Loading...
CC - Minutes - 06-09-15 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.CORPORATION, AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JOINT MEETING JUNE 9, 2015 The Rosemead City Council Closed Session Meeting was called to order by Mayor Clark at 6:05 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tern Armenia, Council Members Alarcon and Ly ABSENT: Council Member/Board Member Low 1. CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Richman announced that the City Council would recess to Closed Session to conference with Legal Council on the following issue: A. Conference with Legal Counsel— Existing Litigation 1. City of Rosemead v. Beneficial Patient Group, Inc. et al.; Los Angeles County Superior Court Case EC 063589 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65956.9 (d)(1) City Council recessed to closed session at 6:06 pm. Regular Business Meeting Minutes City Attorney Richman announced that no reportable action was taken in closed session at which time Mayor Clark called the joint meeting of the Rosemead City Council, Housing Development Corporation and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—was led by Council Member Ly INVOCATION—was presented by Mayor Clark PRESENT: Mayor/Chair/President Clark, Mayor Pro TemNice-ChairNice-President Armenta, Council Members/Board Members Alarcon, Ly; Council Member/Board Member Low was present via teleconference. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth, Community Development Director Ramirez, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott, Public Works Manager Sullivan, City Clerk Molleda. Rosemead City CounciL Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9,2015 Page 1 of 24 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE "' Brian Lewin announced that the City of Alhambra would be holding its annual 710 Day on June - 10, 2015, on the corner of Valley Boulevard and Fremont in Alhambra to raise awareness that July 6th was the final day to receive public comments on the 710 Freeway EIR/EIS alternatives. He advised what events would take place. He also advised an additional public hearing would be held on Saturday, June 20'h at V.W. Griffith Middle School Auditorium, 4765 E. 4`" Street, Los Angeles, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 3. PRESENTATIONS Muscatel Science Olympiad Team Jim McGoy thanked the City Council for honoring the Muscatel Olympiad Team who won its 11th Los Angeles County Championship Title and its 8'" California State Championship Title. The team also competed at the United States National Science Olympiad National Tournament last month, and placed 81"overall out of 60 competing teams and also medaled in ten out of 25 competition events including a team record of three First Place event finishes at the National Finals. He introduced four of the coaches who displayed three trophies the team earned and introduced the team members. The City Council presented each of the student team members with a $5 gift card to In and Out Burger and paused for photographs with the team, coaches and school principal. Thereafter, the City Council acknowledged the Science Olympiad Team and expressed pride in ... the Team's accomplishments. Scholarship Recipients— Rosemead Residents .. The City Council recognized three students from Rosemead High School who were recipients of scholarships. Michelle Ong received the Cal SOAP Scholarship and would be attending UCLA in the fall; Allison Nguyen received the UC Berkeley Regents Scholarship and would be attending MIT in the fall; and Joseph Pham received the El Monte Unified School District Scholarship and would be attending California Polytechnic Institute at San Luis Obispo in the fall. The City Council presented each of the students with a $5 gift card to In and Out Burger and paused for pictures with the students. Mayor Pro Tern Armenta expressed her pride in the students and hoped the students would aspire to become the City's future leaders. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Municipal Code Amendment 15-02 —Amending Chapters 17.04 and 17.72 of Title 17 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code Relating to Regulations for Nonconforming Uses, Structures, Lots, and Parking Facilities Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Conduct the noticed public hearing and receive public comment; (2) Approve the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; and (3) Rosemead City Council.Housing Development Corporation, - . and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9,2015 Page 2 of 24 Move to INTRODUCE FIRST READING, by title only Ordinance No. 951, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 15-02, AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.04 AND 17.72 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS, AND PARKING FACILITIES City Planner Sheri Bermejo provided the staff report advising this was a city-initiated amendment to revise some of the regulations in the City's nonconforming ordinance. She explained the ordinance was originally drafted for the purpose of allowing the addition of new conforming residential structures on R-1 and R-2 Zone lots that include existing legal nonconforming structures. She advised the item was presented to the Planning Commission on April 6, 2015 and upon hearing written and oral testimony, the Planning Commission directed staff to omit the language that would actually allow the addition of new and nonconforming residential structures on R-1 and R-2 lots. They directed staff to bring back the revised ordinance on May 18`h, and at that meeting the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending the City Council adopt an amendment without the proposed standards allowing the addition of the new structures on properties with existing legal nonconforming structures. After a PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Bermejo advised the City Council that since the Planning Commission's decision on the ordinance at their May 18th meeting, the Mayor discussed the issue with City staff and the Mayor would like the Council to be aware that she was in favor of the original proposed ordinance. It was the Mayor's opinion that if a residential exception were to be adopted, it could be reviewed within a year to see if it created any unintended consequences. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing Huey Chea addressed the Council explaining his inability to build a new home on his large lot because his existing home did not meet the code. He advised that the new home would be in the front of the lot and the old house would not be seen. He hoped the City Council would amend the code so he could build a new structure on the empty portion of the lot without having to tear down his small home to do so. Molly Sun explained to Council that in order for them to conform to the code, the existing home which was 900 square feet, would have to be cut in half. She stated at the time they bought the home, it was conforming and they did not have the money to build. Now that they were able to get a loan, the City changed the code and they could not afford to make the changes to the existing home so they could build a new home. A gentleman (name inaudible) addressed Council regarding mixed use, zoning issues and lot sizes. Huang Lam bought a lot that was 60 x 220 and allowed two houses, but the City changed the zoning and he could no longer have two houses on his lot. City Manager Allred interjected that residents could still build two houses on a 12,000 square foot lot. Rosemead City Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9,2015 Page 3 of 24 Mr. Chea addressed Council to explain what Mr. Lam was trying to explain to Council. Brian Lewin expressed his support of the ordinance as it was presented to the City Council. He felt that if people were going to be allowed to build two houses on lots of that size, the condition that existing houses on the lot be brought up to code was good because it allowed the City to improve its housing stock. He felt the ordinance was a benefit to the City and he asked the Council to approve it as presented. Molly Sun addressed the Council again expressing her disagreement with Mr. Lewin's comments. There being no further comments, Mayor Clark closed the public hearing. Council Member Ly asked staff what the previous code was that members of the audience alluded to; if their lot was nonconforming but had the setbacks were they allowed to build a second unit or not. Ms. Bermejo explained that the Zoning Code prior to the comprehensive update did not allow the addition of additional units. The standards were vague and allowed exemptions that could be approved by the Community Development Director but there were no findings that could be made. The language was reviewed with the City Attorney and it was decided that standards be included in the ordinance to protect the City. She said it could be that the code was interpreted unevenly in the past but as soon as the attorney brought it to staffs attention, staff no longer made exemptions. The City Council and staff entered into a lengthy discussion regarding the legal nonconforming _ structures, the language in the comprehensive Zoning Code Update and allowing for exemptions. Ms. Bermejo stated that there was a provision in the current Zoning Code through the comprehensive Zoning Code update. She cited an example of a home that was built too dose to a property line, it would be taken care of administratively with the Community Development Director through a minor exception process in which the adjacent property owners were noticed. Mayor Clark expressed her desire that the language deleted by the Planning Commission be placed back into the ordinance for a year, revisit it and see what unintended consequences might happen. She felt that was fair to the people who bought before the code was changed so they could build that second house and not be deprived of building a house they saved their money to build. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta commented that she did not think the City changed the rules, the City updated its zone and in updating the zone, things changed. Council Member Low said if Council included the language that the Planning Commission omitted, it might increase additional units. After talking to some residents she realized a lot of residents who might want to remodel and don't have a lot of money to change their existing home to comply with the current code so they can remodel. She realized the goal was to have all residences be conformed to the current code in the long term. Rosemead City Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 4 of 24 Council Member Steven Ly expressed his understanding of the issue and recommended allowing for minor exception, but only under certain conditions. One, because a setback affects the neighbors, the neighbors would have to sign off on it; and two, it would require Planning Commission approval in a public hearing. He thought that if those two conditions were made a part of the minor exception, he would be comfortable with putting a minor exception based on those criteria. Community Development Director Ramirez advised the City Council that both of the suggestions made by Council Member Ly were already in the minor exceptions policy. City Attorney Richman advised this was within the City Council's powers if that was the process by which the City Council wanted to allow nonconforming uses to be approved, then it was legal. Thereafter, Council discussed this issue in depth including various ways in which neighbors' signatures of approval could be obtained and the need to go before the Planning Commission for approval; the responsibility of the City Council to adjudicate land use matters; and the Council's desire to balance what was best for the City with the rights of the residents, and reviewing the ordinance in a year to determine if any unforeseen problems resulted from adding the language back into the code. Community Development Director Ramirez, added that if this was the direction of the City Council then staff would like to have the neighbors' signatures be a notarized statement that they were the actual owners, to prevent the possibility of forged signatures. ACTION: Council Member Ly moved, and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Armenta to continue the public hearing to June 23, 2015 and to bring the ordinance back allowing for minor exceptions with the approval of the neighboring property owners and Planning Commission approval at a public hearing. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Alarcon, Low, Ly, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, and Mayor Clark. B. Design Review 14-03: Garvey Garden Plaza Mixed Use Project 8408 Garvey Avenue Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Conduct the noticed public hearing and receive public comment; (2) The City Council approve Resolution No. 2015-29, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 14-03 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TOTALING 11,860 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL/OFFICE SPACE AND 46 APARTMENTS. THE PROJECT INCUDES A DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8408 GARVEY AVENUE IN THE C-3 MUDO-D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A MIXED USE AND DESIGN OVERLAY)ZONE (APN:5283-005-028); and (3) The City Council adopt the Mitigation Negative Declaration and file the Notice of Determination for the project. Rosemead Guy Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9,2015 Page 5 of 24 Associate Planner, Lily Valenzuela presented the staff report indicating Garvey Garden Plaza has submitted an application requesting Development of a residentiaVcommercial mixed use development totaling 11,860 square feet of retail/office space and 46 apartments. She noted that parking was proposed on the surface and one level of the basement parking. She said that access would be provided off of Delta Avenue. The project included a density bonus under Senate Bill 1818 and was located at the southeast corner of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the C-3 MUDO-D (Medium Commercial with a mixed use and design overlay) zone. She recommended the City Council conduct a Public Hearing to receive public testimony, adopt Resolution No. 2015-29 with findings and subject to 90 conditions; adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and file the Notice of determination for the project. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Mike Lewis representing the applicant, highlighted the project. He emphasized the residential was rental units not for sale. The size of the lot was approximately 49,000 square feet, 1.1 acres after a four foot dedication for Delta Avenue. He noted the commercial area was almost 12,000 square feet of space, which provided the required 48 parking spaces. He brought copies of the elevations for the City Council to review. The residential portion of the building was 46 units, 27 of which were two-bedroom units, 18 were three bedroom units and a one- bedroom manager unit. The required parking for the residential was 92 spaces and they were proposing 98. He emphasized the project was an affordable project in that seven of the units were available for rent to low income individuals or families with a density bonus of 35%. He advised the affordable component of the project allowed the applicant two incentives. The applicant was requesting the ability to build four stories within 45 feet rather than three stories -ow within 45 feet which was what the code allowed. The second incentive request was the ability to modify the residential to commercial ratio from 67% residential and 33% commercial as required by the code, to 81% residential and 19% commercial, which is what the project proposed. Mr. Lewis advised the traffic consultant hired by the City determined that the project would not cause any of the intersections studied to exceed the current level of service. He advised the City Council on the various soils testing that was completed and based on all of the tests, it was determined that the soil at this location was non-liquefiable and would not liquefy under earth movement circumstances. The City also hired two additional soils consultants, who reviewed the reports and looked at the calculations. The second consultant suggested adding conditions for retaining walls and a particular design around the foundation which was included in the permit. Mr. Lewis stated that if the project was approved and went into the plan check process there would be much more design done and further review by the City's engineers and the applicant's engineers to determine the exact configuration of the foundation to make sure there were no issues with the design and construction with regard to earth movement. Mr. Lewis discussed the design elements of the project emphasizing the project provided new housing opportunities for young families, and he felt it could bring a new generation to Rosemead. He felt this was a good project for Rosemead, set a good standard; and he encouraged the City Council to approve the project. Rosemead City Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9,2015 Page 6 of 24 Council Member Alarcon asked how far down the project went on Delta. Mr. Lewis advised that it abuts a very deep lot that had several apartments on it. George Chen who owned a construction company in Rosemead was in support of the Garvey Garden Plaza which would bring in more job opportunities. James Wang, owner of the used car lot on Garvey and Delta was in support of this project. Tung Duonq was in support of the project because it meant more jobs in the City and more taxes for the City. There being no one further wishing to speak, Mayor Clark closed the public hearing. Council Member Ly stated the project was aesthetically pleasing and staff has done a wonderful job working with the developer and making sure several key amenities were included. He was happy to see the open space on the second floor. He asked the applicant if he would be willing to contribute to the traffic study being performed on Garvey as part of the Specific Plan to assist in evaluating how the project might affect the entire corridor. Mr. Lewis responded yes and noted that when the project went before the Planning Commission, the Commission added two conditions: one that there not be any restaurants and that a post traffic analysis be performed after the project was built. He did not think a post traffic analysis made sense, the applicant would be more than willing to contribute to the City's broader traffic study instead. After being asked by Council Member Ly about contributing $12,000 to the traffic study, Mr. Lewis agreed that the applicant would be willing to do that. The City Council expressed their pleasure with the project and the design. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Armenia, to approve Resolution No. 2015-29, removing Condition of Approval 30 and authorizing the City Manager to enter into an Agreement with the Applicant to accept a donation for the Comprehensive Traffic Study along Garvey Avenue. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, and Mayor Clark. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and file the Notice of Determination. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark. C. Resolution No. 2015-28—A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rosemead Ordering the Vacation of the Alley between Brighton Street and Del Mar Avenue Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2015-28, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ORDERING Rosemead City Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 7 of 24 THE VACATION OF THE ALLEY BETWEEN BRIGHTON STREET AND DEL MAR AVENUE . Mayor Clark opened the public hearing: Imelda Hiiar spoke in opposition to vacating the alley because the alley was used to exit the street since it was difficult to make a left hand turn on Garvey. She also addressed the issue of delivery trucks taking up parking on the streets as a result of the new project. Gerardo Hijar spoke in opposition to vacating the alley. There being no further public comments, Mayor Clark closed the public hearing. Council Member Ly expressed his understanding of the residents' concerns, adding that part of Garvey Avenue was currently a much blighted area. He noted some of the problems in that area stating the project would help to clean up Garvey; however, the issue at hand was whether to vacate the alley and it was his understanding that all the individuals who have direct claim to the alley were in agreement with the vacation. He thought the alley should be vacated. Council Member Armenta asked if someone could address the delivery truck issues raised by Ms. Hijar. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that conditions were placed against the project that specifically addressed the truck deliveries, loading zones and the limited hours for P'+k loading and un-loading. If those conditions were violated the applicant would be going against the CUP at which point the City had several options including the issuance of citations. Council Member Low stated that for a project like this to work, the alley would have to be vacated. She said the City has been waiting for a project like this for a long time. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Low, and seconded by Council Member Ly, moved to approve the Resolution 2015-28. Further discussion regarding the purpose of an alley was held in which Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth advised that the original intention of the alleys were to provide a location for trucks to have loading access to the businesses. It was not meant as a thoroughfare for traffic. Discussion also focused on the parking issue in that area and whether the project would impact street parking. ACTION: The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Clark pulled Items B and C from the Consent Calendar For discussion and separate action. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9,2015 Page 8 of 24 A. Claims and Demands • Resolution No. 2015-37 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2015-37, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF$630,846.28 NUMBERED 88866 THROUGH 89000 INCLUSIVELY • Resolution No. 2015-12 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2015- 12, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF$88,911.25 NUMBERED 10130 D. Resolution Authorizing the Release of Unclaimed Checks Pursuant to Government Code Section 50050 through 50056 Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2015-27, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF UNCLAIMED CHECKS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 50050 AND 50053 TO THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD E. Deputy Probation Officer Annual Contract Renewal Recommendation: That the City Council approve the agreement with the Los Angeles County Probation Department and authorize the City Manager to sign any necessary documentation. F. Used Oil Payment Program Grant Application Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2015-33, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN USED OIL PAYMENT PROGRAM APPLICATION AND RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Council Member Alarcon, to approve Consent calendar Items A through F, excluding Items B and C. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 949: Adoption of Development Impact Fees (DIF)and Resolution No. 2015-07, Approving the Final Draft DIF Study Rosemead City Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9,2015 Page 9 of 24 Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Adopt Ordinance No. 949 at its second •� reading, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING SECTION 12.44.020 (PARK AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE)OF TITLE 12, CHAPTER 12.44 AND ADDING ARTICLE 7(DEVELOPMENT FEES), CHAPTER 17.170(DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES)TO TITLE 17 TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; (2) Approve Resolution No. 2015-07, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ADDING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE TO IMPLEMENT THE DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 949 Lee Lieberg, Government Affairs Director of the West San Gabriel Valley Association of Realtors expressed his concern that the increase in Development Impact Fees would be passed through to the consumer and the proposed fee seemed quite excessive compared to some of the neighboring cities, citing the amount of some of those cities' fees. He urged the City Council to reconsider the fees. Thereafter the City Council, City Manager, and staff discussed the discrepancies between the amount of fees Mr. Lieberg quoted for neighboring cities and the amount of fees staff provided. Mr. Lieberg was also advised that the City reduced its fees at the last meeting in accordance with discussions with the Building Industry Association and were phasing the fees in over three years. Further discussion ensued regarding the fees being adopted by the resolution being lower than the fees proposed in the study. ,,,, Tom Berge, President of the West San Gabriel Valley Association of Realtors, requested the .. City Council to reconsider the adoption of Ordinance No. 949 as written because impact fees increased the costs of new development especially for residential projects and consequently would reduce the number of projects that were economically feasible. The increased costs resulting from such impact fees may make it harder for low and moderate income households to afford to purchase residential units in new developments. Impact fees often result in higher costs for existing homes making all homes less affordable. ACTION: Council Member Ly moved, and seconded by Council member Alarcon, moved to adopt Ordinance No. 949 at its second reading. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, and Mayor Clark. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Council Member Alarcon to approve Resolution No. 2015-07. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark. C. Annual Salary and Benefits Resolutions Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2015-31, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SALARY RANGES AND BENEFITS FOR CLASSIFICATIONS Rosemead City Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 10 of 24 IN THE GENERAL SERVICE UNIT OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD; Resolution No. 2015- 32, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SALARY RANGES AND BENEFITS FOR CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE MIDDLE MANAGEMENT, PROFESSIONAL, AND CONFIDENTIAL SERVICE UNIT OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD; Resolution No. 2015- 34, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SALARY RANGES AND BENEFITS FOR CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE MANAGEMENT SERVICE UNIT OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD; and Resolution No. 2015-35 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SALARY RANGES AND BENEFITS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD Mayor Pro Tem Armenta stated she did have some questions, but she was able to get those questions resolved before the meeting. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Council Member Low, to approve Resolutions 2015-31, 2015-32, 2015-34, and 2015-35. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, and Mayor Clark. 6. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP)for Compliance with Federal and State Storm Water Regulations Recommendation: That the City Council; (1) Receive and file this report; and (2) Approve Resolution No. 2015-38, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A POLICY OF IMPLEMENTING GREEN STREETS BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Public Works Manager Sullivan introduced the City's consultant, Elroy Kiepke from Willdan Engineering. Mr. Sullivan then advised the City Council that in November 2012, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board of Los Angeles Region adopted and updated the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or MS 4 Permit for the Los Angeles area. 84 of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County were a party to the permit which outlined compliance measures for the individual permit fees to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). NPDES was focused on removing pollutants from storm water and urban runoff prior to its discharge into the waterways. Under the updated permit which was effective December 28, 2012, all cities were given two identified methods of permit compliance. Comply with the permit as adopted or to develop and implement a Watershed Management Program. Mr. Sullivan advised that City staff and the technical consultant determined that the development of an Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) was the desired path for the City's NPDES compliance. The Enhanced Watershed Management Plan was a plan that identified water quality priorities and developed control measures that emphasized the infiltration of all non-storm water runoff and 85%of storm water into the ground. The program Rosemead City Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 11 of 24 included certain control measures or best management practices including low-impact development, green streets and regional projects targeted at reducing storm water pollution. In June 2013, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding for the City to enter into a group led by the City of Los Angeles to develop an Enhanced Watershed Management Plan. The group included 17 cities and two Los Angeles County entities. Of the 84 cities subject to this permit, 74 cities were pursuing some type of group effort to develop a watershed management plan, four cities have approved individual plans, two cities who had individual plans rejected by the Regional Board have made late efforts to join established watershed management plan groups and one city has opted for compliance with the permit with no plan in place. The Enhanced Watershed Management Plan has been developed by the City of Los Angeles serving as the lead agency in helping to coordinate the activities of the other 16 cities and two county entities within the group. The group is known as the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed Management Group. The plan was developed by a consultant team and would be submitted as a draft for the Regional Board's review prior to June 28, 2015. The Enhanced Watershed Management Plan included a battery of Best Management Practices implemented both on the local and regional level that will achieve the City's compliance with both the MS 4 permit in pre-existing total maximum daily loads that the City was subject to. The estimated cost for implementation of the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan for the Upper L.A. River Group from now through its termination date in 2037 was approximately$6 billion. This was the end date for bacterial TMDL that all of the Los Angeles River Cities were subject to. The cost figure devised for this plan was one technical opinion of the total cost of implementing the entire Enhanced Watershed Management Plan over a long period of time. As is typical, cost estimates are often subject to change. The City of Rosemead's estimated cost for the implementation of the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan through 2037 was ,..., approximately$110 million. This cost included the implementation of low impact development, best management practices, that include infiltration at local and regional facilities and the addition of green streets. Mayor Clark asked why the 23-page letter from the environmental groups (NRDC) Natural Resources Defense Council and Heal the Bay was not mentioned in the staff report. The letter came out on June 2ni and it clearly said they did not like the large management plans and they were planning to sue. When she voted to enter into the study with the other cities it was conditioned that it would work out. Council was led to believe over the past two years, that if the City did this, the environmental groups, who have been pushing for the cleanup, would get us off the hook. She noted they weren't willing to say safe harbor, but the implication was that if the city put all this money in, and cleaned up the ground water, and do what we were supposed to be doing. The letter from the environmental groups was extremely vitriolic. They do not like the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) therefore she could not understand why the City would want to enter into a process for$110 million when the City could be sued and the money wasted. Her other concern was, if you look at the map, the plan the City was in goes all the way to the western end of Los Angeles. The City was in a contract with most of the City of Los Angeles and Rosemead was a relatively small city. Rosemead was in Reach 2 of the Rio Hondo and according to the figures the total maximum daily loads that the City was being told to remove were bacteria and coliform and things like that. The larger Reach that the City joined has metals and a long list of pollutants that have to be removed. She questioned whether the City was underwriting the pollution that other cities had to cleanup when Rosemead would not have .w. to. She stated that was a problem for her and pointed out that the plan was to create infiltration Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9,2015 Page 12 of24 basins so that the water doesn't go to the ocean and infiltrates into the ground water. She said if you look at the map, the City was recharging the Raymond Basin and the Central Basin and not the San Gabriel Basin, where the City gets its ground water from. She had a real problem with this EWMP. She said the fact that the environmental groups wanted to sue, she would like to withdraw from the group and have the City do its own storm water management plan where if pollution was found at the City's outfall the City would take care of it, the cost could not possibly be anywhere near$110 million. She hoped the Council would join her in the City preparing its own storm water management program and she would make that motion. Council Member Ly advised the Mayor that he thought there was a public speaker's request and she had a question for staff and he would like to hear staff's response regarding the letter and also their position on the EWMP. Mr. Sullivan responded regarding the letter from the environmental groups it was staffs understanding in working with Mr. Kiepke as well as other folks who were familiar with the storm water system, the letter was the position the environmental groups have taken since the permit was issued by the Regional Board in 2012. The direction of the environmental groups was not that they were upset with the cities for choosing the approach, but were upset with the Board for offering this option as permit compliance. The issue with the environmental groups was not directed at the City but more at the governing bodies for allowing cities this approach to comply with the storm water issue. The environmental groups would rather see a system of strict numeric compliance with the water quality issues and strict fining and retribution. The issue with the environmental groups was that they would rather see the City do the strict compliances the permit allows for and fail rather than taking 'These easy road approaches" going through a EWMP group. Mr. Kiepke confirmed what Mr. Sullivan said stating that the