Loading...
CC - Item 5B - Minutes of June 9, 2015MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JOINT MEETING JUNE 9, 2015 The Rosemead City Council Closed Session Meeting was called to order by Mayor Clark at 6:05 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valldy, Rosemead, California. / PRESENT: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, ABSENT: Council Member /Board Member Low 1. CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Richman announced that the City COUncil,would conference with Legal Council on the following issue: r� A. Conference with 1. City of Rosemead County Superior Pursuant to Govei City Council recessed to Regular Business Meeting Minutes lal Counsel — Exi §fi Fr V �Banefiaal Patient ;04[[ Cagy; ?EC ,0635E nment Coi)g Section at 6 06 orri. Alarcon and Ly to Closed`'Ses4i6n to Litigation et al.; Los Angeles (d)(1) City Attorney Richman announcedT that no,reportabjo' action was taken in closed session at which time Mayor Clark called the jointM - g of the Rosemead City Council, Housing DevelopmehE'Corporaf i6n and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Develop6ent Commission to order at 7 00_p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8$38ast Valley Boulev"" , Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION — led by Council Member Ly by Mayor Clark PRESENT: Mayor /Chair /President Clark, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice- Chair/Vice- President Armenta, Council Members /Board Members Alarcon, Ly; Council Member /Board Member Low was present via teleconference. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager /Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth, Community Development Director Ramirez, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery -Scott, Public Works Manager Sullivan, City Clerk Molleda. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Pagel of 24 ITEM NO. 5.6 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Brian Lewin announced that the City of Alhambra would be holding its annual 710 Day on June 10, 2015, on the corner of Valley Boulevard and Fremont in Alhambra to raise awareness that July 6th was the final day to receive public comments on the 710 Freeway EIR /EIS alternatives. He advised what events would take place. He also advised an additional public hearing would be held on Saturday, June 20 at V.W. Griffith Middle School Auditorium, 4765 E. 4 Street, Los Angeles, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 3. PRESENTATIONS Muscatel Science Olympiad Team Jim McGoy thanked the City Council for honoring the h Los Angeles County Championship Title and its 8 at team also competed at the United States National Sce month, and placed 8 overall out of 60 competing�£e r competition events including a team record of three Fit Finals. He introduced four of the coaches who display introduced the team members. The City Council prese with a $5 gift card to In and Out Burger 1s ,,,paused for school principal. Thereafter, the City Council acknowledged the Team's accomplishments. Scholarship The City Council re`cog scholarships. Michelle in the fall, Alliaow NgUYE attendmg,MIT in the:f4A Scholarship and would'i fall. ,The Cjty Council pi and paused fir pictures Mayor Pro aspire to b( 4. PUBLIC who won its 11th ip Title. The burnament last and also medaled in tenoUtof 25 )p t finishes at the National ies the team earned and of the student team members hs with the team, coaches and and expressed pride in idents from M.'psifnead High School who were recipients of the SOAP tcholarship and would be attending UCLA e UCvBerkeley Regents Scholarship and would be Pham received the El Monte Unified School District C alifornia Polytechnic Institute at San Luis Obispo in the of the students with a $5 gift card to In and Out Burger ;ed her pride in the students and hoped the students would leaders. A. Municipal Code Amendment 15 -02 -- Amending Chapters 17.04 and 17.72 of Title 17 of the City of Rosemead Municipal Code Relating to Regulations for Nonconforming Uses, Structures, Lots, and Parking Facilities Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Conduct the noticed public, hearing and receive public comment; (2) Approve the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; and (3) Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 2 of 24 Move to INTRODUCE FIRST READING, by title only Ordinance No. 951, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 15 -02, AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.04 AND 17.72 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS, AND PARKING FACILITIES City Planner Sheri Bermejo provided the staff report advising this was a city- initiated amendment to revise some of the regulations in the City's nonconforming, ordinance. She explained the ordinance was originally drafted for the purpose of all- i g the addition of new conforming residential structures on R -1 and R -2 Zone lots that innclude existing legal nonconforming structures. She advised the item was present d`o tlj ,Manning Commission on April 6, 2015 and upon hearing written and oral testimony, th Plammhg� - ission directed staff to omit the language that would actually allow the addit on Qf new and residential structures on R -1 and R -2 lots. They directed stafifi,to bring backf ie revised ordinance on May 18 and at that meeting the PlaFAg Commission adopted '4 -resolution recommending the City Council adopt an amendradlitmithout tl a proposed standard allowing the addition of the new structures on properties with ° existing Iegal nonconforming Wuctures. After a PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Berme Commission's decision on the ordinance, issue with City staff and the Mayor would `lik the original proposed ordinance. It was the, to be adopted, it could be reviewed within a consequences. The Mayor opened Huey Chea address because his existing the front of th „e. tot.;ar amend tZ,� dda to tear d5, his which was 900 : home, it was con get a loan, the Ci existing home so to advised the' °'City. Council that since the Planning :ir May 18'” mest, the Mayor discussed the he Council to be ar.q that she was in favor of ry6r rgpinion that if xresidential exception were ar to'sea ifit created'anv unintended his inability to build a new home on his large lot )de_, He advised that the new home would be in €`seen. He hoped the City Council would ture on the empty portion of the lot without having to Co6h6il, that iR`,order for them to conform to the code, the existing home - e feet, v,uld have to be cut in half. She stated at the time they bought the ling and#tfiey did not have the money to build. Now that they were able to hanged t}e code and they could not afford to make the changes to the ucould�, build a new home. A gentleman (name sizes. ble) addressed Council regarding mixed use, zoning issues and lot Huang Lam bought a lot that was 60 x 220 and allowed two houses, but the City changed the zoning and he could no longer have two houses on his lot. City Manager Allred interjected that residents could still build two houses on a 12,000 square foot lot. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 3 of 24 Mr. Chea addressed Council to explain what Mr. Lam was trying to explain to Council. Brian Lewin expressed his support of the ordinance as it was presented to the City Council. He felt that if people were going to be allowed to build two houses on lots of that size, the condition that existing houses on the lot be brought up to code was good because it allowed the City to improve its housing stock. He felt the ordinance was a benefit to the City and he asked the Council to approve it as presented. Molly Sun addressed the Council again expressing her comments. There being no further comments, Mayor Clark closed the Council Member Ly asked staff what the previous c alluded to; if their lot was nonconforming but had the second unit or not. Ms. Bermejo explained that the Zoning Code prior td'the comF the addition of additional units. The standards were vaguean be approved by the Community Development Director butrthdi made. The language was reviewed with thae, City Attorney and included in the ordinance to protect the dk",` 5he_said it could unevenly in the past but as soon as the att6rney brOught it to made exemptions. '._. Mr. Lewin's hat memk dfs�of the audience were they afto,wed to build a itensive update did'not allow allowed exemptions that could were no findings that could be Was decided that standards be e that the code was interpreted