
they have 8 or 9 marijuana dispensaries that are legal non conforming that are grandfathered in and in a way
I kind of wanted to calla La Puente city councilmen and say hey I know exactly how you feel and I know
exactly the kind of problems that we are going to be dealing with because we are now talking about lawsuits.
And yes it is going to be incredibly expensive, it's going to be incredibly detrimental but my concern with us
moving on the amortization ordinance as we proposed is that I don't know if it can stand up at a court of law.
And that is my biggest concern that is what has made all of this agonizing all this time. What I can say though
and what I do feel is really problematic about everything is the extension application clause. That is on page
3, starting with the letter C. (Mr. Ly read the clause). Folks this is a public hearing, folks we have been
through this about 5 or 6 times now; crowds of this side have showed up 3 or 4 times now, 1 don't expect that
to change when we they do apply for an extension. I don't think its particularly fair to the business or to my
neighbors to have to restart this and start this show again. And that is my concern with the extension
application on this issue. U,
Council MemberArmenta: I do want to hear Mr. Stan Wong; you started talking on the report and I would
really like to hear what you have to say.
Mr. Wong: The property is located in the redevelopment area and in staff's opinion, the operation of the use
of slaughter processing really shouldn't belong in that area. It frustrates the redevelopment efforts of the
agency to attract viable commercial businesses.
Council Member Margaret Clark: I wanted to address what Polly said that the residents would be waiting
until this is all resolved. And that is not necessarily the case. If they were to take the alternate plan of not
slaughtering in Rosemead but selling the freshly slaughtered chickens brought in from, say, Azusa, and there
was one of the residents saw and someone mentioned it tonight a sign on the building that said they would
not be slaughtering for I don't know a week or two and obviously unless they shut the whole operation down
for those 2 weeks they were selling retail chickens from probably brought in from the Azusa slaughterhouse.
So I think the onus is now on the property owner what they want to do because we're giving them this option
even if they could sell retail tomorrow if they could figure out how to truck the freshly slaughtered chickens
here and so it wouldn't take that long and so I disagree that that is if that happens, if the residents are put on
hold, it's through the choice of the property owner and not us.
Council Member Polly Low: I'm curious, I'd like to ask the attorney what is the business impact. I mean,
Mrs. Clark just brought this suggestion, is that a possibility? What would be the business impact?
Mr. Lennard: My understanding is if they have to transport the chickens after they are slaughtered, they
would have to be brought by refrigeration, and therefore they would not be fresh.
Council Member Clark: On that issue, some of the people that spoke last time, 80% of the people who
spoke in favor of buying the chickens in Rosemead and keeping them here were not Rosemead residents.
So by the time they get home from buying the chicken you know, it's a half hour. And we're a half hour from
Azusa. It's not that hard of a problem. And I find it hard to believe that everyone that buys a chicken, say, at
10 in the morning in Rosemead goes home and pops it right in a pot or an oven. And I would venture that
many people put it in the refrigerator until the evening if they're going to have a family Lunar New Year
celebration or whatever. So I just don't' see the issue of a little bit of time of refrigeration. If they really want it
fresh come at 7 come at 10 in the morning whenever they want it it'll be a half hour out that it had been
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 20 of 29
refrigerated. So I really think that this is a much better solution than all these court cases and people can still
buy their chickens.
Council Member Low: I think the difference is, the community, or at least the audience out there, they
actually like buying it fresh meanings that it, kind of like the body is still warm instead of being refrigerated. I
think that's why their business attracts so many people versus....
Council Member Clark: Are you telling me that everybody cooks their chicken immediately? Because if they
don't it's going to spoil before they cook it.
Council Member Low: I don't want to speculate. I'm just reading you know what people seems to like, is to
buy it fresh.
Council Member Clark: Well, that's - we can't have slaughtering. So we're trying to find a compromise, and
I think this is....