environmental groups would be suing the Regional Board or the State Board, depending on the State Board's adopted motion which was coming up on June 16`". The environmental groups have been working on their position for nine to twelve months. The State Board was supporting the Los Angeles Board's adoption of the permit with the Watershed Management Plan and the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan because they know that if the cities don't get additional time, there was no way the cities would get strict compliance. The State and Regional Boards were making the effort to allow cities to show progress toward the end goal and as you know you can't spend money you don't have. Like every other city in Los Angeles County, they don't have the money to spend $6 billion in the Upper L.A. River Watershed. So there is a funding mechanism that is going to have to be developed and the City will be a part of the effort to develop that funding source. And if in the worst case, the residents come back and said no, and the City did not have the money, the City would have to go to the Board and say the residents don't want to give us money is there was another source for the money. If not, this program was impossible to fund. Mayor Clark said they would not accept that we cannot afford it. She emphasized that the environmental groups may be suing the Regional Board and the State Board and if they won in court, and the City was in the Ninth Circuit, they would turn around and invalidate the EWMP and the City could be left holding the bag. It was the Regional Board and the State Board that has to approve the City's permit. If they win in court and throw it out, then all the money the City has put into this was wasted. Rosemead City Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 13 of 24 Mr. Sullivan advised that at this point the development of the Plan was done on a group cost share basis. The total consulting costs was about $1.7 million for the development of the Plan, but when split by land area over the 17 participating cities, the L.A. County Flood District, and the L. A. County unincorporated area, the City at this time has spent approximately$16,000 for the development of the EWMP. Mayor Clark said she understood that, and that was why she voted for it because she knew that was all it would cost to see what it was going to do. Noting she had the minutes in front of her, she said at that time, that if it was found to be too expensive or it wasn't practical the City could back out and the City Attorney confirmed the City could back out as long as the City paid its fair share, which is what the City did. In her opinion, we have found out that this was way more expensive and the City had absolutely no guarantees that this would do what we wanted it to do. She still could not understand why, when the City was in Reach 2 of the Rio Hondo, the City joined such a large area group that had a lot more pollutants to remove than the City did. She would much rather take care of what the City had to do incrementally through the iterative process and that was why she was very passionate about not moving forward with this. Council Member Ly reminded the Mayor that he thought there was a request to speak card. Mike Lewis representing the Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality advised the City Council that this was a subject he knew something about. He advised that he chaired a committee at BISFD of stakeholders who were deeply involved in the discussion that took place at the county over creating a funding source for all of the storm water effort and that included approximately 70 stakeholders from the private sector who were very concerned about what this •■ was going to mean in terms of the things they have to do in order to comply. He has been reviewing, along with his colleagues in the construction industry, the EWMP documents that .. .r. have been developed by all of these groups. He noted that obviously they had a particular interest as to whether there would be any construction jobs in all this money that was being spent; and frankly there weren't a lot of construction projects being proposed at this point. He said the problem with storm water was it knew no boundaries, it goes downhill. For the City of Rosemead to be included in a group of cities that were in a watershed, or where water was going to move from one area to another, made a certain amount of sense at this stage of the game for a number of reasons. He advised that we were still in the infancy when it came to this regulatory scheme and what it was really going to cost. He said the $110 million the City thought it would cost, which it was assumed $90 million would come from private activity on private property was probably just the tip of the iceberg. Because what wasn't in place right now was the remainder of the regulatory scheme that would require removal of copper out of storm water; zinc out of storm water; or several other pollutants for which has not yet been set specific standards have not been set and for which there wasn't any affordable technology to do that. Regional BMPs as referred to in the report, this idea that cities get together and direct their storm water to a facility where it could be captured, treated, and infiltrated and returned to the storm drain as clean water made a lot of sense and they have been pushing that idea when nobody was. Now everybody thinks this idea is the only way to go because capturing storm water on the larger scale is the only way that makes sense. At some point, a funding source was needed to pay for all of this because it would not happen otherwise. The Slate Board and the Regional Boards realized that, and the environmentalists realized that as well. Unfortunately, the scheme we were in now, the cities were left with the responsibility for implementing a plan to clean up storm water which in most cases cities have no control over other than the fact it runs in the streets and into a storm drain system but the pollution it picks up Rosemead City Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Cormnunity Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 14 of 24 along the way, the City would be responsible for and the regulation allows for citizen enforcement. That means water keeper groups could go out to the City's driveway apron during a storm and take samples of the water running off of the parking lot and file an enforcement action against the City for a violation or an exceedance. He explained an exceedance which wasn't a violation has also been the focus of a lot of these enforcement activities. He provided an example of the ADA lawsuits in which citizens filed hundreds of lawsuits against businesses then offered to settle for a lump sum of$5,000. He said that was currently happening in storm water, but the average settlement would be $100,000. He suggested that if the City decided to go alone, the City could be standing as an easy target and won't have the resources to support an effort if attacked by the environmental organizations. Right now the environmental groups have to sue the State Board or the Regional Board who have very deep pockets. He thought it made sense for groups of cities to join together because ultimately the City would want to direct the water to facilities that were common to the City and allow the City to share the cost of the treatment and ultimately disposal of that water, whether it was infiltrated or put back in the storm drain. He added one more thought, a decision has not yet been made as to who owns the water and at some point soon that would happen. It may be determined that the cities or the property on which it lands were the owners and it may well be determined that it was the water rights owners that own that water. That will change the complexion or the fashion in which we approach the cleanup of that water because of its ownership. That discussion was being experienced now with the Sanitation District Bill that would allow the Sanitation Districts to begin taking some of the storm water and dry weather flow and treat it through their sanitation plant. He fell the City was in the safest place even though there was uncertainty and it was very expensive. Thereafter followed a discussion regarding Senator Hernandez' bill on ownership of water. Mayor Clark asked Mr. Lewis what happens if the cities began infiltrating with drainage swales everywhere and all these programs, and the water rights people say this was their water, and cities have spent all this money to solve the problem. Mr. Lewis responded that was a discussion that would have to be had. He mentioned the private water companies in the San Gabriel Valley have insisted as part of Senator Hernandez' bill that they own that water and no one else has a right to do with it as they please. He believed some language was agreed to that would go into Senator Hernandez' bill and he wasn't sure that once that language became