ifrsaftention, staff no longer The City Council and staffrentaredd into a lengthy lscussion regarding the legal nonconforming structures, the language�m the e0nliprehensive Zoning Code Update and allowing for exemptions. Ms Bernfio stated'th;`t there was ahprovision in the current Zoning Code through the comprehensive ZoningtCode Ledate. She citetyi example of a home that was built too close to a property line, it would be faker care of adi inistratively with the Community Development Direetor,through tnmo�` e ceptlorf process in which the adjacent property owners were noticed:' ` c Mayer C,>j 'ark expressed fttdesire thaft b language deleted by the Planning Commission be placed back into the ordmar�icdfor 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 haLse and not be deprived of building a house they saved their money to build Mayor Pro Tern Armeef,2i commented that she did not think the City changed the rules, the City updated its zone and i' updating the zone, things changed. Council Member Low said if Council included the language that the Planning Commission omitted, it might increase additional units. After talking to some residents she realized a lot of residents who might want to remodel and don't have a lot of money to change their existing home to comply with the current code so they can remodel. She realized the goal was to have all residences be conformed to the current code in the long term. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 4 of 24 Council Member Steven Ly expressed his understanding of the issue and recommended allowing for minor exception, but only under certain conditions. One, because a setback affects the neighbors, the neighbors would have to sign off on it; and two, it would require Planning Commission approval in a public hearing. He thought that if those two conditions were made a part of the minor exception, he would be comfortable with putting a minor exception based on those criteria. Community Development Director Ramirez advised the City Council that both of the suggestions made by Council Member Ly were already in the minor exceptions policy. City Attorney Richman advised this was within the City Council's prFw rs if that was the process by which the City Council wanted to allow nonconforming uses td be approved, then it was legal. Thereafter, Council discussed this issue in depth includ[ng v "pious ways in tp 'ich neighbors' signatures of approval could be obtained and the need to go before the Planning Commission for approval; the responsibility of the City Council adjudicate ind use mattera;`endhe to Council's desire to balance what was best for the City with the rgfats of the residents, and reviewing the ordinance in a year to determine if any unforeseeh problems resulted from adding the language back into the code. Community Development Director Ramirez' dded that if this Was tie direction of the City Council then staff would like to have the neigh borf signatures be a �atarized statement that they were the actual owners, to prevent the $ ssibility ,ia urged signatures. ACTION: Council Member Ly moved, and seconded by Pro Tem Armenta to continue publienhearing to June 23, 2015 and to bring the ordinance back allow mg3for minor' exceptions with the approval of the neighboring property owners end Plannin�`Commission approval at a public hearing. The motion unanimously Gafried %b (Jhe.followino` oll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Alarcon, Low; Ly Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark. Garden Plaza Mixed Use Project 8408 Garvey Avenue Reco��[nendation spat the'City Council: (1) Conduct the noticed public hearing and receive Runic commer, (2) The City Council approve Resolution No. 2015 -29, entitled: A RESOLUT ON OF HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVIN lD.ESN REV IG IEW 14 -03 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL(0 MMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TOTALING 11,860 SQUARE FEErT`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 Page 5 of 24 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; adq t the Mitigated Negative Declaration and file the Notice of determination for the project. f Y' The Mayor opened the public hearing. Mike Lewis representing the applicant, highlighted the was rental units not for sale. The size of the lot was a acres after a four foot dedication for Delta Avenue Hi 12,000 square feet of space, which provided the recqui copies of the elevations for the City Council to review" was 46 units, 27 of which were two - bedroom units, 18 bedroom manager unit. The required parking for the r proposing 98. He emphasized the proj4ct� s an affo iroject"��He emphasized the residential proximately 49,000 square feet, 1.1 noted the commercial area, was almost ;d 48 parking spaces. H`e brought The residential portion of fhe building were available for rent to low income mdiWOt alsor families 1 advised the affordable component of the peofect aucwed the applicant was requesting the ability to build four storres w�,th within 45 feet which was what the code allowed T secon modify the residential to c mmer ial ratio from 67% resideni by the code, to 81% res ntia aYa .19% commo't ial, which Mr. Lewis advised cause any of the ii City Council gnahi this the TO for retai permit. looked at #h calct Is and a oarteTtlar Mr. Lewis state would be much engineers to de issues with the ree bedroom units and a one - al was 92 spaces and they were [roject in that seven of the units ih a tlensity bonus of 35 %. He ppliea4 wo incentives. The 45 feet rather than three stories incentive request was the ability to Land 33% commercial as required what the project proposed. hired by thsfr determined that the project would not o exceed the "current level of service. He advised the th "af was; `completed and based on all of the tests, it was was non- liquefiable and would not liquefy under earth o hired two additional soils consultants, who reviewed a` The second consultant suggested adding conditions in around the foundation which was included in the the project was approved and went into the plan check process there esigWdone and further review by the City's engineers and the applicant's ;e exact configuration of the foundation to make sure there were no and construction with regard to earth movement. Mr. Lewis discussed the design elements of the project emphasizing the project provided new housing opportunities for young families, and he felt it could bring a new generation to Rosemead. He felt this was a good project for Rosemead, set a good standard; and he encouraged the City Council to approve the project. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 6 of 24 Council Member Alarcon asked how far down the project went on Delta. Mr. Lewis advised that it abuts a very deep lot that had several apartments on it. George Chen who owned a construction company in Rosemead was in support of the Garvey Garden Plaza which would bring in more job opportunities. James Wang owner of the used car lot on Garvey and Delta was in support of this project. Tung Duong was in support of the project because it meant more taxes for the City. There being no one further wishing to speak, Mayor Clark Council Member Ly stated the project was ae: wonderful job working with the developer and n He was happy to see the open space on the se be willing to contribute to the traffic study being Plan to assist in evaluating how the project mig Mr. Lewis responded yes and noted that when the Commission, the Commission added two,condition that a post traffic analysis be performed after khe,_p analysis made sense, the applicant would'' moth broader traffic study instead. After being aS by $12,000 to the traffic study, Mr. Lewis agreed - ;that, He on City and more hearing. and staf Zhas done a key amenities were included. ad the applCant.if he would tey as part oft ho, fecific )jecf "v a ' tbefore the Planning one the4th fe not be any restaurants and act was built He did not think a post traffic an willing to contribute to the City's uf1:s[i tvlembe'r Ly about contributing appli6- nJould be willing to do that The City Council expressed then pfnasure with tte project and the design. ACTION: Moved by Council Mdmber Ly, and '�3nded by Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, to approve Res � olution No�2Q1,5 29, removing Condition of Approval 30 and authorizing the Maria to @rifer into an Agreement with the Applicant to '`accept azdnatioror the Comprehensive Traffic Study along Garvey Avenue. The