Mayor Pro Tern Ly: we've been presented by planning commission a 3 year amortization and Councilwoman
Clark proposed 1 year with 3 months extension. Can staff both in your experience can you explain similar
cases what the outcome was.
City Attorney Joseph Montes: first issue is this is a practical matter - 3 months wouldn't do much good
because you have to begin the application 6 months ahead. Ordinance, also, lets continue hearing as
needed this would be essentially a 15 month amortization.....
Mayor Taylor. my understating 1 year would not be enough time and courts would throw it out. Lennard you
said in the minutes if only gave 1 year ordinance that you said... do you recall?
Mr. Lennard: no sir.
Mayor Taylor you made the statement that no court is going to back up a 1 year ordinance.
Mr. Lennard: Mr. Mayor, if I did I have no recollection of ever saying that. I would suggest to you and
perhaps your city attorney but 1 year amortization on a business that's been in business for 20 years; I do not
think would be sustainable by a court.
Council Member Low: I want to echo what Mr. Ly said about the extension. I think if we're going to do it we
should just have a fixed time instead of going through the pain again of a hearing. Basically, I'm saying
whatever the Council would do would do without an extension.
Mayor Pro Tem Ly: we've discussed this in closed session and I'd prefer to leave it that way. I'm not aware
of any one year that has been challenged. But Mrs. Low pointed out tough economic times. An employee
came up and said it would affect him and his family if he lost his job.
Council Member Clark: I already stated that the option that I'm proposing, of selling retail in Rosemead,
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 21 of 29
slaughtering elsewhere would not lay off anybody. I'll amend my motion to make it 18 months without
extension.
Mayor Taylor Is there a second to the amendment there.
Council MemberArmenta: I'll second.
(Someone speaks from the audience - inaudible)
Mayor Taylor Yes, there is discussion and I'm not going to go for it, only in the sense that the attorney that
is in the Planning Commission, Greg Murphy, in those minutes he also made the comment of one hour. And
the minutes were here and I'm sorry I didn't tag them out but I'm not about to let this slip by in the sense
that ...the comment was that I don't have it in front of me....
Council Member Clark: I can read the comment; you are talking about the Planning Commission?
Mayor Taylor. Yes the Planning Commission, when he spoke at the public hearing what did he say?
Council Member Clark he said, "and if you think that any successful businessman is going to start
investment capital when they know they are going to be put out of business...." And then there is dash 3 "it is
not going to happen." So I don't know if that is what you are referring too.
Mayor Taylor But I wanted to say something that's been going on for many years and people have
commented, and Mrs. Low has made the comment on different occasions, here that how did this happened
and how did we let it get away so long? And it states in the minutes there that they paid $500 a month and
Mrs. Clark states did they pay the ...$500 a month for 3 years or 18 thousand dollars. What was your
information whether they paid that or not?
Phyllis Tury handed out a document but City Attorney Montes does not allow it since the public hearing has
closed.
Mayor Taylor: all right it states here... then it goes on to the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission then adopts a one year non conformance use amortization period which in no way will stand up
before any court. Now who's making that comment? Mr. Lennard. You say it will not stand up in any court.
Mr. Lennard: Mr. Mayor when you asked me before I said I did not recollect.
Mayor Taylor: That's right. Do you recollect now?
Mr. Lennard: what I said after that is that I said that in my opinion it would not be sustained by any court. I
just made that comment.
Mayor Taylor. ok we're on the same track. It would not be sustained by any court. And that's why I'm not
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 22 of 29
going to vote for this motion we have now because we know that goes into any court and says, "That's not
enough time and they'll throw it out and do it over. That's what's going to happen.
Mr. Lennard: That would be my opinion.
