Loading...
CC - Item 4B - Minutes of June 9, 2015 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JOINT MEETING JUNE 9, 2015 The joint meeting of the Rosemead City Council, Housing Development Corporation and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission was called to order by Mayor/Chair/President 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 Tem Armenta, 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 regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 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. 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 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 20 ITEM NO. 4.B 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 20th at V.W. Griffith Middle School Auditorium, 4765 E. 4th 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 8th California State Championship Title. The team also competed at the United States National Science Olympiad National Tournament last month, and placed 8th overall out of 60 competing teams and also modeled 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 thelall;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 Armenia 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 20 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 18th, 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 Mayors 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 Ipt 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. Huano 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 20 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 close 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 Tern Armegta 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 not 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 20 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 bey 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;offorged signatures. ACTION: Council Member ky: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. 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(GOMMERCIAL 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 City Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9,2015 Page5 of20 Associate Planner, Lily Valenzuela presented the staff report indicating Garvey Garden Plaza has submitted an application requesting Development of a residential/commercial 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 20 Georae 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. Tuna 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 Tem Armenta, to approve Resolution No. 2015-29, removing Condition of Approval 30 and authorizing She 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 Tem Armenta,and Mayor Clark. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Mayor Pro Tern 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 Tern 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 THE VACATION OF THE ALLEY BETWEEN BRIGHTON STREET AND DEL MAR AVENUE 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 20 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 Hiiar 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, addingt 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 Armenia 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 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. A. Claims and Demands 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 20 • 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 Tern 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 20 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 Lieberq, 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 irrthe,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 Tem 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 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, 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 20 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 Tern 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 Tem 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 Board 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 included certain control measures or best management practices including low-impact development, green streets and regional projects targeted at reducing storm water pollution. In 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 20 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 group 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 would achieve the City's compliance with both the MS Board permit in pre-existing total maximum daily load that the City was subject to. The estimated cost for implementation of the Enhanced Watershed Management Planfor the Upper L.A. River Group from now through its termination date in 2037 was approximately$6`billion. 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 2nd and it clearly said they did not like the large management plans and they were planning to sue. She voted to enter into the study with the other cities with a condition that it would work out. Council was led to believe that if this was done, the environmental groups, who have been pushing for the cleanup, would leave the cities alone. The letter from the environmental groups was extremely vitriolic. They do not like Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) therefdra 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. She expressed her other concern that the City was in a contract with most of the City of Los Angeles and Rosemead was a relativelysmall city. Rosemead was in Ridge 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 chloroform. The larger region that the City was a part of had 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 to. She stated that was a..problem for her. She pointed out under the Plan that the City was recharging Raymond.Basin and the Central Basin and not the San Gabriel Basin, where the City got 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. Mr. Sullivan responded that 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 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 of 20 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. They would rather see the City do the strict compliances allowed under the permit and fail, rather than going through an 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'h. The environmental groups had been working on their position for six to nine months and 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. The environmental groups knew that l the cities didn't get additional time there was no way to get strict compliance. The State and Regional Boards were allowing cities to show progress toward the end goal. Like every other city in Los Angeles County,the City doesn't have the money to spend $6 billion in the Upper L.A. River.Watershed. As a result, a funding mechanism would have to be developed and the City would be a part of the effort to develop that funding source. In the worst case, if the residents said no, and the City did not have the money, the City would have to go to the Board and St if there was another source for funding. If not, this program was impossible to fund. Mayor Clark said the Board would not accept that. She said even if the environmental groups sued the Regional Board or State Board and won in court,and.the City was in the Ninth Circuit, they would turn around and invalidate the EW MP and the City could be left holding the bag. Mr. Sullivan advised that at this point the development of the Plan was done on a group share basis. The total consulting costs was about$1.7 million for the development of the Plan, but when split by land area of the 17 participating cities, the City at this time has spent approximately$16,000. Mayor Clark said she realized that,and that was why she voted for it. However she did say at that time,that if it was found to be too expensive or it wasn't practical we could back out and the City Attorney confirmed the City couldback out as long as the City paid its fair share, which the City did. In her opinion, this was way more expensive and the City had absolutely no guarantees that this would do what the City wanted it to do. She could not understand why the City joined such a';large area group that had a lot more pollutions to remove than the City did, and when the City was in.Ridge 2 of the Rio Hondo. She was very