Loading...
CC - Minutes - 01-11-2022MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 11, 2022 The regular meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Low at 7:07 p.m., in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Mayor Low, Mayor Pro Tem Dang, Council Members Armenta, Clark, and Tang ABSENT: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Mayor Pro Tem Dang INVOCATION was led by Council Member Clark STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Molleda, City Attorney Richman, Interim Director of Community Development Persico, Interim Director of Finance Chamberlain, Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking, Director of Public Works Chung, and City Clerk Hernandez 1. NEW BUSINESS A. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-03, Making the Findings to Reauthorize Remote Public Meetings in Accordance with Assembly Bill 361 for the Next 30 -Days On October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-45, authorizing the need for a teleconferencing option for City Council and Commission meetings pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 361. With the current surge in COVID-19 Omicron variant cases, the temporary closure of City facilities, and to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19, it is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution in accordance with AB 361 findings that: (1) The Governor's state of emergency enacted on March 4, 2020, presently remains in effect; and (2) state and local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing. Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-03, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, RE -RATIFYING THE PROCLAMATION OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY BY GOVERNOR NEWSOM ON MARCH 4, 2020, AND RE -AUTHORIZING REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD FOR THE 30 -DAY PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY 11, 2022 THROUGH FEBRUARY 10, 2022 PURSUANT TO THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT AND ASSEMBLY BILL 361 Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page I of 23 City Clerk Hernandez explained that on October 12, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-45, authorizing the need for a teleconferencing option for public meetings pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 361. With the current surge in COVID-19 Omicron variant cases, and the temporary closure of City facilities in an effort help mitigate the spread of COV ID -19, it was recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution in accordance with provisions of AB 361 for the next 30 -days, with findings that the Governor's state of emergency was still in effect; and state and local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing. ACTION: Motion be Mayor Pro Tem Dang, seconded by Council Member Armenta to approved Resolution No. 2022-03. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote: AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Low and Tang NOES: None 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Mayor Low opened the Public Comment period. City Clerk Hernandez stated there were no public comments received from the public. 3. PRESENTATIONS A. Update Presentation on the State-wide Drought and Water Resources in the Main San Gabriel Basin by the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District Charles Trevino Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water Board Director explained the Water Board of the Upper District is a regional district for 26 Water retailers and 17 San Gabriel cities. Primary responsibilities are to import water from the Bay Delta through connections with Metropolitan Water District. The water sources used to replenish the local groundwater basin and ultimately help restore water supply levels. Anthony Fellow, Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water Board Director shared he was pleased to be able to talk about the state of the water in the San Gabriel Valley. Despite of recent rains, the state remains in a drought. The citizens of the San Gabriel Valley have been doing a terrific job conserving water in the past 10 years. He stated he looked forward to working with the Rosemead City Council in an effort to continue to address water matters. Tom Love, General Manager for the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, explained the Upper District is a member agency of Metropolitan Water District, and primary purchase purpose is to purchase water from Metropolitan for supplemental water supply for the San Gabriel Valley. Covering about 144 square miles, 18 cities, and a population of just under a million people, and deliver 30,000 to 40,000 acre feet of water to the region on an annual basis. He stated that we are fortunate we actually get to 80% of our supply from local supplies that are captured both in the canyons, in the San Gabriel Canyon and when the rainwater falls on the ground and comes down our storm drain cam channels, the precipitation in the San Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 2 of 23 Gabriel Valley, virtually 100% of it is captured. The County Flood Control District has a very robust system of groundwater recharge facilities where we are able to capture most of that rainwater that falls in the San Gabriel Valley. Over the last 20 years, that rainfall has now dropped to 20% of long-term average, resulting in a 20 - year drought in the San Gabriel Valley. Governor Newsom declared the entire state in a drought and asked for a voluntary 15% water use reduction. The Upper District Board acted early in August of 2021 and activated level two or water shortage contingency plan, which meant the district was more active in the communities on water conservation education, water conservation incentives, device incentives and trying to move that into communities. The State Water Resources Control Board adopted regulations prohibiting water waste on January 4 and putting into place enforcement on water wasting actions such as watering lawns after a rainfall, blocking sidewalks down by letting water run down the government gutter, and potential fines of up to $500 daily for violators. Further explained, Metropolitan is embarking on a major infrastructure project called the Regional Recycled Water Project, that has the potential to offset our need for imported water from the State Water Project by over 90%. In addition, communities have done a tremendous job over the past several years on their conservation efforts. Unfortunately, a significant trend over the last 15 years, our water consumption has dropped over 30% in the San Gabriel Valley. Communities as asked to continue to keep up their efforts to preserve water. There are new programs in the San Gabriel Valley that target some of the disadvantaged communities in our service area. Mayor Low thanked the Upper San Gabriel Valley Water District Board for providing an update and educating the community to do more on water conservation. Council Member Clark asked if there are sensors available for low-income households, so they know when not to water their lawn after a rainstorm. Mr. Love replied there is a variety weather base irrigation controller that can help. However, some systems are expensive for the average household that still use manual controllers. He explained that educating households to not water their lawn after it rained, is part of their community outreach. Council Member Armenta stated she is part of Senator Rubio's team and overseeing water for the district. She commended the Upper San Gabriel Water District Board for making sure residents know what to do in conserving water. Thanked Board Members of the Upper Water District for partnering with the city and providing a water fill station at Garvey Community Center. Mayor Pro Tem Dang thanked them for the presentation and taking care of us on water and keeping water affordable. Asked Directors if the water being used for the Regional Recycled Water Project is water treated at a treatment plant. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 3 of 23 Mr. Love replied affirmative and explained that treated water is mainly used for irrigation purposes such as golf courses or school grounds. Council Member Tang commended the district for being proactive in sounding the alarm without being punitive to residents in conserving water. Asked if we need a more robust outreach effort to get residents to conserve more. Mr. Fellow replied the board is investing a lot of money and effort in teaching young people about water conservation. 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Public Hearing on Emergency Shelters - Municipal Code Amendment 21-03 Municipal Code Amendment 21-03 (MCA 21-03) is a City initiated amendment to Title 17 ("Zoning") of the Rosemead Municipal Code intended to bring Section 17.30.120 up to compliance with State legislation regarding objective standards for emergency shelters in the City. The proposed amendment would update objective standards pertaining to capacity, location, parking, and client restrictions for emergency shelters in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65583. MCA 21-03 is required as part of the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) efforts. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following action: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and 2. Introduce the first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 1002, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE APPROVAL OF MCA 21-03, AMENDING ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.30.120 OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) TO COMPLY WITH OBJECTIVE STANDARDS FOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS Associate Planner Lao reported that Municipal Code Amendment 21-03 is a City initiated code amendment to the City's Zoning Code Title 17, section 17.30.120. Amendments include updates to bring the Zoning Code into compliance with objective standards for emergency shelters. The proposed amendment would update the standards pertaining to capacity location, parking, and client restrictions for emergency shelters in accordance with the provisions of government code section 65583. Municipal Code Amendment 21-03 is required as part of the City's six cycle Housing Element update. Council Member Clark questioned the bill that mandated the changes in our ordinance and inquired if there is language where its states "except that no emergency Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 4 of 23 shelter development will be permitted on any lot that abuts the R-1 zones, single family zones". Associate Planner Lao clarified that the only objective that the city is allowed to impose is the 300 -foot buffer in the light manufacturing zone. She added, the city cannot impose standards such as requiring emergency shelters to not be located near residential homes or bus stops. Council Member Clark questioned why we would delete that language and preferred to keep it. By deleting that requirement where it cannot be abutting a residential, that could be a very serious safety issue with residents, having people who may be drug addicted and abutting to their property. Her other concern is that this could hurt low- income areas where they may not be able to afford to move away from commercial zones and help wealthier people to live far away from the industrial areas. She added, she has no problem with the other changes, but would like to put back the deletion. Mayor Pro Tem Dang explained that the requirement being deleted was shown on page 3 of 9 of the staff report that further clarified the state changed its language in the state's new language, which states that a city cannot prohibit these emergency shelters, and we cannot prohibit the location even in the R-1 zone or near the bus stops. Council Member Clark stated that she would like to see that specific language in the bill. She reiterated that Ms. Lao stated the only language in the bill was about the 300 feet. She added, if it's not in the bill, it would be preferred not to have it in the ordinance. Associate Planner Loa replied that with the adoption of Senate Bill (SB) 2 and Assembly Bill (AB) 139, which is the housing law, it limits the City's ability to regulate emergency shelters because it reduces the regulatory barriers and streamlines the process. She deferred the question to the Housing Element Consultant to explain further. Veronica Tam, RRM Consultant stated prohibition of having more distance requirement than what the state law stipulates came much earlier in 2007. When the state passed SB 2, that's been effective since 2008, it specifically says that you can only have one distance requirement, and that is the distance requirement between two emergency shelters, and nothing else. The state has not been very diligent in monitoring jurisdictions as to how the ordinance reads until recently. They are looking at the Housing Element again, and they are asking jurisdictions to remove distance requirements that are not allowed under state law. Further on AB139, she stated that when a new bill is passed that talks about parking standards, they reiterated that the only requirement is the 300 -foot distance which states maximum 300 -foot, not minimum 300 -foot distance from another shelter. However, you can select areas where you are not abutting single family residential, but it cannot be put it in your ordinance that it must be away from single family residential. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 5 of 23 Mayor Low questioned if striking out item B(a) and B(b) would violate what the state has said. Ms. Tam clarified that by not deleting the distance requirements would make the city in violation of state law. Council Member Armenta inquired if the city could pinpoint certain areas where we can make it less than 300 -feet. Ms. Tam stated that you do not have to select an entire industrial area to allow emergency shelters, however, you can select an overlay on the emergency shelter, industrial area so that the overlay already does the buffering for you. Council Member Armenta expressed that even if we don't specifically put that language in the ordinance, the city still could do overlays within certain areas of the city to ensure a 300 -foot buffer. Red Cross has come in many times when we have these emergency shelters and when there are new bills introduced into legislature, the funding would often fall back on the cities. She would like to ensure that we are also protected in the sense that if you have an emergency shelter, the Red Cross will still be able to come in. She questioned if the city could utilize Red Cross to set up an emergency shelter or will the funding fall back onto the city. City Manager Molleda noted that this ordinance does not allow us to partner up with organizations on a case -to -case basis. City Attorney Richman explained that this ordinance is only dealing with