Mayor Taylor. But my point is that this has been going on for several years, not the last 2, 3, or 5 years. My
understanding is they bring in 3 to 5 truckloads of chicken every day. That's in the report that we have. I
can't tell you how many cages are on that truck but I received these pictures 4 days ago regarding the Azusa
plant which is a semi trailer and I just roughly tried to count the cages that are on that truck. And my estimate
is that there are over 5000 chickens on that truck as it comes in if those cages are full. Now they may not
have a semi coming into Rosemead but it does state in here that they must have a tailgate loading truck-just
picture 3-5 trucks coming in. And how do they clean up. This is just one cage left. Dead chicken, eggs on
the parking lot, feathers and such. Now I can only speculate. Are there a dozen cages on our truck? Are
there 30 cages. We don't have that information. But my point is that when these trucks come in 3 to 5 times
a day and leave this debris of feathers, broken eggs, bird poop, call it anything you want to and occasionally
dead birds, 3 to 5 a day. Now compound that out I don't' know if they get the deliveries 5 or 6 days a week,
but that's a lot of transportation for chickens out on the entryway. The point I'm trying to make is when the
workers come out and we have other pictures of them hosing the driveways down. Now where does that
water go when the hosing is being done? We have pictures of blood out on the concrete. How often does
that happen? Not being a mathematician I'm trying to figure out how many truckloads come in every single
day and procedure is, wash it all down the drain. It's the only way it can be done. There's no other way to do
it. You have to hose that down into the drain system. And it's very frustrating to hear this going on that there
are no existing written complaints. How if you brought in a bottle of chicken odor when you come and say
look at this is going on. Here it is. It doesn't work that way. You go down there and once a week or once a
month. It just goes on and on and on. And I am tired of it personally because I was here in '91 when they got
their application to come in and do their business, establish it. It was a smaller business at that time. It has
just grown so large now. Its expanded beyond its ability. So when the gentleman stands up back here and
he says: "you residents of Rosemead, you don't want a chicken store down there now move out of the city."
How arrogant can you get with our long time residents? Any residents. (Applause) To tell the residents to
move out of the city - we want our chickens. We're not against chickens. This comments been made.
"Bring the chickens down and you and open up a meat market, a chicken market, you name it." You can still
keep a retail business. Just get rid of the slaughter portion. I'm tired of our residents having to live with it for
decades.
Council Member Low: Mr. Mayor. So do you have a motion on the floor. 18 months with no extension is that
correct?
Council Member Clark: 18 month amortization with no extension.
Council Member Margaret Clark made a motion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to
introduce and an Ordinance with an 18 month amortization and no extension. Vote resulted in:
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 23 of 29
Yes: Armenta, Clark
No: Low, Ly, Taylor
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Motion failed.
Mayor Taylor. So that motion fails. And I can understand we're trying to work out a solution here but I do
understand that the courts would kind of just get a joke out of it. How are we going to take this business and
speed it through and get it all done in 18 months.
Council Member Clark: I disagree, Gary because the option is for them to sell retail, and you just said you
were in favor of that.
Mayor Taylor: No, well, you didn't specifically clarify that
Council Member Clark: Well, that wasn't part of the motion - it doesn't have to - they can sell retail
tomorrow if they wanted to. They did it when they were closed temporarily for some reason. They brought
the chickens in from, whatever, probably Azusa.
Mayor Taylor. So, my feeling is, we adopt this ordinance. We've got 3 years. Plenty of time for it to be
worked out on a basis of getting with the owner and saying "sell the chickens, you can have a meat store, but
the slaughterhouse portion has to go."
Council Member Clark: Well, we're saying that right now. I mean, I am, maybe everyone doesn't agree with
that but the retail portion (inaudible) and I think because we have the option on the table where they can stay
there but just not slaughter, I don't think that's as onerous to a judge as if we were just kicking the whole thing
out. And that's my point.
Mayor Taylor: Can we get a new motion then? Since we needed it clarified.
Council Member Clark: I'll move 2 years with no extension.
Mayor Taylor. The attorney says wait, for some reason.