m6il' arri llowing roll call vote: AYES: Council Member F { Alarcon, Council MemtY$r Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, anihMayor,,Clark. ACTION: "< Moved by Council Member Ly, and seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, to adopt the Miticrated Negative Declaration and file the Notice of Determination. The rn6ticn,,0hanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Membdr'� %garcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tern Arrienta, and Mayor Clark. C. Resolution No. 2015 -28 — A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rosemead Ordering the Vacation of the Alley between Brighton Street and Del Mar Avenue Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2015 -28, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ORDERING Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 7 of 24 THE VACATION OF THE ALLEY BETWEEN BRIGHTON STREET AND DEL MAR AVENUE Mayor Clark opened the public hearing: Imelda Hiiar spoke in opposition to vacating the alley because the alley was used to exit the street since it was difficult to make a left hand turn on Garvey. She also addressed the issue of delivery trucks taking up parking on the streets as a result of the new project. Gerardo Hiiar spoke in opposition to vacating the alley. There being no further public comments, Mayor Clark closed Council Member Ly expressed his understanding of tl of Garvey Avenue was currently a much blighted area, area stating the project would help to clean up Garvey; to vacate the alley and it was his understanding >haf AI the alley were in agreement with the vacation. He tho Council Member Armenta asked if someone could p,~ Ms. Hijar. Community Development Director Ramirez; project that specifically addressed the truck loading and un- loading. If those conditions the CUP at which point tf)e!ty several Council Member Low?.�stated that' a project like vacated. She said the Ity has be&n waiting for a 201 ts' co6'6 ri s, adding that part some of Yheprobiems in that the issue at hand was whether tuals who hav dfg ,.oc claim to ey should be vacated. delivery truck issues raised by tie b placed against the ,ps and, the limited hours for icant would be going against issuance of citations is to work, the alley would have to be i -6ct like this for a long time. seconded by Council Member Ly, moved to Further dscussion regardmg the purp 's _,_ of an alley was held in which Assistant City Manager /A�,tiing Public Works,Qirectoriwawkesworth advised that the original intention of the alleys were to,`'provide a localt for trucks to have loading access to the businesses. It was not meant as a thoroughfare for triff' ic. Discussion also focused on the parking issue in that area and whether the project wouJmpact street parking. ,. x, . ACTION: The motion unanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Membee Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, and Mayor Clark. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Clark pulled Items B and C from the Consent Calendar For discussion and separate action. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 8 of 24 A. Claims and Demands • Resolution No. 2015 — 37 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2015 — 37, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $630,846.28 NUMBERED 88866 THROUGH 89000 INCLUSIVELY Resolution No. 2015-12 Recommendation: to approve Resolution No. 2015 — 12,,6ntid6dt,?/A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF`THE, ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ALLOW.Ihi6.CERTAWCLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $88,911.25 NUMBERED 10130 a„ D. Resolution Authorizing the Release of Un Government Code Section 50050 through Recommendation: That the City Council approve Resold "E(orl No. 2015 -27, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCjh OE THE CITY OF AOSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF U ECKS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 500501" 50053 TO THE:CITY OF ROSEMEAD E. Deputy Probation Officer Annual Contract ReneW Recommendation `That the �Cliy Council approve the agreement with the Los Angeles County Probation Ddp "oftment,and authorize tkkiiy Manager to sign any necessary documentation. F. Us d Oil'P`ayment Progtam Grant lion: Th afthe City Council approve Resolution No. 2015 -33, entitled: A OF THECITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, i THE SUBMITTAL OF AN USED OIL PAYMENT PROGRAM AND RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS ACTION: Mov60, by,G uncil Member Ly, and seconded by Council Member Alarcon, tc approve sent calendar Items A through F, excluding Item's 6 and C. The motion,` nanimously carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor Clark. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 949: Adoption of Development Impact Fees (DIF) and Resolution No. 2015 -07, Approving the Final Draft DIF Study Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 9 of 24 Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Adopt Ordinance No. 949 at its second reading, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING SECTION 12.44.020 (PARK AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE) OF TITLE 12, CHAPTER 12.44 AND ADDING ARTICLE 7 (DEVELOPMENT FEES), CHAPTER 17.170 (DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES) TO TITLE 17 TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; (2) Approve Resolution No. 2015 -07, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THEr,CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ADDING DEVELO IUiCNTrIMPACT FEES TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE TO IMPLE,ENT THE DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 941 Lee Liebero Government Affairs Director of the West S expressed his concern that the increase in Developme to the consumer and the proposed fee seemed qut neighboring cities, citing the amount of some of thoi"` -, reconsider the fees. Thereafter the City Council', discrepancies between the amount of fees Mr. Liebe amount of fees staff provided. Mr. Lieberg was also ad last meeting in accordance with discussions with the phasing the fees in over three years. Fu",r ht r disc adopted by the resolution being lower than the feed; {, Gabriel Valleji Association of Realtors Impact'Fees would be passed through excessive compared tp some of the es' fees. He urged thety to y Mand`ger, and staff discussed the quofecl for" neighboring" cities and the ;ed, #hat the City reduced its fees at the Jildii5'g Jndustry Association and were ion en ;J d regarding the fees being 117, Tom Berqe President of the West San Gabriel Valley Realtors, requested the City Council to reconsider the,�adpption of Ordinands No 949s written because impact fees increased the costs f ew deWdpment especially for residential projects and consequently would reduce the number of projects that were economically feasible. The increased costs resulting from such mp`aclnfees may make it harde'r,Jat'"low and moderate income households to afford to purchase residential unital 11ew,developments. Impact fees often result in higher costs for existing homes making all homes less affo ble. t ACTION: Council"l(Aernber Cy moved, and seconded by Council member Alarcon, moved to iJ adopt Ordih6hce No 949 >at its second reading. The motion unanimously carried r, by the followihig%,roll calp% ote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council :r�;Member LomOoouncil Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tem Armenta, and Mayor ACTION: Moved ky Q&ncil Member Ly, and seconded by Council Member Alarcon to N " approv6',% ,' esolution 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 - Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the SuccessorAgency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 10 of 24 32, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SALARY RANGES AND BENEFITS FOR CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE MIDDLE MANAGEMENT, PROFESSIONAL, AND CONFIDENTIAL SERVICE UNIT OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD; Resolution No. 2015 -34, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF. THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SALARY RANGES AND BENEFITS FOR CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE MANAGEMENT SERVICE UNIT OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD; and Resolution No. 2015 -35 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SALARY RANGES AND BENEFITS FOR THE CITY CO3UJ4 iL�,OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD .* Mayor Pro Tern Armenta stated she did have some questions resolved before the meeting. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Ly, and approve Resolutions 2015 -31, 201:! unanimously carried by the followiir Alarcon, Council Member Low, C Armenta, and Mayor Clark. 6. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER A. Enhanced Watershed P and State Storm Water tis, but"shb,was able to get those i Council Member;;Low, to i4 and 2015 35 Tfi,' potion tW ,AYES: Council Member )er Ly, Mayor Pro Tem r . P) for'Compliance with Federal Recommendation /That fheity Council, (i Receive and file this report; and (2) Approve Resolution No 201 38, entity A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, C OFORNI , ' ADOPTING A'.p SLICY OF IMPLEMENTING GREEN STREETS BEST MAIJACiEMENTP.'RACTICE$�FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Public Works'Mansger Ullivan iJftoduced the'City's consultant, Elroy Kiepke from Willdan Engineering. Mr. Sullivan then advised the City Council that in November 2012, the California Regiq Water Quality Corktr�ol Boah 6fbos Angeles Region adopted and updated the Municipal Separate Storm Se4T(er System or MS 4 Permit for the Los Angeles area. 84 of the 88 cities in Los Angeles County "wore a parry to the permit which outlined compliance measures for the individual pei'mit fees to eafnply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES). NPDE�fvas focused on removing pollutants from storm water and urban runoff prior r. W to its discharge ini84ke,wste ways. Under the updated permit which was effective December 28, 2012, all cities wefiven 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. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 11 of 24 In June 2013, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding for the City to enter into a group led by the City of Los Angeles to develop an Enhanced Watershed Management Plan. The group included 17 cities and two Los Angeles County entities. Of the 84 cities subject to this permit, 74 cities were pursuing some type of group effort to develop a watershed management plan, four cities have approved individual plans, two cities who had individual plans rejected by the Regional Board have made late efforts to join established watershed management plan groups and one city has opted for compliance with the permit with no plan in place. The Enhanced Watershed Management Plan has been developed by the City of Los Angeles serving as the lead agency in helping to coordinate the active i "f the other 16 cities and two county entities within the group. The group is known as the ppef�Los Angeles River Watershed Management Group. The plan was developed by a consultant team and would be submitted as a draft for the Regional Board's review prior to n e 28, ,2015. The Enhanced Watershed Management Plan included a battery of Best Management:practices implemented both on the local and regional level that will achieve the City's c`ompIiance,vgjth both the MS 4 permit in pre- existing total maximum daily loads that the'City`'was subject for i'The estimated cost for implementation of the Enhanced Watershed :Management Plan for the Upper L.A. River Group from now through its termination date in 2037 W s approximately $6 billion• Th s was the end date for bacterial TMDL that all of the Los Angel I r Cltiea were subject to: The cost figure devised for this plan was one technical opinion of t;heA'taI cost of implementing the entire Enhanced Watershed Management Plan over a long period ofTime. As is typical, cost estimates are often subject to change the.City of Rosemead I N estimated cost for the implementation of the Enhanced Watershed Management Plant" ugh. 2037 was approximately $110 million. This cost included tha implementation - 6w impact development, best management practices, that include infiltration at localand regional facilities and the addition of green streets. _. Mayor Clark asked whyll a 23 =�06ge letter from he environmental groups (NRDC) Natural Resources Defense tl -uncil and Real the Bay we ,not mentioned in the staff report. The letter came out on June 2 n atld It clearl�i said they did not like the large management plans and they were planning to sue. When she;vote, - ,A enter into he study with the other cities it was conditioned thatit worloi� Councilwas,;led to believe over the past two years, that if the City did thia�tYfe enGirmmental groups, who have been pushing for the cleanup, would get us off the hook. She noted they wereM willing to say safe harbor, but the implication was that if the cty,p� r a11 this money tn, nd cleanup the ground water, and do what we were supposed to be dom ?the letter from th'e envirohmental groups was extremely vitriolic. They do not like the Enha c�d`Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) therefore she could not understand why the City would'W t to enter irflo a process for $110 million when the City could be sued and the money wasted;,` Her other concern wasy f�you look at the map, the plan the City was in goes all the way to the western end of Los Ap6�les. The City was in a contract with most of the City of Los Angeles and Rosemead was a relatively small city. Rosemead was in Reach 2 of the Rio Hondo and according to the figures the total maximum daily loads that the City was being told to remove were bacteria and coliform and things like that. The larger Reach that the City joined has metals and a long list of pollutants that have to be removed. She questioned whether the City was underwriting the pollution that other cities had to cleanup when Rosemead would not have to. She stated that was a problem for her and pointed out that the plan was to create infiltration basins so that the water doesn't go to the ocean and infiltrates into the ground water. She said if you look at the map, the City was recharging the Raymond Basin and the Central Basin and not 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 24 the San Gabriel Basin, where the City gets its ground water from. She had a real problem with this EWMP. She said the fact that the environmental groups wanted to sue, she would like to withdraw from the group and have the City do its own storm water management plan where if pollution was found at the City's outfall the City would take care of it, the cost could not possibly be anywhere near $110 million. She hoped the Council would join her in the City preparing its own storm water management program and she would make that motion. Council Member Ly advised the Mayor that he thought there was a public speaker's request and she had a question for staff and he would like to hear staffs res regarding the letter and also their position on the EWMP. Mr. Sullivan responded regarding the letter from the environn understanding in working with Mr. Kiepke as well as other foli water system, the letter was the position the environmental g was issued by the Regional Board in 2012. The direction of 1 that they were upset with the cities for choosing the,.,a act offering this option as permit compliance. The issuawith the directed at the City but more at the governing bodies for�Allov with the storm water issue. The environmental groups �fi6uld numeric compliance with the water quality issues and stribt�til the environmental groups was that they vVeuJd rather see the permit allows for and fail rather than taking r these easy road EWMP group. Mr. Kiepke confirmed what Mr suing the Regional Boarcj which was coming up p June position for nine to ttWeil.v`e. mor adoption of the permit with,the Management Plan becaus'a way the cities,would et strict effort to allo.Vdities tgshow pr money you don't have Like e to spend $,6 billion in the , pp�E going to have to be developed source An& in the worst have the mo6 the City wool us money is thef0,,VVas anoth`e fund. ital grog ?s it was staff's who weep familiar with the storm ips have taken since the permit environmdhtaPgroups was not >ut were upsei'With the Board for tyironmental groups Was not g cities this approach to comply t a system of strict g and retribution. The issue with ty do the strict compliances the prtiaches" going through a Sullivan said stating,that tha envif'bnmental groups would be State Board, depending on lIie State Board's adopted motion tfi The environmental groups have been working on their hs' he State Board was supporting the Los Angeles Board's NV (rshed Management Plan and the Enhanced Watershed y,knovV,that,if the cities