Item 4B - Minutes - January 8, 2013 MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
JANUARY 8,2013
The regular joint meeting of the Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council was called to order by Mayor
Armenta at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member/Director Alarcon
INVOCATION:Council Member/Director Clark
PRESENT: Mayor/President Ammenta, Mayor Pro TemNice President Low, Council Members/Directors Alarcon, Clark, and Ly
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman,Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth, Community
Development Director Ramirez, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott, Public Works Director Marcarello,
Management Analyst Sullivan and City Clerk Molleda.
1. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Ron Esquivel—invited the City Council to the Educational Foundation's second Annual Casino Night fundraising event on
March 161h from 6:30 pm to 11:00 p.m.
Lanny Alplanalp—expressed concern regarding abandoned shopping carts on Muscatel Avenue. He mentioned that he
made flyers to hand out to people who leave shopping carts on streets and gave each Council Member a flyer.Mr.Alplanalp
stated that foreign language has made it difficult to communicate and asked if the City could have the flyer or something
similar translated into the languages commonly used in Rosemead and make it available so that when he hands the flyers out,
the people will understand what it says.
Mayor/PresidentArmenta responded that the residents need to know it is a violation and suggested Mr.Alplanalp report the
location of the abandoned shopping carts to Code Enforcement Officers.
Council Member/Director Alarcon stated that residents can also call the company the City contracts with to report
abandoned shopping carts and they will pick them up.
Pat Trujillo—inquired about the tree project on her street and the type of trees that are being planted.
Mayor/President Armenta explained that the tree-planting project consisted of replacement of diseased trees with new trees.
Public Works Director Marcarello advised the tree planting project was taking place along Muscatel Avenue, Ivar from
Marshall Avenue to Mission Drive. He stated that all diseased trees would be replaced with Crape Myrtle trees.
2. PRESENTATION
• Proclamation on the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance(VITA) Program and the federal Earned Income Tax
Credit(EITC)
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page 1 of 13
ITEM NO. 4.B
•
City Council presented a proclamation encouraging all qualified City residents to take advantage of the Volunteer Income Tax
Assistance Program (VITA)and the Federal Earned Income Tax Credit. She explained that anyone earning less than$51,000
per year may qualify for up to$5,891 in earned income tax credit(EITC)which can be used to lower their income taxes or
increase their income tax refund. She advised of the free income tax services being offered and where the events will be held.
Juan Nunez—asked if the City had a barking dog ordinance and commented on the City of Los Angeles'ordinance and
penalties. He advised that his neighbor's dogs bark continuously. He confirmed that he called Animal Control but nothing has
been done.
Mayor/President Armenta stated the City's noise ordinance includes dog barking.
City Manager Allred suggested that Mr. Nunez meet with Public Safety staff.
Council Member/Director Clark asked what the fines for violation of the barking dog ordinance is and if staff keeps a log of
fines collected. She stated that she has had complaints from other people and she was concerned as to whether the
procedures being followed by Code Enforcement was effective. She felt the City needs to crack down on this issue.
City Manager Allred responded that fines can be up to a thousand dollars for repeated offenses. Mr.Allred confirmed he
made some notes as to what the City of Los Angeles was doing and staff would discuss it tomorrow at the staff meeting.
Mr. Nunez—asked what can be done about residents who do not put away their trash cans after the trash was picked up.
Mayor/President Armenta explained to Mr. Nunez that the City has an ordinance that addresses trash cans and suggested
Mr. Nunez use the City's Round the Clock service to report issues to the appropriate department. Ms. Armenta asked who
residents call for animal issues after hours.
Chief of Police Lieutenant Tim Murakami stated residents can contact the Public Safety Center or call the Baldwin Park Animal
Shelter after hours.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued—Municipal Code Amendment 12-01,Amending the Rosemead Municipal Code to Add
Regulations Pertaining to the Licensing and Operation of Home Occupations in the City of Rosemead
Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: (1) Conduct a public hearing and take public
testimony; (2) Introduce for First Reading, by title only Ordinance No. 925,entitled:AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 12-01,
ADDING NEW CHAPTER 5.41 TO THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE LICENSING AND
REGULATION OF HOME OCCUPATIONS; AND AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.16, 17.20, 17.24,AND 17.74 OF THE
ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS; (3)
Adopt the Negative Declaration as the CEQA determination for the project;and (4)Adopt Resolution No. 2012-70,
entitled:A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA,ADDING A HOME
OCCUPATION BUSINESS LICENSE FEE
City Manager Allred requested the ordinance for Home Occupation Businesses be deferred to allow staff to make sure the
ordinance complies with new State Law resulting from passage of AB 1616 which impacts this issue.