City Attorney Joseph Montes: I just want to clarify. My understanding is according to staff, the current owner
of the business owns 2 adjacent buildings 1 building they currently have the chicken slaughtering business in
and that is a grandfathered use of that building. In the adjacent building, it is zoned for retail purposes and
current retail sales can be made out of that. I'm not aware if retail sales can be made out of the existing
building that's used for slaughtering. So if staff can clarify that.
Mayor Taylor Mr. Wong. Please clarify for me also in the sense that they had an existing building they were
slaughtering the chickens in that particular building when they first started and they also had the retail chicken
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 24 of 29
sales in the same building. So I might have confused the issue here but Mr. Montes, did I confuse the issue?
Mr. Montes: I'm trying to clarify if the genesis of the motion is they can continue retail sales without the
slaughtering, I just want staff to confirm that retail sales can be made from those buildings if the slaughter
operations is ceased.
Mr. Wong: that is correct
Mayor Taylor. So they do have the option of saving the business but the slaughtering part of it has to be
moved. These pictures that I was given it appears that the Azusa plant and I'm only suggesting the fact that
it looks to be 3 times bigger than the Rosemead. I could be wrong and that would have to be worked out.
And I hope we can reach a consensus of keeping the store sales of the chickens in Rosemead but the
slaughtering has to go.
Council Member Clark: My motion was-that was a given. And my motion was the 18 month amortization
without the extension.
Mayor Pro Tem Ly: the motion was 18 month amortization period for chicken slaughtering not chicken
retailing.
Council Member Clark: And if they choose to stay and sell them retail and slaughter elsewhere then it's all
moot. Because they wouldn't have to.
Mayor Pro Tern Ly: They could still sell chickens in the city of Rosemead... slaughtering is...
Council Member Clark: Slaughtering is elsewhere but sales, they can keep the same clientele, keep all of
the people working.
Mayor Taylor I appreciate it being cleared up a little bit more as far as I think we're all in agreement that they
do have a right to sell the chickens and we have to come with a solution of stopping the slaughter.
Mayor Pro Tem Ly: Mr. Mayor my concern with the one year two year and even to the extent of 3 year is that
none of those periods in my opinion will hold up in a court of law and even though I genuinely understand the
concern of my neighbors and I genuinely understand the concerns of my neighbors on this issue; I guess the
question is what is the role that we playas Council right now. Is our job to say okay we are going to vote on
a 1, 2, 3, x number of year amortization period; whatever the judges say that is fine with us and then it goes
to a judge and a judge throws it out and then we are back to square one and we have everyone here again.
Or is our job to choose a date that we feel would be genuinely workable and that would survive in a court of
law and in which case a judge would uphold it and in x amount of years, whatever those years are, they are
gone. And just be clear that is the question that I been debating with everyone on and I've asked how they
feel about that specific issue. So my concern is a one year or two year and to extending it to three year would
not be able to withstand a judge.
Council Member Low: I think I have the same concern. This business has been in the City for 20 years and I
feel that in one year or three years that would not stand up in court and that is why I'm concern that if we go
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 25 of 29
to litigation we don't have a good chance in winning the case. And that will cost the City a lot of money. I
strongly feel that the quickest way to solve this problem is to have the City work the property owner, to have
the property owner pay for a consultant to come up with a solution and how to mitigate this problem. How to
mitigate the odor issue and put in the (inaudible) that they need to put in and pay for it by the property owner
and resolve it so that the residents can have this problem removed as soon as possible. Sometimes I feel
like, can this be done, but you know what we are in the United States we have the technology to put a human
in the moon; how come we don't have the technology to clear out the odor. I don't understand that so I don't
buy it, I feel that we have the technology and we have a gentleman up here and express that. He has seen
equipment that can resolve this problem. Why not do it and here the property owner is willing to pay for it
It doesn't cost the City any money. I would ask staff to work very hard to set very strict guidelines and make
sure that it is done timely and as soon as possible. I think that is the quickest way and the cheapest way to
solve this problem.