law that there would be any incentive for anybody to capture storm water because someone else owns it. He also mentioned that in the San Fernando Valley the Department of Water and Power claims what was called "Pueblo Rights" where the minute the water hits the ground they say it's theirs and that was based on the original Pueblo establishment. It hasn't gotten to the point that things have gotten so tight that everybody has to work this out Mayor Clark reiterated her concern about entering into agreements and take these steps only to have it fall apart and waste tax payers' money. Mr. Lewis did not believe the regulatory scheme was going to go away, the City was still going to have to clean up storm water, somehow and someway. He felt the things the City was doing at this stage were the simple things—green streets, requiring new development to capture storm water—all of which was helpful but what would the City do for the remaining 99% of the region that was already built and would not be doing anything that would require them to treat their storm water. Mayor Clark said that wasn't the City's problem, the City's problem was Rosemead. Mr. Lewis said there was water that ran down streets from adjacent cities, storm drain channels that run Rosemead City Council Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 15 of 24 through the City and in his view, the City could not stand alone because the City would become �T a much easier target. Mayor Clark pursued by stating tell me what we have to do to clean it up and that's what we will do. These agreements we are entering into are everyone else's problems. Mr. Lewis stated he wished he could answer that, but the problem was the regulatory scheme wasn't finished yet and what was being done now was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what they really want. The environmentalists want to get there a lot faster and they want to have a lot more leverage over cities to be able to force cities to do it. They want numeric, which he thought was a very bad thing because it would be very difficult to achieve. Once a numeric level has been set, the next thing they will do is start to lower the numeric level. He reiterated that it was going to be very expensive and very costly and the residents of this state were going to have to decide how much money they want to spend on this. Council Member Ly expressed his view that if the city failed, it failed as a group meaning, we all went in together, we all thought this was the best plan, the accepted plan, all the experts told us it was the best plan and the State Board and the Regional Board was the ones that made the mistake and were the ones that put the City in this position. It may not be a consolation and we still may have to pay a price on that endeavor, but at least it was a shared price and it was something where we all went in together. His concern was that if we go in alone, we might be doing something that we do not know if it was a good plan or not and there might be bitter consequences that comes with it. We talk about$100 million plus, and as stated by Mr. Lewis, water comes from everywhere, and if they ding us for Temple City's particulates and yes we can fight the State board and we can fight the environmentalists, but the cost of fighting them plus the fines may not be $100 million, but if it was$15 million there goes the reserves in one hit and he did not want to take that risk. While he understood Mayor Clark's concern, he would propose the City continue doing what Mr. Lewis called the "easy stuff" and he felt the City should continue doing the easy stuff like everyone is doing and continue to monitor. If it looked like the State Board's and the Regional Board's actions decided the EWMPs were not doable, then the City Council can come back at that time and make a determination then. He wanted to stay the course and monitor to see if there were no unintended consequences from leaving because it was his understanding that once the City left the group, it would be very difficult to get back in. Public Works Manager Sullivan said that that was his understanding confirming for Council Member Ly that the City of West Covina prepared and individual plan, submitted it to the Board for approval and their plan was ruled insufficient which meant they reverted back to the alternative option of strict compliance of the permit as adopted including all numeric limitations. The City of West Covina looked at that option versus the option of joining a EWMP group and he understood that they joined an already established Enhanced Watershed Management group in the upper San Gabriel Valley. He did not know what it cost West Covina to enter because their Council hasn't taken action so he did not have an actual number but he heard it was well into the six figures just for the development of the plan; that didn't include any of the implementation but they have made an investment of over$100,000 just to get in on the development. Council Member Ly said the concern was that it would be much more expensive to get in .� whereas if we stay in for now and continue to monitor; recognizing that Mayor Clark knows more about storm water than anyone else on the Council. He felt the City needed to be risk adverse. Rosemead City Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 16 of 24 Thereafter followed a brief discussion between Mayor Clark and Council Member Ly regarding the cost to go back into the EWMP. Mayor Clark said if the City was going to be in a group, she would rather be in a group that was adjacent to the City so that if the projects were done, the City would be infiltrating the good water into the San Gabriel Basin. More discussion ensued regarding the group the City was in, and joining a group with Arcadia and some of the San Gabriel Cities. Public Works Manager Sullivan noted the group the City was in was the largest EWMP group there is and it was spearheaded by the City of Los Angeles and incorporates 17 cities and it did stretch far to the west but it also encompasses every city that borders Rosemead with the exception of El Monte. He listed the Cities included in the group: Alhambra, San Gabriel, Temple City, South El Monte, Monterey Park, Montebello, Pasadena, South Pasadena, and all the adjacent unincorporated Los Angeles County area. Council Member Ly asked what it would cost to be associated with the EWMP group Arcadia and some of the San Gabriel cities were in. Mr. Sullivan advised he did not have the cost figures and he assumed that EWMP would probably include Arcadia, Monrovia, and the adjacent cities along the foothills. Mr. Kiepke advised Council that the Regional Board established the City's group because the City drained to a common source, the Los Angeles River and although the City was a long way away from the Los Angeles River, the Rio Hondo was the route the water took to get to the Los Angeles River. The upper San Gabriel Group, which was adjacent to the City, drained into the San Gabriel River and that group probably would not want the City in their group because that would open them up to the Los Angeles River standards. The Los Angeles River has the metal TMDL, bacteria TMDL and these TMDLS were not part of the San Gabriel River; and while they were getting bacteria and metal, they do not have it now so it would introduce a level of complications that that group would not want. Mr. Kiepke, in response to Mayor Clark's query about researching which group would be better, said that research could always be done but as mentioned all of the surrounding cities were in the Upper Los Angeles River Watershed. He explained these cities drain to the same Rio Hondo River that the City did. When a regional project was put together sometime in the future because right now there was no funds involved. The City has not developed a Memorandum of Understanding for implementing the EWMP. That would be something that would occur over the next year while the Regional Board was reviewing and approving the proposed EWMP. Mayor Clark confirmed that staff was not asking for . . . Mr. Kiepke said there was no money Involved. City Manager Allred added that tonight's action was to receive and file and a resolution to adopt a Green Streets Best Management Practices Policy which the City needed to do anyway. Rosemead City Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 17 of 24 Mayor Clark said the problem she had with the Resolution was the references to the EWMP. If " those could be taken out because the implication was that the City was endorsing the EWMP and she did not want to do that. Council Member Ly stated that the City was in the EWMP and by that fact the City has endorsed the EWMP. Mayor Clark responded that she did not endorse the EWMP, she approved going in to see what it was going to do and she specifically said she would like to be able to get out of this if we wanted. Council Member Ly argued that if there comes a time when the City decided