the zoning aspect and if the city wants to partner with somebody for funding or help get the shelter up and running, they can do so. This is not going to limit the city from assisting any operator that would want to come in and open a shelter. Council Member Armenta expressed that all these unfunded mandates come through the pipeline, and she would like to ensure that we still have that opportunity to partner up with other agencies. She understands that this is a zoning issue, but it specifies whether or not the funding falls strictly on the city. Council Member Clark clarified that although we can't put that in the ordinance and must strike out what we had, staff understands that we prefer to have the area not abutting R-1 zones. Mayor Low believes that's what was said, the city will have the ability to identify the area, but we cannot put in the ordinance. Mayor Pro -Tem Dang asked Associate Planner Lao to read the definition of emergency shelter and the temporary aid center found in our Rosemead zoning. Associate Planner Lao read the definition, "Emergency shelters shall mean any establishment operated by an emergency shelter provider that provides homeless people with immediate short-term housing for no more than six months in a 12 -month Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 6 of 23 period, where no person is denied occupancy because of inability to pay. Emergency shelters may also provide shelter residents with additional supportive services such as food, counseling, laundry, and access to other social programs. Emergency shelters may have individual rooms and common areas for residents of the facility, but may not be developed with individual dwelling units, with the exception of a manager's unit." She then reads the definition for emergency shelter provider, "a government agency or a nonprofit organization that provides emergency or temporary shelter and which may also provide meals, counseling, and access to other social programs. This definition does not include such emergency shelters as may be provided for relief following a natural disaster or during a state of emergency or those provided at a place of religious assembly for less than five days on any 30 -day period." Mayor Pro Tem Dang explained his reasons why he asked Associate Planner Lao to read the definition. First, it's a government and non-profit group that runs these shelters and it cannot be a for profit agency. The owners of these industrial area would not be able to do an emergency shelter. Secondly, Associate Planner Lao stated that this emergency shelter is not meant for something like a disaster. For example, if an apartment catches on fire, displaced families have the Red Cross, but Red Cross does not go into these type of emergency shelters. It would be a different type of locations where they seek help, and it wouldn't be from these facilities. Mr. Dang referred to Council Member Clark comment and stated that there's very few single-family houses in light industrial area, however, he does agree with her concern and believes staff can create an overlay map where you can have these shelters, and tailor these properties. He added, he would like to see a copy of that overlay as part of this ordinance, or see where these boundaries are with respect to, not only single-family houses, but also apartment buildings in the industrial areas during the next discussion to ensure those apartment complexes are also protected. Mayor Pro Tem Dang addressed additional questions from the ordinance. He first referred to page 3, item B3 which states "the maximum length of stay of any person shall be six months". Instead, it should be maximum length of stay for the facility be six months. He added, the problem with this language is that if its base by person, we would have different people coming in at different times, and this establishment would run perpetually because each person will have a different six-month term. He reiterates that a better language is to tailor it where it's the facility has a six-month operational need, as opposed to tagging it per person. Secondly, Mr. Dang addressed item B4 and B6 and stated there's contradicting language. On B4, it reads, "Intake and waiting area on. On site, intake area shall be enclosed", and for B6, it reads, "for purpose of noise abatement organize outdoor activities and intake of residents, in non -enclosed area". He asked staff to take a further look at the language. Mr. Dang referred to item 8 which talks about parking and reads "emergency shelters must provide one parking space per staff'. He addressed that there are homeless families/individuals who lives out of their cars and recommended adding guest parking where patrons can have the option to park there instead of outside. Mr. Dang referred to item 9 and noted that some of these temporary facilities are big tent structures and would like to ensure patrons are taken care of which includes sanitary facilities, showers, restrooms and are in ADA compliance. He further referred to item B9 strikeout in red which states "Client restrictions - Emergency shelters providers Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 7 of 23 must screen for and not refuse service to register sex offenders". He understands the state wants to strike out, and although they cannot refuse service, some of these families have kids. He asked staff to reach out and see if screening and putting out a notification of a registered sex offender on the property is possible. The provider may not be able to refuse service, but perhaps you could make notice of it. He questioned if it's the Megan's Law that asks for registered sex offenders to be posted or notified. City Attorney Richman responded that there have been recent challenges so she would have to check and see if we are allowed to deny access. Mayor Pro Tem Dang referred to Item C - Temporary Aid Center and noticed there are six requirements under this item versus the eleven under Emergency Shelters and believes they should be both held to the same requirement. Mayor Low questioned what the difference between the two is. Mayor Pro Tem Dang stated that there are two main differences between the two. A Temporary Aid Center does not offer overnight stays and it's more like an office where you can grab some food, provide homeless counseling and there's also someone to help you find a job. The Homeless Shelter allows you to stay overnight. In terms of the services that's being rendered, he believes they are about the same and it should be held to the same elven item requirements. For example, the Temporary Aid Center did not talk about required parking, distances between temporary center, where they operate or any exit strategy. He recommended staff to research and hold both to the same restrictions with two exceptions which is the hours of operation and overnight stays. Instead of operating between 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. like the Emergency Shelter, he recommends 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mr. Dang understands that this is an M-1 zone which is light manufacturing and would like to ensure that whoever the operator is, the location has enough safeguards to protect the kids when they choose a location and avoid junkyards or manufacturing of powders. He asked staff to create some language that states selected locations have been surveyed for noise, fumes, or anything that may potentially impact these patrons and submit this survey to our Community Development Director to calibrate and ensure there are no environmental problems that might hurt these families and kids. He further commented that the term "Emergency Shelters" gives the illusion that it's going to be temporary, however, it may operate for months, and sometimes even longer. Mr. Dang would like to make sure we can ask for a soils test to ensure there's no pollution for the selected location and reiterated that he does not want any of these factors to affect the patrons and everyone's protected. He added, he does not want this idea of a temporary emergency shelters to bypass health and potential safeguards that we have in our code. Mayor Low expressed that there's some work that needs to be done and asked staff to work on it. Council Member Armenta questioned where it states in packet the definition of the emergency shelter and the agencies. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2012 Page 8 of 23 Associate Planner Lao responded that the definitions are not listed because it's part of a different chapter, located in Article 1 of the Municipal Code. Council Member Armenta suggested it would be helpful to have the definition listed. That way all the Council Members could be on the same page when discussing about the definition of what an emergency shelter is. Mayor Pro Tem Dang expressed that Council Member Armenta brought up a great point and requested to embed the definition into the ordinance. Mayor Low noted that Associate Planner Lao said the definition is in another chapter and asked for clarification on where the definitions should be noted. City Manager Molleda stated that this item is going to be continued, so we can go back and figure out the formatting and adding the definition. If not, we'll make sure to add all definitions on the next staff report. She questioned if Public Hearing had to open for comments to continue the item. City Attorney responded that it was appropriate to ask for public comments. Mayor Low opened the Public Hearing. Brian Messina -Perez addressed his concern regarding the strikeout of "Client Restrictions - Shelter must screen for and refuse service to registered sex offenders, as part of their client intake process". He understands that we want to house even sex offenders that are homeless, however, when he was a kid and his family was homeless, they avoided shelters because his parents were scared of sex offenders. He inquired if there is a way to isolate them, provide extra security or if there's any way, we could do so to ensure kids and families are safe. City Attorney Richman noted that this was previously addressed and stated that we may not be permitted to exclude them from being there but may add some additional protections or a notification of the person to others. She will look into it and see if that's something that the screening process will allow. Mr. Messina -Perez understands that we can't deny sheltered people from lack of pay, however, he questioned if people can be denied if they are drug addicted, or still using. City Attorney Richman expressed that she would not like to assume but typically whenever you have an entity that comes to do these types of projects, they have the approval to talk about the management and the intake and how that process will work. And they're typically pretty good about ensuring that at least when people do come under their facility, they are not currently under any influence, but that's usually done by the intake process versus just through this zoning ordinance. She added there's not a ton of people/group that provide this important service but the ones that do, generally have some training and protocols to ensure that they're not allowing people who are currently under the influence. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 9 of 23 Mr. Messina -Perez shared his experience and stated that he's been to homeless encampments, talked to a few homeless people in Rosemead, and the biggest issue would be that there will always be people that are still using. However, the ones that can be sober during their stay, he asked if there can be some leniency and house more people. He added, places like Red Cross or other shelter want them to be 100% sober. Mayor Low reiterated that this time, we'll take your comments, and staff can look into that. City Clerk Hernandez affirmed there were no other public comments. Mayor Low closed the public hear comments portion. Council Member Armenta stated she shares the same sentiments as Mayor Pro Tem Dang and Mr. Messina -Perez. She expressed that she worked with many bills that have certain requirements and would like to ensure that we're following the law if we have these requirements for the agencies and patrons. City Attorney Richman answered yes and stated that the zoning ordinance drafted does indicate whoever's providing that service must provide an on-site management and a written management plan that talks about their operation, training counseling, treatment programs and that would be a part of the application process. It's not going to be in the ordinance what the specifics are, but the ordinance does require that they do have such a plan. She added, she can't speak to exactly what that plan is going to be because the agency will provide that, and staff will then review with them. Council Member Armenta reiterated her concern about having things not written and wanted to make sure that our residents are being safe just as Mayor Pro Tem Dang indicated and have extra caution for families with young children. City Attorney Richman expressed that we could always add additional language where it talks about training programs, management plans, and additional security measures if there are minors at the shelter. Mayor Low believed staff has received the input needed from Council for additional wording to be put in as part of the Ordinance and we will continue with this item. B. Public Hearing on General Plan Amendment 20-01 - City of Rosemead Housing Element 2021-2029 and Focused Public Safety Element Update with Environmental Justice Policies State housing law requires local governments to adequately facilitate the improvement and development of housing to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. As the official housing policy document of the City of Rosemead (City) — one of the mandatory elements of the General Plan — the City of Rosemead 2021-2029 Housing Element (Housing Element) analyzes existing housing conditions, describes existing and future housing Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 10 of 23 needs, and identifies opportunities for improving and expanding the City's housing supply. In addition to the Housing Element update, the City is required by State law to prepare a focused update to its Public Safety Element. Recent State legislation also requires that the City address the addition of Environmental Justice (EJ) policies when two or more elements of the General Plan are updated. New EJ policies have been incorporated within the Public Safety Element update. Recommendation: That the City Council take the following action: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2021-66, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 20-01 ADOPTING THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT, PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE WITH ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE POLICIES, AND ADDENDUM TO THE ROSEMEAD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR STATE