Mayor Pro Tem Ly: With all due respect to Councilwoman Low, I disagree with that assessment. The
problem is with that location people say go to downtown; they have slaughtering in downtown and they have
these new odor mitigations. Well, I go to downtown and even though they have the most up-to-date facilities,
it still smells. That odor doesn't disappear. The fact of the matter is, where that Cal Poultry location is at, if
I'm not mistaken, its within 100, 150 feet away from of residents-the location is too close to residential and I
think this is what one of our staff said earlier that Cal Poultry would be a land use issue... one of the reasons
why a lot of our neighboring cities have made it illegal, including South El Monte, El Monte, Temple City,
basically all our neighboring cities, including Monterey Park etc. Is because the odors are so difficult to
control. The runoff issues are so difficult to control. And that's why you have manufacturing areas. People
say what you have in Rosemead, its industrial, its industrial right now but the city has been trying to change
that for quite some time. Even the previous Council, a year and a half ago the previous Council they put in
the general plan that area as high density mixed use. Because they didn't agree with manufacturing along
the commercial corridor of Garvey. In our current general plan proposal that's coming to this council soon
enough I'm sure we're planning Garvey to be mostly commercial and combined mixed use and things like
that because Garvey we joke only 3 nice things about Garvey - the bridge, the Community Center, and the
medians.... even in the proposed general plan that area is not designed to be made for chicken slaughter. It's
not designed for manufacturing or light industrial....
Council Member Low: But Mr. Ly I think I agree with part of what you're saying but what I want to point out is
as the City move forward, as we change the general plan as we want to improve Garvey that doesn't mean
the City has the right to push business out, especially business that's been in our city for a long time. So I
think we need to be careful at the same time we want to show the business community that we do welcome
that. I mean this is a case another business wants to come in they would hesitate because here we are
getting rid of a business that's been here for 20 years.
Council MemberArmenta: Nobody's saying we need to push them out. They have the option of doing
retail. Now the ball's in their court. The opponents here - they want the retail, we give them retail, but
slaughter somewhere else.
Council Member Clark: I just want to say the same thing. We're not pushing a business out, and I take
offense at that. And also I want to clarify that Rosemead is not like the city of Industry or maybe the city of
Azusa that have certain areas of industrial. We have what I believe is called strip zoning where our major
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 26 of 29
thoroughfare is commercial or industrial and then right behind it within 100 or 200 feet is often residential.
And that's the case here you have people living right behind and last time we had people testifying that they
had health issues. We had one person actually told me later she had a sister, they lived all their lives there
behind this company and the sister had to have a lung transplant. Now nobody knows whether that directly,
we can't say it was or wasn't, but who knows? And we're talking about quality of life here. And we have an
option on the table for them to continue to sell retail and I think we need to come to a conclusion....
Mayor Taylor I have a little - I said it was 3-5 trucks a day. I just averaged it to be 4 trucks times 5 days is
20 trucks a week, times 50 weeks they deliver chickens how many days a week? ...You're saying 7 days a
week? Anyway I'm just using 5 days that's 20 thousand trucks coming down there in the 19 years time
frame. Every one of those trucks that come in there. How many of you have driven behind trucks, chickens,
and turkeys, ducks, on the freeway and feathers are flying everywhere. So when they pull into those parking
lots, this can't be the only cage that has eggs drops down, feathers and chicken manure, whatever, that's
19000 trucks, the number of chickens, that s got to be a million chickens. That has to be cleaned up in the
parking lot and it just gets washed down.
City Attorney Joseph Montes: Mr. Mayor just for purposes of process you are considering Ordinance No. 883
of the City Council of the City of Rosemead, California amending Chapter 17.12 of Title 17 of the City of
Rosemead Municipal Code relating to the amortization of nonconforming poultry slaughter businesses.
Should someone make a motion and you all considerate the motion should be clear; if there are any changes
to the ordinance as its drafted in the staff report and also with understanding you are waiving further reading
of the ordinance and that you are adopting the negative declaration.