that it did not want to be in a EWMP at a later date, the Council could always go back and revise the resolution and take out those portions of it. But until then the fact that we voted to join a EWMP means that we endorsed the EWMP, that's the nature of being a part of something. Mayor Pro Tern Armenta asked what the repercussions would be if the City withdrew. Mr. Sullivan advised that if the City withdrew now, the City would be held by the Regional Board to strict compliance with the permit as adopted (a binder which was about three inches thick) which included a number of minimum control measures and a number of numeric limitations regarding water quality standards that the City, on its own would be responsible for immediately, plus the additional TMDLs that were encompassed in the EWMP that were assigned strictly to the City of Rosemead. So we have the control measures, we have the numeric limits for ^^ monitoring standards as well as the four TMDLs the City was responsible for regardless of whether the City participated in a EWMP based on the permit for four TMDLs that would require extensive best management practices and expenses over the life of those TMDLs. Mayor Pro Tern Armenta reminded the City Council that the City had two toxic plumes running through the City which originated from the City of El Monte. As stated, storm water didn't have boundaries nor does any other toxic plume or toxic water and that concerned her. How many other times has the City joined other cities to fight the state or county? She felt in numbers, the City could win; standing alone, the City can't. So let's remember the times that the City has joined other entities to protect Rosemead and its residents and the tax base. Thereafter followed a brief discussion regarding the toxic plumes in which Mayor Pro Tem advised that it became the City's responsibility to clean up those plumes and it was done in partnership. In this case the City would be standing alone and have to pay for all of this if the City did not join in with others. Mayor Clark said she wasn't necessarily saying the City should stand alone, she thought the City could join another group and the City needed to look into it. She thought the group the City was in was way too expensive and the City was taking on liability and pollution that the other cities had that Rosemead did not and the City would be taking on their liability as well. The City was only responsible for coliform, some of the bacteria, and the other cities have all kinds of metals, and while joining them were we taking on their liability. That was concerning to her. Mayor Pro Tern Armenta asked Mayor Clark what she would propose if the other entities rejected the City and did not want the City to join them. Rosemead City Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 18 of 24 Mayor Clark responded that she wasn't sure, possibly go back to this EWMP, she just did not want to be going into this because she really did not think this was a good decision in light of the fact the environmentalists were going to sue and the Regional Board may have to throw this out. Council Member Ly said that if that happened, all the cities would be the same and reminded her that even though the City was taking on their pollutants they were also taking on the City's pollutants and the cost would be divided between all the cities. He said he was only comfortable with staying in the EWMP; that he was willing to monitor and he was willing to learn more about the other WMPs because the Council needed more information and more in depth discussion about storm water issues since it was going to affect the City whether the City liked it or not. For now, he was only comfortable with the City staying with this EWMP and continuing on these items which we know so far are at a much lower cost than if the City went on its own. The City also did not know the ramifications of joining another WMP. ACTION: Council Member Ly moved to adopt Resolution No. 2015-38. Mayor Clark asked if Mr. Ly would include in his motion to delete Item 4 in the resolution, "to implement the Green Streets Best Management Practices according to the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan and the USEPAs Managing Wet Weather with Green, Infrastructure Municipal Handbook Green Streets." Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth suggested the third Whereas paragraph could be modified and changed to"the implementation of the MS 4 permit" rather than "implementation of the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan."Then No 4 in the Therefore clause would be changed to read, `The Public Works Department will implement the Green Streets Best Management Practices according to the MS 4 permit and the USEPA's Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure Municipal Handbook Green sheets." ACTION: Council Member Ly said he was comfortable with that, and after a brief discussion, also modified the second Whereas to read, "The City of Rosemead elected to comply with the provisions of the MS 4 Permit, and . . ." The next Whereas would read, "Whereas the implementation of the MS 4 Permit requires cities . . " and the forth part of the Therefore would change the "Enhanced Watershed Management Plan"to the "MS 4 Permit." He restated his motion to approve Resolution No. 2015-38, as amended, and also direct staff to bring back information on the other WMPs. After some discussion as to whether receiving and filing the report would be committing the City to the EWMP, City Attorney Richman clarified that the report was not committing the Council to anything further than they have already committed. The report was about adopting the Green Street policy and the background on the WMP. Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth added that before this very large document would be implemented and we would be on the hook to spend any money on it, there would be a new MOU Council would have to approve before this is implemented. So we were not obligating ourselves tonight to implementing this EWMP. We're just continuing on through the development and draft process. He reiterated there would be another MOU before implementation that the Council would have to take action on. Council Member Ly asked when staff thought the document would come before the Council. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 19 of 24 Mr. Sullivan advised that the draft was being submitted to the Board prior to the end of this month and staff was anticipating, based on their review and comment period as well as the public comment period, it would be a year before the document would be approved by the Regional Board. Mr. Kiepke in response to Mayor Pro Tern Armenta's question as to whether the City would be incurring any additional costs by approving the resolution, stated the City was not incurring any more fees on the EWMP. The City paid the$16.000 and that was the City's obligation for the EWMP. In June of last year they submitted the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Plan that the City was obliged to do one way or another, individually, or as a group and that was being approved by the Regional Board at this time. The City of Los Angeles will have an Implementation Plan for that. He believed it was for the group as a whole, with the City paying 1.8%or whatever the percentage of the City of Rosemead's obligation was, and that fee would be approximately$4 million over the next three years. Mr. Hawkesworth added that this had to be done by the City regardless of whether the City was alone or part of the group. The City had to do that. In response to Mayor pro Tern Armenta's inquiry that the City would not have to pay any more fees as part of the EWMP, Mr. Hawkesworth stated that was correct; but the City would still have to continue to do storm water projects such as the catch basins, clarifying that the City would not spend any more on this but we will continue to spend money on other things the city was required to do. ACTION: Mayor Pro Tern Armenta seconded the previous made motion. The motion "s unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro . .� Tern Armenta, and Mayor Clark. B. Adoption of the City of Rosemead Appropriations Limit Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2015-36, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR THE 2015-16 FISCAL YEAR City Manager Allred advised the City Council that the annual appropriation limit for the upcoming fiscal year was $41 million and the appropriations that were subject to the limit were only$15 million. The City was under the limit by$26 million and was well within the constraints of the appropriation limit. ACTION: Council Member Ly moved, and seconded by Council Member Low, to approve Resolution No. 2015-36. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, and Mayor Clark. C. Adoption of the 2015-16 Fiscal Year Budget Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Approve Resolution No. 2015-30, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, Rosemead City Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 20 of 24 ADOPTING THE ANNUAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR THE 2015-16 FISCAL YEAR, and (2)Approve Resolution No. 2015-06, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE ROSEMEAD HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR THE 2015-16 FISCAL YEAR City Manager Allred advised that following the budget workshop staff implemented the changes the City Council asked staff to make and the budget was being presented for approval. He described each of the changes made to the budget as a result of Council's direction in the workshop. Council Member Ly noted that skateboard development of$500,000 out of RDA bond proceeds and asked if staff anticipated revising this amount due to increasing costs. Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth replied that in speaking with the consultant when the Request for Proposal was prepared, he was confident that that was a workable number. City Manager Allred summarized by stating that it was a very good budget with a surplus that would be transferred into capital projects. ACTION: Council Member Ly moved, and seconded by Council Member Low, to approve Resolution No. 2015-30 the Annual Operating and Capital Improvement Budget. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Council Member Low, to adopt Resolution No. 2015-06 the Housing Development Corporation Annual Operating and Capital Improvement Budget. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark. D. Adopt Urgency Ordinance No 953 Amending Municipal Code Section 13.04 concerning water Conservation Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 953, entitled: AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTERS 13.04.040, 13.04.050, 13.04.060 AND 13.04.080 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING WATER CONSERVATION, and (2) Approve Resolution No. 2015-24, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA DECLARING A PHASE III WATER SHORTAGE WITH MANDATORY WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES Assistant City Manager/Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth reminded the City Council that in November 2014 the Council adopted a resolution implementing a Phase II Water Shortage. On April 1, 2015, Governor Brown issued an Executive Order mandating additional water conservation of 25% statewide compared to 2013 usage figures. Based on those Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 21 of 24 requirements and staffs recent meetings with the six water purveyors in the City of Rosemead, it was determined that the code section regarding water conservation for Sections 13.04 were not sufficient to meet the Governor's requirements. As such, staff was proposing an urgency Ordinance No. 953 Amending Chapters13.04.040, 13.04.050, 13.04.060 and 13.04.080 of the City's regulations to make them stricter to be in compliance with the Governor's regulation requirements and working in partnership with the water companies. He said part of the ordinance required the adoption of a resolution and staff was recommending approval of Resolution No. 2015-24 declaring a Phase Ill water shortage with mandatory water conservation measures. The key point of Stage Ill water conservation was to reduce irrigation down to two days per week. Staff was proposing that even numbered addresses be allowed to water on Mondays and Thursdays and odd numbered addresses be allowed to water on Tuesdays and Fridays. He said staff has worked to the best of their ability to make the City's regulations match the regulations of the water companies; and the regulations would match five of the six companies. San Gabriel Valley Water Company was proposing even addresses on Monday and Wednesday and odd addresses on Tuesday and Thursday. He explained to Council why staff did not propose San Gabriel Valley Water Company's regulations. Thereafter followed a brief discussion about the City receiving complaints about water violations and the actions staff was taking when residents violate the regulations. Joy Garnett addressed the City Council advising that she attended a Cal AM Water meeting on May 20'" and several water companies were there. At that meeting it was announced that the water companies were implementing Phase II of the Governor's plan on June 1s'. She mentioned she spoke to Sean Sullivan last week who advised her that the City would Implement Stage II and if the 25% reduction was not met by October of this year, the City would implement Stage Ill. She expressed her concern because she had a large piece of property and has quit watering the parkway on Arica. All the City planted along the parkway were dying. She asked why the City was implementing Stage III now rather than October. City Manager Allred informed Ms. Garnett that the City's Phase III occurred when the City's purveyors were notified that a conservation of more than 20% was required. Thereafter followed a lengthy conversation between Ms. Garnett, staff, and the City Council regarding the trees along the parkway, Ms. Garnett being erroneously cited for washing her car on the grass four years ago, and never receiving reimbursement for the citation, where it was posted that Phase Ill allowed watering two days a week, and the reason the City recommended washing cars at the car wash. A discussion ensued between Mayor Pro Tem Armenta and staff regarding notification letters being sent to the school district directing the school district to the City's website for information and the information not being available on the website. Brian Lewin addressed the Council stating more outreach needed to be done especially translating the requirements into various languages. He mentioned some issues that needed to be clarified such as watering on an allowable day when it rained the day before and more information as to whom to contact when water leaks or wasted water was identified by a -- resident. Rosemead City CounciL Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 22 of 24 In response to Council Member Low's question regarding fire hydrants, City Manager Allred explained that the regulations were limiting the use of fire hydrants for fighting fires only and prohibiting flushing fire hydrants during the drought. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Low, and seconded by Council Member Ly, to adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 953. City Attorney Richman Read Ordinance No. 953 into the record as follows: AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTERS 13.04.040, 13.04.050, 13.04.060 AND 13.04.080 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING WATER CONSERVATION. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenia, and Mayor Clark. ACTION: Moved by Council member Ly, and seconded by Council Member Low, to adopt Resolution No. 2015-24. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, and Mayor Clark. 7. MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL Council Member Low ended the teleconference at 11:02 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta announced that she attended a Latino Policy Forum last Saturday regarding technology stating that the City of Rosemead was ahead of most cities in technology because of Granicus and Rosemead Around the Clock. She advised there were links on the City's webpage that go to a blank page when clicked and asked if those links could be removed. She asked staff to look at the young trees that were planted throughout the City. She noticed several of those trees were leaning and were not growing straight. She expressed concerned about the trees as they matured. Council Member Ly asked for an update on the cart containment program for the shopping centers. He continued to see shopping carts on the streets and especially those belonging to Rosemead Market. He wanted to see what the City was doing in terms of enforcing the containment program. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta announced that the Beautification Committee Clean Up would be held on Saturday, June 27`h, from 9:00 a.m. to Noon at the Savanah Cemetery, contingent on whether or not there was enough volunteers. Lunch would be provided. Council Member Ly advised this would be his last meeting in person. He would be calling in for the next meeting after which he would be leaving for training with the U.S. Army for a couple of months. Rosemead City CounciL Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 23 of 24 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Clark adjourned the ` meeting at 11:10 p.m. The next regular City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on June 23, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber. It awl Carol Cowley, In • im City Cleo' APPROVED: v Margare lark, Mayor Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9,2015 Page 24 of 24