don't get additional time, there was no olplianc�'The Mate and Regional Boards were making the ig toward the end goal and as you know you can't spend ery other city in Los Angeles County, they don't have the money L.A. Rive'r'VVatershed. So there is a funding mechanism that is and th f City will be a part of the effort to develop that funding the residents come back and said no, and the City did not 1 have to go to the Board and say the residents don't want to give source for the money. If not, this program was impossible to Mayor Clark said they %+mould not accept that we cannot afford it. She emphasized that the environmental groups may be suing the Regional Board and the State Board and if they won in court, and the City was in the Ninth Circuit, they would turn around and invalidate the EWMP and the City could be left holding the bag. It was the Regional Board and the State Board that has to approve the City's permit. If they win in court and throw it out, then all the money the City has put into this was wasted. Mr. Sullivan advised that at this point the development of the Plan was done on a group cost share basis. The total consulting costs was about $1.7 million for the development of the Plan, Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 13 of 24 but when split by land area over the 17 participating cities, the L.A. County Flood District, and the L. A. County unincorporated area, the City at this time has spent approximately $16,000 for the development of the EWMP. Mayor Clark said she understood that, and that was why she voted for it because she knew that was all it would cost to see what it was going to do. Noting she had the minutes in front of her, she said at that time, that if it was found to be too expensive or it wasn't practical the City could back out and the City Attorney confirmed the City could back out as long as the City paid its fair share, which is what the City did. In her opinion, we have fount out that this was way more expensive and the City had absolutely no guarantees that this�would`do what we wanted it to do. She still could not understand why, when the City was in Rest 2 of the Rio Hondo, the City joined such a large area group that had a lot more pollutants td Yi move than the City did. She would much rather take care of what the City had to do ir}remefjr$hrough the iterative process and that was why she was very passionate about?..... vi ng fo aysr with this. Council Member Ly reminded the Mayor that he thought there was a request tr1 speak card. Mike Lewis representing Industry eall ion on V a er Quality advised the City P 9 the Construction �S � Council that this was a subject he knew something about k1 dvissed that he clfaired a committee at BISFD of stakeholders who were deeply inAi in the discussion that took place at the county over creating a funding sour .o for all of the stof rJT effort and that included approximately 70 stakeholders from the ` %ate ; ector who were Yery concerned about what this was going to mean in terms of the things tk,0 h to in drder o'mply. He has been reviewing, along with his colleagues in the construction industry, the EWMP documents that have been developed by all of these groups H no�`�ii that oi�usly they had a particular interest as to whether therek 1 be any const d ion lobs in dll this money that was being spent; and frankly there,ereri f a (bt of cons stotruo ion projects being proposed at this point. He said the problem with rm water' s it knew no boundaries, it goes downhill. For the City of Rosemead to be included�Jp a group of sties that vY 2 in a watershed, or where water was going to move from one are stq anot}J0 - made a certain amount of sense at this stage of the \ 5 game for a number o �reasoris ',H atl i (i #i t, were still in the infancy when it came to this e 's ' . regulatory a what d wasreally going to cost. He said the $110 million the City thought it3would cost, "' Eiich t was`a$sumed $90 million would come from private activity on priv f&p,operty was probabl A st the {i' A f the iceberg. Because what wasn't in place right now was fhe� remainder of the regulatpry scheme that would require removal of copper out of storm water,� nc out of storrri water; or several other pollutants for which has not yet been set specific standdra$ have not b n set and for which there wasn't any affordable technology to do that. Regional � I as referred to in the report, this idea that cities get together and direct their storm water to a fa I III hc7e it could be captured, treated, and infiltrated and returned to the storm drain as cleanrmade a lot of sense and they have been pushing that idea when nobody was. Now eve'ybody thinks this idea is the only way to go because capturing storm water on the larger scale is the only way that makes sense. At some point, a funding source was needed to pay for all of this because it would not happen otherwise. The State Board and the Regional Boards realized that, and the environmentalists realized that as well. Unfortunately, the scheme we were in now, the cities were left with the responsibility for implementing a plan to clean up storm water which in most cases cities have no control over other than the fact it runs in the streets and into a storm drain system but the pollution it picks up along the way, the City would be responsible for and the regulation allows for citizen enforcement. That means water keeper groups could go out to the City's driveway apron during 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 24 a storm and take samples of the water running off of the parking lot and file an enforcement action against the City for a violation or an exceedance. He explained an exceedance which wasn't a violation has also been the focus of a lot of these enforcement activities. He provided an example of the ADA lawsuits in which citizens filed hundreds of lawsuits against businesses then offered to settle for a lump sum of $5,000. He said that was currently happening in storm water, but the average settlement would be $100,000. He suggested that if the City decided to go alone, the City could be standing as an easy target and won't have the resources to support an effort if attacked by the environmental organizations. Right now the environmental groups have to sue the 5t d or the Regional Board who have very deep pockets. He thought it made sense for of cities to join together because ultimately the City would want to direct the waor td facilities that were common to the City and allow the City to share the cost of t merind ultimately disposal of that water, whether it was infiltrated or put back in the stQCm drain. He atlded one more thought, a decision has not yet been made as to who owns the water and at same point soon that would happen. It may be determined that the cities or the property on whtch%it lands were the owners and it may well be determined that it we he water rights owners tha oWnAhat water. That will change the complexion or the fashior(I� which we,approach the ,c eanup of that water because of its ownership. That discussion was being?,e5 jieriericed now with the Sanitation District Bill that would allow the Sanitation Districts to begi some of the storm water and dry weather flow and treat it through their sanitation plant H falt the City was in the safest place even though there was uncertainty'dW,' wyas very experisiue ..Tt ereafter followed a discussion regarding Senator Hernandez' fill on ourship of wafer =� Mayor Clark asked Mr. Lewis what happens it thefties begdtnfiltrating with drainage swales everywhere and all these pO,Orams, and the wi�t r nghts peo' le say this was their water, and cities have spent all this i onev% 0 olve the prob em. Mr L wis responded that was a discussion that would kieve to be h He mentioned the private water companies in the San ,; Gabriel Valley have msfti as part of Senator He`rrte :'iiez' bill that they own that water and no one else has a right to do vutt they lase Relieved some language was agreed to that would go into S�erfator Hernandez bill asji ,wasn't sure that once that language became law that there,# ltl be (pi Jncentive for anybody to capture storm water because someone else owns ale also menIdd that in",., an Fernando Valley the Department of Water and Powelatms what was called "Pueblo Rights" where the minute the water hits the ground they say its thel�fo that was based on the original Pueblo establishment. It hasn't gotten to the point that thih `s,,have gotten s tight that everybody has to work this out Mayor Clark reiterated her Q cern about entering into agreements and take these steps only to have it fall apart anew a `fie tax payers' money. Mr. Lewis did not believe the regulatory .. w scheme was going to go a ay, the City was still going to have to clean up storm water, somehow and someway. He felt the things the City was doing at this stage were the simple things — green streets, requiring new development to capture storm water — all of which was helpful but what would the City do for the remaining 99% of the region that was already built and would not be doing anything that would require them to treat their storm water. Mayor Clark said that wasn't the City's problem, the City's problem was Rosemead. Mr. Lewis said there was water that ran down streets from adjacent cities, storm drain channels that run through the City and in his view, the City could not stand alone because the City would become a much easier target. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 15 of 24 Mayor Clark pursued by stating tell me what we have to do to clean it up and that's what we will do. These agreements we are entering into are everyone else's problems. Mr. Lewis stated he wished he could answer that, but the problem was the regulatory scheme wasn't finished yet and what was being done now was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what they really want. The environmentalists want to get there a lot faster and they want to have a lot more leverage over cities to be able to force cities to do it. They want numeric, which he thought was a very bad thing because it would be very difficult to achieve. Once a numeric level has been set, the next thing they will do is start to lower the numeric level. He reiterated4�at it was going to be very expensive and very costly and the residents of this state were fhg tb ,have to decide how much money they want to spend on this. Council Member Ly expressed his view that if the city failed, it failed ar a group meaning, we all went in together, we all thought this was the best plan�t n he aECepted j�la all the experts told us it was the best plan and the State Board and the Regiona1'Board was theJ) that made the mistake and were the ones that put the City in this position. It may not be a consolation and we still may have to pay a price on that endeavor, but a� it was a shared pricettl t'irtas something where we all went in together. His concern Was that if*,e go in alone, y e might be doing something that we do not know if it was a good plao�a�rsbt and there mightbe bitter consequences that comes with it. We talk about $100 militoh,plus, and as stated by Mr. Lewis, water comes from everywhere, and if they ding us for TempWZ#y's particulates and yes we can fight the State board and we can fight the dot ,lronfnentalists, butthe cos of fighting them plus r F -�: the fines may not be $100 million, but if d was mj $i�lllion there go@S tie reserves in one hit and he did not want to take that risk. While he ynderstf6bd;Mayor CRCs concern, he would propose the City continue doing what Mr. Lewis caflbldd the �'e y'6tuff" and he felt the City lo should continue doing thg byuff like everyb7'is doing AM continue to monitor. If it looked like the State Boards the R Tonal Board' Actions decided the EWMPs were not doable, then the City CounciI4 n come bdb,� at that time and make a determination then. He wanted to stay the course and monitor to see if there were nn dihtended consequences from leaving because it was his understartcfing tjt once the Citp`ieft the group, it would be very difficult to get back in Public Works Manager SI3 Ivan saidfhat that was his understanding confirming for Council Merrbry that the City df?ost Covina repared and individual plan, submitted it to the Board for approval end their plan Was ruled _irisufficient which meant they reverted back to the alternative oCEion of strict copliance of the permit as adopted including all numeric limitations. The City of Wes Covina lookeW at that option versus the option of joining a EWMP group and he understood t f they join;¢lan already established Enhanced Watershed Management group in the upper $an l Valley. He did not know what it cost West Covina to enter because their Council" <ti 't taken action so he did not have an actual number but he heard it was well into the six figures just for the development of the plan; that didn't include any of the implementation but they have made an investment of over $100,000 just to get in on the development. Council Member Ly said the concern was that it would be much more expensive to get in whereas if we stay in for now and continue to monitor; recognizing that Mayor Clark knows more about storm water than anyone else on the Council. He felt the City needed to be risk adverse. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 16 of 24 Thereafter followed a brief discussion between Mayor Clark and Council Member Ly regarding the cost to go back into the EWMP. Mayor Clark said if the City was going to be in a group, she would rather be in a group that was adjacent to the City so that if the projects were done, the City would be infiltrating the good water into the San Gabriel Basin. More discussion ensued regarding the group the City was in, and joining a group with Arcadia and some of the San Gabriel Cities. Public Works Manager Sullivan noted the group the City was in was t d grgest EWMP group there is and it was spearheaded by the City of Los Angeles and incgPporafes 17 cities and it did stretch far to the west but it also encompasses every city that bonds Rosemead with the exception of El Monte. He listed the Cities included in the an Gabriel, Temple City, South El Monte, Monterey Park, Montebello, Pasadena, South Pasadena, and all the adjacent unincorporated Los Angeles County area. Council Member Ly asked what it would cost to and some of the San Gabriel cities were in. Mr. Sullivan advised he did not have the cost figures , probably include Arcadia, Monrovia, and the adjacent Mr. Kiepke advised Council that the Regi6"a4 �l3o� City drained to a common source, the Los away from the Los Angeles River, the Rio Hondo Angeles River. The upper San Gabriel Groupwh San Gabriel River and that<g6 t� probably would would open them up to tide Los Ahibeles River sfa TMDL, bacteria TMQJ� nd these TMDLs were no' were getting bacteria and metal, they do not have complications that that gro5io1d port with the - ned that EVE the foothills. Arcadia would stablishetl'the City's group because the aver and alth6(Igh the City was a long way S the ,oute thdwater took to get to the Los was A04cd"ht to the City, drained into the want th tity in their group because that rds. The Los Angeles River has the metal rt of the San Gabriel River; and while they OW so it would introduce a level of Mr. Kiepke 668966 . `�to May`'d0 Isrk's query about researching which group would be better, said thg0esearch couk 'Ways b pe do but as mentioned all of the surrounding cities were in the UppBr Los Angeles River WatersF�He explained these cities drain to the same Rio Hondo F ivgf`that the City ditl A When gional project was put together sometime in the future because n low there wa§ementJJ�,90 t funds involved. The City has not developed a Memorandum of Understand ingor �mpl,, the EWMP. That would be something that would occur over the next year while;;the Regidfj'aI Board was reviewing and approving the proposed EWMP. Mayor Clark confirmecjatrat staff was not asking for ... Mr. Kiepke said there was no money Involved. City Manager Allred added that tonight's action was to receive and file and a resolution to adopt a Green Streets Best Management Practices Policy which the City needed to do anyway. Mayor Clark said the problem she had with the Resolution was the references to the EWMP. If those could be taken out because the implication was that the City was endorsing the EWMP and she did not want to do that. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 17 of 24 Council Member Ly stated that the City was in the EWMP and by that fact the City has endorsed the EWMP. Mayor Clark responded that she did not endorse the EWMP, she approved going in to see what it was going to do and she specifically said she would like to be able to get out of this if we wanted. Council Member Ly argued that if there comes a time when the City decided that it did not want to be in a EWMP at a later date, the Council could always go back_ad 'revise the resolution and take out those portions of it. But until then the fact that we voted.ao %join a EWMP means that we endorsed the EWMP, that's the nature of being a part of something a, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta asked what the Mr. Sullivan advised that if the City withdrew now, RWGity we to strict compliance with the permit as adopted (a bi',,�r whit which included a number of minimum control measuand J1, regarding water quality standards that the City, on its oWn�?wvp plus the additional TMDLs that were encompassed in the'E the City of Rosemead. So we have the c,a� measures, w€ monitoring standards as well as the four fllk' s the City was whether the City participated in a EWMP based orithe permit extensive best management practices and expense the if be held by thbARegional Board as about three inO ie9 thick) �nber of numeric:iimitations ild be responsible for immediately, VI P that were assigned strictly to ave the numeric limits for 'e pr�nsible for regardless of for f TMDLs that would require life d — those TMDLs. Mayor Pro Tern Armenta Ge`rt n,,ed the City 6p,, cil that th City had two toxic plumes running through the City which ,a'ngi the City df; -1 Monte. As stated, storm water didn't have boundaries nor doe soh other to''ij�aplume or toxic water and that concerned her. How many other times has the Cdyj"omed othei cities to fight the {state or county? She felt in numbers, the City could win; standing A the City can't So lay's remember the times that the City has joined other ept'ires to protect Senie &and Its eesidents and the tax base. Thereafter followed fef disaussfp��regarir the toxic plumes in which Mayor Pro Tern advised that it becamethe City's respdrsbility to l#an up those plumes and it was done in partnership. In this case, t�ie , ty would be standi alona( have to pay for all of this if the City did not join in with other;:, / Mayor Clark she wasn Necessarily saying the City should stand alone, she thought the City could join ah iher group the City needed to look into it. She thought the group the City was in was way t o e pens "ue and the City was taking on liability and pollution that the other cities had that Rosem sd tlid not and the City would be taking on their liability as well. The City was only responsible f F coliform, some of the bacteria, and the other cities have all kinds of metals, and while joining them were we taking on their liability. That was concerning to her. Mayor Pro Tern Armenta asked Mayor Clark what she would propose if the other entities rejected the City and did not want the City to join them. Mayor Clark responded that she wasn't sure, possibly go back to this EWMP, she just did not want to be going into this because she really did not think this was a good decision in light of the fact the environmentalists were going to sue and the Regional Board may have to throw this out. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 18 of 24 Council Member Ly said that if that happened, all the cities would be the same and reminded her that even though the City was taking on their pollutants they were also taking on the City's pollutants and the cost would be divided between all the cities. He said he was only comfortable with staying in the EWMP; that he was willing to monitor and he was willing to learn more about the other WMPs because the Council needed more information and more in depth discussion about storm water issues since it was going to affect the City whether the City liked it or not. For now, he was only comfortable with the City staying with this EWMP and continuing on these items which we know so far are at a much lower cost than if;toe,City went on its own. The City also did not know the ramifications of joining another ACTION: Council Member Ly moved to adopt Resolution 2015-38. {, `Y K Mayor Clark asked if Mr. Ly would include in his motiont6Aelbte Item 414VAhe resolution, "to implement the Green Streets Best Management Prato6 according to th64 , hanced Watershed Management Plan and the USEPAs Merxe9mg Wet Weather withr+:en Infrastructure Municipal Handbook Green Streets - , Assistant City Manager /Acting Public Works Director Havt,kesw6rth suggested the third Whereas paragraph could be modified and changed to 'ttio))Jfplementation of the MS 4 permit" rather than "implementation of the Enhahbed Watershed Manage Plan." Then No 4 in the Therefore clause would be changed to reel, ��The. Public Works O p will implement the Green Streets Best Management Practices.,o , I - 1;o the MS 4 p and the USEPA's Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastro ture1FiiRal Handbook Green sheets." ACTION: Council MembPtLysaid he was co f with that, and after a brief discussion, also modifi 1 e s66prl Whereas t Mead "The City of Rosemead elected to comply with the "ions of MS 4 Permit,'and ..." The next Whereas would read, "Whereas the iritpleme Alf", of the M4Yermit requires cities . . ." and the forth part of the Thereore wdGd }eh,nge the `Enhanced Watershed Management Plan" to th eMSA Permit's fie rest to kt3 tnd ion to approve Resolution No. 2015 -38, as mended; end also direct staff to bririg back information on the other W MPs. After sb discussion iving and filing the report would be committing the City to the EWNJ,R, City Attorney Fi�ighman clarified that the report was not committing the Council to anything futkrthan they haue alreaiiy committed. The report was about adopting the Green Street policy atf�i�the backgroufhd on the WMP. Assistant City Manager/Act ng Public Works Director Hawkesworth added that before this very large document would'bb and we would be on the hook to spend any money on it, there would be a new�INOU Council would have to approve before this is implemented. So we were not obligating ourselves tonight to implementing this EWMP. We're just continuing on through the development and draft process. He reiterated there would be another MOU before implementation that the Council would have to take action on. Council Member Ly asked when staff thought the document would come before the Council. 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 Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 19 of 24 public comment period, it would be a year before the document would be approved by the Regional Board. Mr. Kiepke in response to Mayor Pro Tern Armenta's question as to whether the City would be incurring any additional costs by approving the resolution, stated the City was not incurring any more fees on the EWMP. The City paid the $16.000 and that was the City's obligation for the EWMP. In June of last year they submitted the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Plan that the City was obliged to do one way or another, individually, or as a group and that was being approved by the Regional Board at this time. The City of Los Angeles iil have an Implementation Plan for that. He believed it was for the group as aJofe; with the City paying 1.8% or whatever the percentage of the City of Rosemead's obli a R was, and that fee would be approximately $4 million over the next three years. Mr. Hawkesworth added that this had to be done by the )rag ardiess `qf whether the City was alone or part of the group. The City had to do that. In.,'`sponse to Mayor prb , em Armenta 's inquiry that the City would not have to pay any mo Xs as part of the EWMP, l Hawkesworth stated that was correct; but the Cdy`Wuld still haye to continue Wd§„ptbrm water projects such as the catch basins, clarifying that the Ci, would g spend any more on this but we will continue to spend money on other things the city was "fequired to do. ACTION: Mayor Pro Tern Armenta econded the previotf�,made motion. The motion unanimousl y Yhe o wing roll call ,AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council ember Low, Council ember Ly, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, and Mayor bark - B. Adoption of the 91tyfof fiosemead Appropriations "Limit Recommendat�ori : %That the City Council approve Resolution No. 2015 -36, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF 1 I CITYOUNCIL OF TF ITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN APPRpPFIQTIbNLIMIT FOR THE 2015 -16 FISCAL YEAR City Manae AIIYtIlvised thCity Council that the annual appropriation limit for the upcom,i��9 fiscal year wa`6341 millic7h�,and the appropriations that were subject to the limit were only-: illion. The City wad undertlimit by $26 million and was well within the constraints of t6 aop,©priation limit ACTION: Coun'e Mern6 i Ly moved, and seconded by Council Member Low, to approve Resblion Nei. 2015 -36. The motion unanimously carried by the