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page 2 of 13
Community Development Director Michelle Ramirez explained that AB1616 will affect home businesses that are categorized
as cottage foods,which are foods that people grow on their property or cook on their property, that are not chemically
enhanced.
Council Member/Director Ly expressed concern that this ordinance has been delayed for over six years and if the Planning
Commission does not meet until February, it would be March before any action is taken.
Community Development Director Michelle Ramirez recommended the Public Hearing be opened and closed, and be brought
back at a later date to give staff time to review AB1616 in order to insure the City's ordinance was not in conflict with the new
law.
Council Member/Director Ly confirmed that under the City's current ordinance, residents could not operate any type of
business out of their home.
Council Member/Director Clark agreed with staff in deferring the item to a future meeting.
Mayor Pro TemNice-President Low questioned whether the ordinance would have to go back to the Planning Commission
before it comes back to Council, after staff reviews the new State Law AB 1616. She asked if it was possible to adopt the
Ordinance as is, and amend it at a later date, if there are any changes to be made based on the new law.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied the ordinance could be adopted,and if an applicant applied for a business
license dealing with cottage foods,they would be exempt from this ordinance because staff would have to obey State law.
She explained State law pre-empts the City's ordinance. Ms. Ramirez explained further that one conflict is the current
ordinance requires that the applicant has to live or reside in the home in order to operate a home occupation.According to the
cottage food AB 1616, the applicant can have employees that do not live in the home. Staff has to address specific issues for
the cottage food businesses mentioning there is also some language dealing with parking. She explained these issues would
have to be included and applied only to the cottage food section of the ordinance.
Council Member/Board Member Clark clarified that AB 1616 was allowing people to come into a home and process food in
a home catering business.
City Attorney Richman responded that catering is not a good descdption for this law. She stated there is a long list of food
types that can be made in the home and they have to be the types of food that are considered non-dangerous in the sense
they can't grow bacteria or things like that. She mentioned some of the foods. She said if the ordinance is not in place we
have to allow them in residential uses. The benefit is the City can have some regulations. She confirmed the Bill provides
three options: It has to be allowed in residential uses; or the City can pass an ordinance that allows it but with certain
conditions the City is allowed to place on the business such as regulating traffic, spacing between how often and where the
businesses can be located. However,there are things that cannot be prohibited such as being required to allow them to have
one full time employee in addition to the operator. She confirmed people are allowed to go to their homes to purchase the
product under certain circumstances.
Mayor/President Armenta opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m.
Brian Lewin—expressed support of the home occupation ordinance; however, in light of what's included in the new law, he
thought It would be a good idea to allow staff to review the new State Law before adopting the ordinance. He asked the status
of the commercial vehicle residential parking-permit program that was approved by Council some time ago.
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page 3 of 13
City Manager Allred replied the City Council did not approve that program explaining it was part of the strategic plan study but
the City decided not to go forward with the program.
Juan Nunez—asked if the ordinance is to bring in more revenue to the City expressing his concerns if the ordinance is
adopted.
There being no further public comments, Mayor/President Armenta closed the public hearing at 741 p.m.
Council Member/Director Ly commented that only one section of the code needed to be addressed resulting from AB 1616.
He felt the ordinance can be adopted and staff can amend that section to comply with State law.
Council MemberNice-President Low confirmed with Community Development Director Ramirez the ordinance does not
allow home businesses to hire part-time employees.
City Manager Allred stated the ordinance is consistent practice with other cities and staff does not want to encourage traffic in
residential areas.
Community Development Director Ramirez explained the idea of a home occupation business is not to change the dynamics
of a residential area. If the City allowed home occupation businesses to employ people, it can become difficult for Code
Enforcement Officers to enforce the law. She added the ordinance specifically lists occupations that the City does not want in
neighborhoods so it is easier for Code Enforcement to cite those businesses that are not allowed in residential neighborhoods
such as auto mechanics.
City Attorney Richman reiterated the options were to place the ordinance on hold; bring it back with the changes; adopt the
ordinance as is;and bring it back with the amendments,or as a separate section of the code, so it doesn't interfere with the
existing code.
Mayor/President Armenta stated there are residents that want to establish a home business and to delay the ordinance any
further could be detrimental to the City, as far as being business friendly.
ACTION: Moved by Council Member/Director Ly, and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-President Low to introduce for first
reading by title only Ordinance No. 925, adopt the Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution 2012-70.