passionate about not moving forward with this. Mike Lewis representing the Construction Industry Coalition on Water Quality advised the City Council that he chaired a committee at BISFD of stakeholders who were deeply involved in the discussion that took place at the County about 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 have been developed by all of these groups. He said the problem with storm water was it knew no boundaries and for the City of Rosemead to be included in a Rosemead City Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of 9,2015 Page 13 of 20 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. He said the $110 million the City thought it would cost 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, zinc, or several other pollutants out of storm water, for which specific standards have not yet been set and for which there wasn't any affordable technology to do that. The 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. At some point, a funding source was needed to pay for all of this because it would not happen otherwise. The State Board and the Regional Boards realized that, and the environmentalists realized that as well. Unfortunately, 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 and the regulation allowed for 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 provided an example of the ADA grievances that were currently happening in which a citizens filed complaints then settled for a lump sum of$5,000. He said that was what was going to be happening with 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. 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. That discussion was being experienced now with the sanitation bill that would allow sanitation districts to begin taking some of the storm water and dry weather flow and treat it through their sanitation plant. He felt 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 reiterated her concern about entering into agreements and begin to take these steps only to have it fall apart and waste tax payers' money. Mr. Lewis 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 through the City and in his view, the City could not stand alone because the City would become a much easier target. Further discussion between Mayor Clark and Mr. Lewis continued as to the environmentalists and the regulations. Council Member Ly expressed his view that the Regional Board and State board approved the option of allowing the EWMP and if a suit was filed and lost the City might have to pay a price but at least it was a shared price. While he understood Mayor Clark's concern, he was Rosemead City Council.Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9,2015 Page 14 of 20 concerned about the City implementing a plan on its own and the risks the City would assume. He proposed the City continue doing what the City was currently doing and continue to monitor. If it looked like the State Board's and the Regional Board's actions were not accepted, then the City could make that determination. 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. Thereafter followed a brief discussion about getting back into the group and the cost to join the group now, Mayor Clark said 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. Mr. Koeoke 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. Mr. Koeoke, in response to Mayor Clark'squery 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. 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. A brief discussion ensued regarding the action to be taken this evening. Mayor Clark expressing her concern that by approving the resolution, the implication was to approve the EWMP and she did not want to do that Council Member Ly stated that the resolution could always be changed,at a later date, if and when the City decided it did not want to be in the EWMP. Mayor Pro Tem Armenta asked what the repercussions would be if the City withdrew. Mr. Sullivan advised that if the City withdrew now, it would be held by the Regional Board to strict compliance with the permit as adopted 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, plus the additional TMDLs that were encompassed in the EWMP that were assigned strictly to Rosemead. Mayor Clark said she wasn't necessarily saying the City should stand alone, but 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. That was concerning to her. Mayor Clark reiterated her concern that this was not a good decision in light of the fact the environmentalists were going to sue and the Regional Board may have to throw everything 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 Cities 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 20 pollutants and the cost would be divided between all the cities. He said 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. For now, he was only comfortable with the City staying with this EW MP and continuing with the Plan, which tor now was 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 stated 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." 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 also modified the second Whereas to read, "The City of Rosemead elected to comply with the provisions of the MS 4 Permit" deleting the remaining portion of the Whereas clause. He restated his motion to approve Resolution No. 2015-38, as amended and also direct staff to bring back information on the other W MPs. 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. Further discussion ensued regarding the cost to the City for adopting this resolution and the City not committing to the Plan at this point.. Council Member Ly asked when staff thought the document would come before the Council. 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. Koepke added in June of last year the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Plan was submitted which the City would be obliged to do either individually or as a group and that was in the process of being approved by the Regional Board. The City of Los Angeles would have an Implementation Plan for that, and he believed it was for the group as a whole, with the City paying a percentage which 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. 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 20 ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Armenta seconded the previous made motion. 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. 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 Tem 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, 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. 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 20 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 I I 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 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 1104 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 strider 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 III water shortage with mandatory water conservation measues. The key point of Stage III water conservation was to reduce irrigation down to two days pet 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. 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 20 Joy Garnett addressed the City Council advising that she attended a Cal AM Water meeting on May 20th 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 1st. 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 III. She expressed her concern because she had a large piece of property and has quit watering the parkway on Eureka. 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 III 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 tt rained the day before and more information as to whom to contact when water leaks or wasted water was identified by a resident. In response to CouncilMember 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 Tern Armenta, 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 Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark. 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 20 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'^, 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. 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. Carol Cowley, Interim City Clerk APPROVED: Margaret Clark, 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 20 of 20