CERTIFICATION; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to make iterative changes to the 2021-2029 Housing Element in response to comments from HCD to support State certification of the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Planning and Economic Development Manager Valenzuela reported the City of Rosemead, along with other jurisdictions throughout the state are mandated by state law to prepare a Housing Element Update for state certification. The update covered the housing planning periods between 2021 to 2029. She introduced Diane Bathgate, consultant for RRM Design Group, to provide a brief presentation. Diane Bathgate RRM Design Group Representative, spoke about the Housing Element update that included an assessment of the City's housing needs and how best to accommodate existing and future housing needs. It requires to be updated every eight years, and the planning period is from 2021 through 2029. It's reviewed for compliance by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). In addition, there is a safety element included that is required by state law. When the Housing Element is in compliance and meets the approval of the HCD, there is a presumption of a legally adequate Housing Element that maintains Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 11 of 23 eligibility for State housing funds, and the City does not face RHNA carry-over into the next Housing Element cycle. Penalties for noncompliance are the risk if litigation with fines up to $100k per month and ineligibility for state grants. Over the last year, the needs assessment was begun by creating a draft housing element and programs. The draft was sent to the state for review and the City received feedback. Various outreach events were coordinated with the public to obtain feedback. Once the City Council approves the Housing Element, it will be forwarded to the state for review and certify the Housing Element. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a planning goal not a production goal. State law does not mandate actual production of units, but the City must demonstrate adequate capacity in local land -use policies to accommodate the number of homes potentially being built. The new Housing Element requirements have a higher RHNA unit allocation based on the methodology, but there's also a new requirement called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing promotes inclusive communities, furthers housing choice, and addresses racial and economic disparities through government programs, policies, and operations. There are also more stringent site standards identified for lower-income households. Various public participation outreach was conducted, such as a dedicated webpage was created, an online housing needs -environmental justice survey, various virtual workshops, a Housing Element 60 -day public review period, HCD 60 -day review of draft Housing Element, and Planning Commission public hearing for recommendation to City Council. The site's inventory component of the Housing Element includes that the City is required to demonstrate a plan to meet the housing capacity requirements assigned to the City based on the RHNA. Regarding vacant and underutilized sites, mixed-use areas were a key component of the update cycle. There's the mixed-use development overlay, the freeway mixed-use Overlay, and the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, which provides a fair amount of capacity to meet the R14NA numbers. Ms. Bathgate stated the Draft Housing Element was with HCD for review and awaiting to receive comments. The update also includes more information on sites, programs and modified other programs to meet state law. Additionally, the Public Safety Element amendment addresses Senate Bill 379, which requires cities to look at the impacts of climate change. Also, Senate Bill 1000 requires integrating environmental justice policies into the General Plan. The staff recommendation is for the City Council to conduct the Public Hearing, receive public testimony, and adopt resolution 2022-66 approving the General Plan amendment. Authorize the City Manager to make iterative changes to the 2021-2029 Housing Element in response to the HCD to support state certification. Mayor Low open the Public Hearing. There being no comments, she closed the Public Hearing. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes ofJanuary ll, 2022 Page 12 of 23 Council Member Armenta asked, in the event the City did not meet the RHNA numbers, are there any fines or other measurers the state is going to impose. Ms. Bathgate replied the state is ramping up their enforcement efforts by increasing their new division of enforcement with about 12 personnel. Council Member Clark asked about the rezoning of sites. She expressed concern about how people would learn that their parcel may be rezoned or changed. Ms. Bathgate replied there are ten sites are proposed for rezoning. The majority of sites are an addition of an overlay, such as on the Regional Commercial and Mixed - Used Design Overlay, the Retail Commercial Mixed -Use Design Overlay, and a couple of sites are in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan where its changing from Garvey Avenue Specific Plan to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Mixed -Use. Council Member Clark asked if that would satisfy the RHNA numbers for the City of Rosemead 4,000 RHNA allocation. Ms. Bathgate stated there are many sites that contribute to the RHNA potential numbers, and ten more sites will be rezoned to meet the numbers. Council Member Clark inquired about the 6 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) being permitted per year. Ms. Bathgate explained she misspoke and meant to state that 48 are permitted per year. There's a specific methodology that the state accepts as reasonable where you don't want to overestimate otherwise, it's also based on trends. They look at the law and how many actual permits have been issued. There's a methodology and that was what we adhere to in the estimate in the Housing Element. Council Member Tang thanked Ms. Bathgate and her team for the comprehensive report. He spoke about the RHNA numbers and to meet the real numbers that the City is expected and has to meet, there needs to be a plan for it, not necessarily production. He asked, if adopting a Housing Element already puts the City in compliance with the RHNA numbers. Ms. Bathgate replied yes. Council Member Tang inquired about what the state is doing to enforce the RHNA numbers and in terms of additional regulations, compliance measures, or punitive actions by the state to get more housing supply into the state and into communities. He stated there are 54 vacant parcels totaling 36.86 acres; of those 43 parcels, which equates to 31.89 acres, are in mixed-use zones. The state should give cities the local control or the authority to be able to work with some of these vacant lot owners to figure out a way to expedite or increase their appetite to begin development on those lands that can easily help the city increase the supply of housing. Mayor Low called for a motion. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 13 of 23 ACTION: Moved by Council Member Tang and seconded by Council Member Armenta to adopt Resolution No. 2022-66. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Tang, and Low; NOES: None City Attorney Richman announced that a motion was also needed to authorize the City Manager to make any minor changes to the Housing Element if there are any recommended changes by the HCD. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Tang and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Dang to authorize the City Manager to make iterative changes to the 2021-2029 Housing Element in response to comments from HCD to support State certification of the 2021-2029 Housing Element. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Tang, and Low; NOES: None 5. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Armenta pulled Agenda items E and F for discussion. ACTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Dang and seconded by Council Member Tang to approve the Consent Calendar items A, B, C, and D except for E and F. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Tang, and Low; NOES: None A. Claims and Demands e Resolution No. 2022-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $2,544,892.93 CHECKS NUMBERED 110335 THROUGH NUMBER 110427, DRAFTS NUMBERED 5438 THROUGH NUMBER 5491, AND EFT NUMBERED 50859 THROUGH NUMBER 50895 INCLUSIVELY Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-01. • Resolution No. 2022-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $444,531.27 CHECKS NUMBERED 110428 THROUGH NUMBER 110476, AND EFT NUMBERED 50896 THROUGH NUMBER 50901 INCLUSIVELY Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 14 of23 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-02. B. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 1006 - Amending Chapter 8.32 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code, Retitling Chapter 8.32 to "Solid Waste and Recycling," and Other Clarifying Amendments On December 14, 2021, the City Council introduced for first reading Ordinance No. 1006, which amends Municipal Code Chapter 8.32, retitling chapter 8.32 to "Solid Waste and Recycling", and other clarifying amendments in response to Senate Bill (SB) 1383. SB 1383, the Short -Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016, requires the City of Rosemead to adopt and enforce an ordinance or enforceable mechanism to implement relevant provisions of SB 1383 Regulations and other clarifying amendments. This ordinance will also help reduce food insecurity by requiring Commercial Edible Food Generators to arrange to have the maximum amount of their Edible Food that would otherwise be disposed to be recovered for human consumption. Recommendation: That the City Council approve the second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1006 by title only, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 8.32 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE, RETITLING CHAPTER 8.32 TO "SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING," AND OTHER CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS C. Adoption of Resolution Relative to the June 7, 2022 General Municipal Election The City Council will consider approving Resolution No. 2022-05, calling and giving notice of holding a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, June 7, 2022, for the election of certain officers as required by the provisions of the laws of the State of California relating to general law cities; Resolution No. 2022-06, requesting the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors to render specified services to the City related to the conduct of a General Municipal Election on Tuesday, June 7, 2022; Resolution No. 2022-07, adopting regulations for candidates for elective office pertaining to candidates statements submitted to the voters during city elections; and Resolution No. 2022-08, providing for the conduct of a special runoff election for elective offices in the event of a tie vote at any municipal election. Recommendation: That the City Council approve the following resolutions, entitled: • Resolution No. 2022-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, CALLING FOR THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2022, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 15 of 23 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES; • Resolution No. 2022-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO DIRECT THE REGISTRAR- RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK TO ADMINISTER, MANAGE AND OVERSEE THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD'S GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2022; AND REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH ANY COUNTYWIDE ELECTION HELD ON JUNE 7,2022; • Resolution No. 2022-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATE STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2022; and • Resolution No. 2022-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL RUNOFF ELECTION FOR ELECTIVE OFFICES IN THE EVENT OF A TIE VOTE AT ANY MUNICIPAL ELECTION D. Second Amendment to the Exclusive Franchise Agreement for Comprehensive Refuse Services — Additional Refuse Services to Achieve Senate Bill 1383 Compliance In September 2016, Senate Bill (SB) 1383 also known as the Short -Lived Climate Pollutants Bill, was signed into law. Under SB 1383, local jurisdictions are required to implement an organic waste recycling program and provide organic waste collection and recycling services to all residential dwellings and commercial businesses within their boundaries. On September 29, 2021, the City Council accepted a proposal from Republic Services to amend the existing Exclusive Franchise Agreement and implement the proposed organic waste recycling program to achieve SB 1383 compliance. The proposed program established by the Second Amendment fulfills the SB 1383 requirements and will work in tandem with the City's SB 1383 Ordinance No. 1006, which was introduced for first reading at the December 14, 2021, City Council meeting and is on the January 11, 2022, City Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 16 of 23 Council Agenda for adoption. Recommendation: That the City Council approve the Second Amendment to the Exclusive Franchise Agreement for Comprehensive Refuse Services for additional refuse services to achieve SB 1383 compliance, and adopt Resolution No. 2022-04, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT FOR COMPREHENSIVE REFUSE SERVICES WITH CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICE L.L.C., FOR ADDITIONAL REFUSE SERVICES TO ACHIEVE SENATE BILL 1383 COMPLIANCE E. Approval of the Traffic Commission Recommendations for a Red Curb Near the Business Entrances Adjacent to 2239 San Gabriel Boulevard On June 3, 2021, a traffic study with several recommendations was presented to the Traffic Commission to improve the existing parking conditions near the business entrances adjacent to 2239 San Gabriel Boulevard. After discussion and presentation of the item, the Traffic Commission approved the staff recommendations for the area. Public Works Field Services staff will complete all the recommended items. If necessary, additional materials and supplies may be purchased at a minimal expense to complete the recommended work, and staff may utilize the approved Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Traffic Signs & Markers available funds. Recommendation: That the City Council authorize approval for the following measures near the business entrances adjacent to 2239 San Gabriel Boulevard: 1. Install approximately 17 feet of red curb along the northside of Constance Street, between driveway 1 and driveway 2, at 2239 San Gabriel Boulevard, per CAMUTCD Section 3B.19. a. The installation of a red curb to the east of this business driveway I will help prevent vehicles from blocking access to both of the driveways. 