City Attorney Richman read the title of the ordinance into the record: ORDINANCE NO. 925 AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 12-01, ADDING NEW CHAPTER 5.41 TO THE ROSEMEAD
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF HOME OCCUPATIONS;AND
AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.16, 17.20,17.24,AND 17.74 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS
The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alarcon,Armenta, Low, Ly;ABSTAIN: Clark
B. Continued—Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 11-14 8772 Valley Boulevard
Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: (1)Adopt Resolution No. 2012-02, entitled:A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 11-14 FOR A NEW ON-SALE BEER AND WINE(TYPE 41)ABC LICENSE FOR HUNAN SEAFOOD
RESTAURANT, LOCATED AT 8772 VALLEY BOULEVARD, IN THE C-3D(MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page of 13
OVERLAY)ZONE(APN:5390-001-038);and(2)Approve Conditional Use Permit 11-14 subject to the thirty-four(34)
conditions outlined in the"Conditions of Approval"document, dated December 17, 2012.
Assistant Planner Lily Trinh reviewed the staff report advising on February 14, 2012,the City Council conducted a noticed
public hearing for an appeal from the Planning Commission's decision on January 17, 2012 to deny Conditional Use Permit
11-14 for a new on-sale beer and wine(Type 41)ABC License for the Hunan Seafood Restaurant located at 8772 Valley
Boulevard. At the direction of the City Council staff met with the applicant and his consultant several times and agreed on a
revised floor plan. For this reason it is recommended the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2013-02 with findings and
approve Conditional Use Permit 11-14 subject to thirty-four(34)conditions. Ms.Trinh added the Applicant's consultant
contacted staff this morning requesting the hours of operation be changed to 10:00 a.m.to 1:30 a.m. instead of the agreed
upon hours of 8:00 a.m.to 11:00 p.m. She advised staff has discussed the change to the hours of operation with the Chief of
Police who is not in favor of this request.
Michael Lewis-representing the Applicant Tony Tan and Hunan Seafood Restaurant expressed concern with the proposed
hours of operations. He advised the hours of operation under the current permit allows the restaurant to stay open until 1:00
a.m. and staff is recommending 11:00 p.m. He noted that 1:00 a.m.would be more consistent with the service of alcohol,
which is what the applicant is requesting. He reminded the City Council that the application originally included an
entertainment license for Karaoke and dancing. The facility already has a DJ booth, stage, and dance floor and as part of the
changes being made to the project the applicant has agreed to cover the dance floor, remove the DJ booth, and make the
stage area unusable for Karaoke, on the premise that the applicant would proceed with the changes in the CUP and at some
future date come back for the entertainment license. He stated if Council would amend the condition to allow for a later
closing time the applicant would agree to close earlier to accommodate staffs concern. Until the Council approves the
entertainment license it was not likely the restaurant would stay open to 1:00 a.m. or 1:30 a.m.
City Attorney Richman explained to Mr. Lewis that the Hunan Seafood Restaurant would be required to amend their
Conditional Use Permit in order to obtain the entertainment license,anyway.
Mr. Lewis stated,in that case,the applicant requests restaurant be allowed to stay open until 1:00 a.m.as the current permit
allows.
City Manager Allred clarified that Mr. Lewis was proposing to amend Condition No.25 to indicate that in the event an
entertainment license is obtained,the hours can be extended to 1:00 a.m.
City Attorney Richman reiterated that Mr. Lewis would like language added to the Conditional Use Permit to state, "in the
event. or at such time the applicant comes back for an entertainment license, and if it's granted, the hours would change from
11:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m."
Thereafter followed a discussion between staff and Mr. Lewis regarding who approves the entertainment pert and the
Conditions of Approval.
Assistant Planner Trinh stated the restaurant does not currently have an alcohol license and therefore, the City does not
restrict the hours of operation.The applicant requested the hours of operation be from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. when he
submitted his application. Currently the business is operating from 11:00 a.m.to 1:00 a.m. However,when the applicant
obtains an alcohol license,then the Conditions of Approval will control the hours of operation.
Mayor Pro TemNice-President Low confirmed the business was going to be a restaurant that will serve alcohol. She
thought the restaurant should be allowed to stay open until 12:00 a.m. Ms. Low stated when the applicant returns for an
entertainment license,then the time can be extended to 1:30 a.m. if there haven't been any problems.
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8. 2013
Page of 13
Chief of Police Lieutenant Murakami felt a family restaurant that serves beer and wine is fine. He agreed with Ms. Low, if the
closing time is 11:00 p.m.to begin with and the applicant maintains operating the restaurant in a lawful manner,then the City
could consider extending the hours he would be opposed to approving closing time of 1:30 a.m. After being asked by Mayor
Pro TemNice President Low if he would be opposed to a closing of 12:00 a.m.. Police Chief Murakami said he would have to
think about that.
Council Member/Director Ly inquired about the hours of operation for the Sunday Cafe and TGI Friday's.
Assistant Planner Trinh responded that Sunday Café does not have an alcohol license and they can operate whatever hours
they wish. TGI Friday's has an alcohol license and operates until 2:00 a.m.