following roll � call vot' ;V.4YES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Council f 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 Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 20 of 24 ADOPTING THE ANNUAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR THE 2015 -16 FISCAL YEAR 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 put of RDA bond proceeds and asked if staff anticipated revising this amount due to,lncrea ing costs. Assistant City Manager /Acting Public Works Director Hawker ti lied that in speaking with the consultant when the Request for Proposal was prepared ;rFe was crf #,ident 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. `y= , ''` ACTION: Council Member Ly moved, and seconded byG�puncil Member Low, to approve Resolution No. 2015-30 thb Annual Operating a�d Capital Improvement Budget. The motion unanimously catr�i„�'dpy the following V�JI palvote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Membe;Low, Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, and Mayor Clerk, x ACTION: Moved by Co'u�nllMember Ly,hsecondedb� Council Member Low, to adopt ResolutiQ No 2Q 5 06 the Houslpg Development Corporation Annual Operating and Gaul improvetttent Budget iThe motion unanimously carried by the following "rOR,,call vo AYES Cot1n 'il Member Alarcon, Council Member Low, Cou&I(Nepntfa Ia t �111ayor pio Tern Armenta, and Mayor Clark. � s D A1op ing Municipal Code Section 13.04 oncermng wat��onservattion. Recommendation: ThafT e City Council: (1) Adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 953, entitled: AN URG`NCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORN.�A AMENDING CHAPTERS 13.04.040, 13.04.050, 13.04.060 AND 13.04.080 OF THE ROSMEAD ML�I IICIPAL CODE CONCERNING WATER CONSERVATION, and (2) Approve R 6. 2015 -24, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF9SEMEAD, CALIFORNIA DECLARING A PHASE III WATER SHORTAGE WITy>MANDATORY WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES Assistant City Manager /Acting Public Works Director Hawkesworth reminded the City Council that in November 2014 the Council adopted a resolution implementing a Phase II Water Shortage. On April 1, 2015, Governor Brown issued an Executive Order mandating additional water conservation of 25% statewide compared to 2013 usage figures. Based on those Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 21 of 24 requirements and staffs recent meetings with the six water purveyors in the City of Rosemead, it was determined that the code section regarding water conservation for Sections 13.04 were not sufficient to meet the Governor's requirements. As such, staff was proposing an urgency Ordinance No. 953 Amending Chaptersl3.04.040, 13.04.050, 13.04.060 and 13.04.080 of the City's regulations to make them stricter to be in compliance with the Governor's regulation requirements and working in partnership with the water companies. He said part of the ordinance required the adoption of a resolution and staff was recommending approval of Resolution No. 2015 -24 declaring a Phase III water shorta ewith mandatory water conservation measures. The key point of Stage III water conserva "-,X �.to reduce irrigation down to two days per week. Staff was proposing that even numbajft�d addresses be allowed to water on Mondays and Thursdays and odd numbered addressed blowed to water on Tuesdays and Fridays. He said staff has worked to the best' thei 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 Comp ny was proposing eeh on Monday and Wednesday and odd addresses on Tue2day and Thursday He eXplamed to Council why staff did not propose San Gabriel Valle Water Cord an regu 1111 ereafter followed a brief discussion about the City receiving complaints water vi fans and the actions staff was taking when residents violate the regula#ir:' Joy Garnett addressed the City Council advs May 20th and several water companies we water companies were implementing Phagi I mentioned she spoke to Sean Sullivan last w Stage II and if the 25% reduction was not me Stage III. She expresse het concern becau: watering the parkway oAnca All the City pl why the City was impletenting Stae III now that she atte d ed a Cal AM Water meeting on e At that meeting jt was announced that the fhe�Povernor's pl ofi June 1'. She whWab[Vised her #at the City would Implement 00t66eY of� }h)s =$year, the City would implement had a Ia piece of property and has quit d along the parkway were dying. She asked T6r than October. City Manager Allred mformet flis, C3arnettthat the,.tity's Phase III occurred when the City's purveyors were no>jf�d that 4�' - nservat�O fine'e than 20% was required. Thereafter followed a cohversation I etween Ms. Garnett, staff, and the City Council regarding the trees along the parkwuji, tvls Garrief bein erroneously cited for washing her car on the grass four ,y�drs ago, and never receiving re rn - ursement for the citation, where it was posted that Phase III aAlo�wed watering iwo days a;Zek, and the reason the City recommended washing cars at the caf<wash. A discussion entU d petwee6 Mayor Pro Tern Armenta and staff regarding notification letters being sent to the sd.j district directing the school district to the City's website for information and the information rift6ing available on the website. Brian Lewin addressed the Council stating more outreach needed to be done especially translating the requirements into various languages. He mentioned some issues that needed to be clarified such as watering on an allowable day when it rained the day before and more information as to whom to contact when water leaks or wasted water was identified by a resident. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 22 of 24 In response to Council Member Low's question regarding fire hydrants, City Manager Allred explained that the regulations were limiting the use of fire hydrants for fighting fires only and prohibiting flushing fire hydrants during the drought. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Low, and seconded by Council Member Ly, to adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 953. City Attorney Richman Read Ordinance No. 953 into the record as follows: AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTERS 13.04.040, 13.04.050, 13.04.060 AND 13.Oi4 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING WAt CONSERVATION. The motion unanimously carried by the following rqI all vote: AYES: Council Member Alarcon, Council Member_ Low, Cou #'mber Ly, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta, and Mayor Clark., ACTION: Moved by Council member Ly, and seco Council Meplber Low, to adopt Resolution No. 2015 -24. The motto unanimously carried by the i (lowing roll call vote: AYES: Council Mem Alarcon,t,ouncil Membeir Council Member Ly, Mayor Pro Tern Armenta,tand Ma: or. Clark. r 7. MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL s Council Member Low ended the teleconPnceat 11:02 P.M Mayor Pro Tern Armenta announced that she attendd Latin o Peiicy Forum last Saturday regarding technology stating that the City of Fosemad was ahgad of most cities in technology because of Granicus and R696mead Around tie dock She, dvised there were links on the City's webpage that go t tb a bltifik Tsage when clicked and asked if those links could be removed. � lffr: �: k She asked staff to 16ok at the yougg'trees that wer lanted throughout the City. She noticed several of those trees were Oan a (d w re not gr in straight. She expressed concerned about the trees as they matured CounWl hllember Ly as�dfor ari Update on the cart containment program for the shopping cent¢rs Le continued to s e s arts on the streets and especially those belonging to Ros`eme`ttfy]arket. He wan, to seyjhat the City was doing in terms of enforcing the Mayor Pro Tem"Ajfrnenta W ounced that the Beautification Committee Clean Up would be held on Saturday, Jdhk,2V,,� from 9:00 a.m. to Noon at the Savanah Cemetery, contingent on whether or not there nough volunteers. Lunch would be provided. Council Member Ly advised this would be his last meeting in person. He would be calling in for the next meeting after which he would be leaving for training with the U.S. Army for a couple of months. Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 23 of 24 S. 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. City APPROVED: Mar Rosemead City Council. Housing Development Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Joint Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2015 Page 24 of 24