Mayor Taylor. What is the time frame in the ordinance?
Mr. Montes: As currently drafted it is 3 years.
Mayor Taylor. Okay then that needs to be amended.
Council Member Clark: I make a motion to amend it to 2 years.
Mayor Taylor. You want two years and its not to put them out of business....
Mr. Montes: I'm sorry the ordinance simply requires the cessation of poultry slaughter business. It does not
speak of poultry sale.
Council Member Clark: The ordinance as stated by the City Attorney but changing to two years.
Mayor Taylor well that does change it a little bit; they do not have to move out of the city, they do not have
to dispose of the buildings.
Council Member Clark: They don't have to do that at all they just can't slaughter.
Council Member Margaret Clark made a motion, seconded by Council Member Sandra Armenta, to
introduce and an Ordinance No. 883 with a 2 year amortization period and no extension. Vote resulted
in:
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 27 of 29
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Taylor
No: Low, Ly
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Mr. Montes stated that this was the first reading of the ordinance and this item would have to be brought back
at the next meeting for a second reading.
Mayor Pro Tern Steve Ly: I would like the record to reflect that my no vote demonstrates that I did not feel
the confidence of the ordinance and it surviving in a court of law.
7. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Claims and Demands
Resolution No. 2010 - 20
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2010 - 20, for payment of City expenditures in the
amount of $640,781.81 numbered 100760 through 100777 and 69106 and 69241,
inclusively.
Council Member Margaret Clark made a motion, seconded by Council Member Polly Low, to approve
the consent calendar. Vote resulted in:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
9. COMMENTS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Council Member Clark asked that the meeting be adjourned in the memory of Lillian Sacco who was a
member of the Rights for (inaudible) and we can all agree that she was very active in the community and we
all appreciate everything she did.
Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated he wanted to congratulate Council Member Clark on the successful appointment in
the SCAG committee; it was a very closed election but thankfully El Monte, South El Monte, and Rosemead
decided to maintain Councilwoman Clark as she has dealt with issues, such as, AB375 (land use issues).
Mr. Ly added that he also wanted to once again speak on the few pieces of parcels in Rosemead that would
be great as parks; he asked once again that the Southern California Edison representatives sit down with the
City and discuss this issue with staff.
Council Member Clark stated that she would like to thank the Council Members that came and vote for her
on the SCAG.
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 28 of 29
Council Member Clark stated that she would like to thank the Council Members that came and vote for her
on the SCAG.
Council Member Armenta apologized for not attending the City's Yard Sale but stated that she heard the
yard sale was a success and added that she was looking forward to it next year.
Council Member Clark stated that she did agree with Brian on the extension of the time because of lot of
people had church responsibilities and thought it would be a good idea to extend the time to 2 or 3 o'clock.
City Manager Jeff Allred stated that the City had been contacted by Southern California Edison and they
stated that they preferred to move the yard sale to Saturday instead of Sunday.
Mayor Taylor stated he would like a complete report on the mix-use - residential and commercial on the
project on Mission and Rosemead. He stated that Council approved that for residential use and they came
back wanting to change that because they could not find buyers for those units. Mr. Taylor also asked for a
list of the current occupancy residents and how many businesses because there are still signs for sale there.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:19 pm in Memory of Lillian Sacco. The next joint Community Development
Commission and City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on April 13, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. and 7:00
p.m., respectively.
4Garyor, Mayor
ATTEST:
Gloria Molleda
City Clerk
Rosemead Community Development Commission and
City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of March 23, 2010
Page 29 of 29
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.
CITY OF ROSEMEAD )
I, Gloria Molleda, City Clerk for the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the minutes of
March 23, 2010 were duly and regularly approved by the Rosemead City Council on the 27th of
April 2010, by the following vote to wit:
Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly, Taylor
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
oria Molleda
City Clerk