17 feet is less than the recommended space of 19' to 20' for a parked car. There will still be 46 feet of available curb space west of the business driveway for vehicles to park. 2. Install approximately 10 feet of red curb along the northside of Constance Street, just east of the business driveway 2 at the NW comer of Constance Street and San Gabriel Boulevard, per CAMUTCD Section 313.19. a. The 10 feet of a red curb is essentially in the curve of the corner and any parked vehicles should not be parked there. The installation of a red curb in this location will prevent vehicles from blocking access to the business driveway as well as being an obstacle to vehicles making a right turn into the street. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 17 of 23 The existing field review found that there is an existing green curb painted on the opposite side of Constance Street between the curb return and stop sign (approximately 14 feet). It is suggested that this curb should be red and not green, per CVC Section 22500; CAMUTCD Section 3B.19. The Public Works Inspector contacted the Tire Shop located at 8130 Constance Street to inform the business of the change in colored curb. a. Change the curb to red and repaint the 14 feet of curb red, just east of the tire shop driveway located at 8130 Constance Street. The red curb is recommended to be installed along the southside of Constance Street between the corner of Constance Street at San Gabriel Boulevard and the existing Stop Sign. F. Approval of the Traffic Commission Recommendations for a Red Curb at 8834 Garvey Avenue On June 3, 2021, a traffic study with several recommendations was presented to the Traffic Commission to improve visibility for vehicles exiting the driveway at 8834 Garvey Avenue. After discussion and a presentation of the item, the Traffic Commission approved the staff recommendations for the area. Public Works Field Services staff will be able to complete all the recommended items. If necessary, additional materials and supplies may be purchased at a minimal expense to complete the recommended work, and staff may utilize the approved Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Traffic Signs & Markers available funds. Recommendation: That the City Council authorize approval for the following measures at 8834 Garvey Avenue: Install approximately 24 feet of red curb along the southside of Garvey Avenue, just west of the mobile home neighborhood's driveway located at 8834 Garvey Avenue, per CAMUTCD Section 3B.19. a. The installation of a red curb to the west of the driveway will improve the line of sight from vehicles exiting the driveway. This will remove approximately I parking space and will leave 36 -feet of available curb space for vehicles to park along the southside of Garvey Avenue, west of the mobile home neighborhood's driveway. Council Member Armenta spoke on both agenda items E and F. She thanked the Traffic Commission and City staff for making the traffic improvements addressed by residents regarding visual impairments. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Armenta and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Dang to approve the Consent Calendar items E and F. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Tang, and Low; NOES: None Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 18 of 23 6. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. COVID Update This is a recurring item that will be on the agenda to update the City Council on items related to COVID-19. Recommendation: That the City Council discuss and provide further direction. City Manager Molleda reported that the revised County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health updated the order. Asking the public to wear a mask while indoors in public places. Employers are required to provide their employees who work indoors and in close contact with workers or the public with and require them to wear well -fitted medical -grade masks, surgical masks, or higher-level respiratory masks such as an N95. In addition to the order, city facilities were closed from Tuesday, January 4, until January 18. Reopening would be reevaluated on January 17, depending on the COVID-19 numbers received from the County at the end of the week. Furthermore, with the help of Mayor Pro Tem Dang, the City was able to partner with Mountain Castle Marketing to host a few testing sites at RCRC. In addition, 2,000 at-home test kids were procured to distribute to residents. Mayor Low thanked staff for their work in getting a testing site coordinated for the residents. Council Member Armenta commended Mayor Pro Tem Dang for helping facilitate the needs of the community by coordinating the test sites at City facilities. Lastly, many community events are being canceled or postponed due to the current omicron surge in the covid-19 positive test. Mayor Pro Tem Dang thanked City staff for the help in arranging the testing sites. Encourage City staff to advertise the testing site events and In-home test kits. He asked what organization was hosting the vaccine clinic event. City Manager Molleda replied the vaccine clinic events were hosted by Wealth by Health organization. 7. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL A. Discussion of an Ordinance, Amending Section 2.08.070 B of the Rosemead Municipal Code Relating to the Chief of Police Council Member Armenta requested that the following item be added to the City Council agenda. Upon the City's incorporation in 1959 initial ordinances of the City were adopted by the first City Council. Over time changes occur which may necessitate the Council to make amendments to the Municipal Code to properly reflect the status of certain matters. In the present case, the City's provision of law enforcement is provided by Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 19 of 23 contract approved by the City Council with the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and not by an internal City Police Department with a City employed Chief of Police. The proposed Ordinance would amend the Municipal Code to remove reference to the position of Chief of Police as falling under the City Manager as stated in Section 2.08.070 B to further clarify the current status. The current code section 2.08.070 B provides that the City Manager shall have the power to: B. To appoint, promote, discipline, demote and remove the Chief of Police, all heads of departments, and all subordinate officers and employees of the City except the City Clerk and the City Attorney; to transfer employees from one department to another; and to consolidate or combine offices, positions, departments or units under his or her jurisdiction; The proposed Ordinance would remove the language shown in strike out below: B. To appoint, promote, discipline, demote and remove the !R.]�liee, all heads of departments, and all subordinate officers and employees of the City except the City Clerk and the City Attorney; to transfer employees from one department to another; and to consolidate or combine offices, positions, departments or units under his or her jurisdiction; Recommendation: That the City Council discuss and determine whether to bring back for introduction and adoption an ordinance, amending section 2.08.070 of the Rosemead Municipal Code relating to the Chief of Police. Council Member Armenta reported the current reference to the Chief of Police in the City's Municipal Code was outdated. When the was City incorporated in 1959, the City was unsure if it would have its own police department or contract with the County of Los Angeles Sheriff s Department. Explained the current practice, the City contracts with the Sheriffs Department and appoints a ceremonial Chief of Police. However, the City Manager does not have authority over the Sheriffs staff. Mayor Low opened for Public Comment. There being no comments, closed Public Comment. Mayor Low asked for clarification of the proposed language change. Council Member Armenta explained that the current language in the Municipal Code states the City Manager has the authority to appoint, promote, and discipline all department heads and the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police is a Lieutenant assigned by the Sheriff s Department, not the City. Therefore, the City Manager does not have the authority to promote, demote or discipline the Chief of Police. Mayor Pro Tem Dang asked for clarification on what the City Manager can do in regard to the Chief of Police. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 20 of 23 City Attorney Richman explained that the discussion was to revise the language of the Municipal Code that states the City Manager has the authority to appoint, promote and discipline all head departments, including the Chief of Police. The Chief of Police needs to be crossed out. Mayor Low clarified the City does not technically have a Chief of Police, but is assigned a Lieutenant by the Sheriff's Department. Reiterated the previous City Manager, felt it was a good idea to give the Lieutenant the title of Chief of Police. Technically the City Manager does not have the authority to appoint, because the Lieutenant is assigned by the Sheriffs Department. Several years ago, Council was asked as a courtesy to participate in the interview process. City Attorney Richman reiterated that the opinion of the City Manager is still important to the process. Council Member Tang added that it's more than just the City Manager giving her insight or opinion with the captain or in collaboration with the sheriffs, just like any other contract that the City has with any other vendor. It's under the jurisdiction of the City Manager to manage and execute that contract, in collaboration with the vendor. Council Member Armenta agreed that the City Manager would have an opinion on the contract but not personnel. Mayor Low stated that if there are times when she has not been happy with a situation, she has informed the captain directly. In the end, it was the captain's call on what he would want to do about the performance of a deputy. Agreed the language did need to be updated. Mayor Pro Tem Dang asked if Council was not happy with the performance of a deputy, should the Council go directly to the City Manager to communicate to the station captain. If the Council approved the updated language, should there be in writing that if a Council Member needs to communicate issues to the City Manager to relay to the captain. City Attorney Richman clarified that the section in the code deals with duties as it relates to department heads. It just is removing the terminology Chief of Police since there is no Chief of Police. Council member Armenta stated that nowhere should it say that the council members are restricted from approaching a captain, the ceremonial Chief of Police, or a sergeant because the Council votes for the contract. The City Manager manages the City and manages some of the contracts. But when it comes to the sheriffs, any Council Member has the authority to go and speak to a captain, and to any deputies without feeling limited. Mayor Low clarified that Mayor Pro Tem Dang did not mean to limit the Council's ability to speak to any Sheriff. Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 21 of 23 Council Member Armenta reiterated that if it's placed as an ordinance or a protocol, then everything would be processed through the City Manager when dealing with the Sheriffs Department. Mayor Pro Tem Dang clarified that since he did not know the captain too well, he felt more comfortable speaking to the City Manager about any issues with the Sheriffs Department. He stated that he did not mean to limit any Council Member from speaking to the captain or other deputies. City Attorney Richman stated this item was for discussion and direction if the City Council would like to bring back the ordinance or not. Mayor Low stated there was no more discussion and directed staff to bring back the ordinance for the first reading at the next meeting. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Armenta and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Dang to direct City staff to bring back an Ordinance updating the language to remove the reference of Chief of Police at the next City Council meeting. The motion was carried out by the following roll call vote AYES: Armenta, Clark, Dang, Tang, and Low; NOES: None B. Continued Discussion of City Seal on City Vehicles At the December 14, 2021, City Council meeting, this item was tabled to the next meeting to continue discussion pending information. This item is regarding the City seal on City Vehicles. Recommendation: That the City Council discuss and provide direction. Council Member Armenta stated that she asked for this item to be on the agenda for discussion. The feedback from the City Manager saying that she does not have the City Seal on the City vehicle she is issued due to fear for her safety. Also clarified that all employees that use City vehicles that don't have that potential fear when conducting city business, that they all have the City Seal on the City Vehicles. When it comes to the City Manager, that can be discussed during her evaluation and contract negotiations. Mayor Low clarified there was no action required at this time Council Member Armenta asked for acknowledgment from the City Manager that all City vehicles being used for City use do have the City seal, with the exception of the City Manager's and Chief of Police City issued vehicles. City Manager Molleda replied yes Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 22 of 23 C. Council Comments Council Member Armenta stated it was Law Enforcement Appreciation Day and thanked Captain Mark Reyes, Sergeant Joe Carbajal, and all the Deputies for their hard work in the community. Also acknowledge former Chief of Police Joe Hernandez for the work he did. Also thanked Director of Parks and Recreation Boecking and Mayor Low for inviting her to participate in the Santa Clause Drive -a -long. Council Member Clark agreed with Council Member Armenta and thanked staff for coordinating the ride -a -long with Santa Clause. She explained this event was important to include the Sheriffs to show the children they are real people due to the animosity current going on towards law enforcement. Council Member Tang wished everyone a Happy New Year and encouraged everyone to stay safe from COVID-19. Agreed with Council Member Armenta's comments on the Law Enforcement Appreciation comments and thanked the Rosemead Special Assignment Team for their work in the community. Mayor Low agreed and thanked the deputies for all their work throughout the year. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Low adjourned the meeting at 9:14 p.m. The next City Council meeting will take place on January 25, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber. Ericka ernandez, City Clerk Approved LION Rosemead City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2022 Page 23 q(23