Council Member/Director Ly agreed with Mayor Pro TemNice Chair Low in extending the hours to midnight because it is
part of the downtown area and it is consistent with good restaurant use but later than that he agreed with Chief of Police
Murakami, because it is creating a night life.
Mayor/President Armenta agreed with Mayor Pro Tern Low and Council Member Ly. She expressed her thoughts that it was
too bad the City has had negative experiences with the business in the past. She mentioned she has spoken to the owner
several times and he really wants to prove to the City that he wants to be a reputable business. She agreed with extending
the closing time to 12:00 a.m.with the understanding that if they want to add the entertainment license, they are going to have
to be a good business.
Thereafter followed a discussion regarding the CUP being in effect for as long as the restaurant is in existence, adding a six
month trial period under the extended hours of operation.
City Attorney Richman confirmed a condition can be added stating the applicant return after six-months with a report from the
Chief of Police or staff,to consider whether the City Council wants to make additional changes to the Conditional Use Permit,
if no conditions were violated.
Mayor Pro TemNice-President Low confirmed with City Attorney Richman that if the applicant violates any of the conditions,
the City could retract or revoke the extended hours of operation.
City Attorney Richman replied yes,the use permit is conditional and the Council did have that ability. Staff can come back at
any time if there are any violations of the conditions. However, a revocation is an actual hearing with more substance and due
process and, there needs to be significant violations.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the City Council being the reviewing authority and the authority that would approve the
entertainment permit when the application is submitted.
Council Member/Director Clark assumed Council Member Ly was going to make the motion and requested that a review be
done in six months. Council Member Ly had no objections to adding a six month review.
Mayor/President Armenta stated staff could review and monitor the restaurant on a monthly basis.
Mr. Lewis—stated the applicant wants to work with the City and does not have any intentions other than running a very
legitimate operation. He said the applicant asked for everything he wants up front including an entertainment license. He
advised that it was going to take some time for the tenant improvements before the business can open. He asked what the
six-month review would consist of.
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page6of 13
Mayor/President Armenta advised the review would be a report from the Chief of Police and staff. Thereafter a discussion
ensued between the City Council and Mr. Lewis about the length of time to make the tenant improvements and whether they
could apply for the entertainment license at the six month review.
Community Development Director Ramirez explained the applicant will have to file for an entertainment license,which is a
separate issue and will not be part of the six month review. The applicant would be responsible for the timing of the
entertainment license application.
Mayor/President Armenta opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor/President
Armenta closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
ACTION: Moved by Council Member/Director Ly, and seconded by Mayor Pro TemNice-President Low to approve and
amend the Conditional Use Permit 11-14 with one addition to the Use Permit, Condition No.35,that the City will
conduct a review of the Conditional Use Permit within six-months and amend Condition No. 25 to extend the hours
of operation to midnight. The motion unanimously carried as follows: AYES:Alarcon, Armenta,Clark, Low, Ly
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Ly commented on Consent Calendar Item 4.0 and acknowledged Cynthia Imperial,Jay's wife who was in the
audience.
A. Claims and Demands
• Resolution No. HDC 2013-01
Recommendation:to approve Resolution No. HDC 2013-01 entitled:A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN
THE SUM OF$204,819.98 NUMBERED 1552 THROUGH 1553 INCLUSIVELY
• Resolution No. HDC 2013-02
Recommendation:to approve Resolution No. HDC 2013—02 entitled:A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN
THE SUM OF $4,072 NUMBERED 1555
• Resolution No. 2013—01
Recommendation:to approve Resolution No.2013-01 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $876,115.10 NUMBERED
79613 THROUGH 79806 INCLUSIVELY
• Resolution No. 2013—03
Recommendation:to approve Resolution No. 2013-03 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF$415,298.84 NUMBERED
79807 THROUGH 79859 INCLUSIVELY
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page 7 of 13
B. Ordinance No.926—Second Reading: General Plan Amendment 11-02,Zone Change 11-02,and Modification
12-01 -2751 Del Mar Avenue
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt at its second reading, Ordinance No. 926,entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,CALIFORNIA,APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 11-
02,CHANGING THE CURRENT DUAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM COMMERCIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION AND APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 11-02
CHANGING THE DUAL ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS FROM P(PARKING)AND R-2(LIGHT MULTIPLE
RESIDENTIAL)ZONES TO R-2(LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL)ZONE, LOCATED 2751 DEL MAR AVENUE(APN:
5285-035-047)
C. Award of Contract for Jay Imperial Park Design
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement
with Lawrence R. Moss&Associates for landscape architectural design services for Jay Imperial Park in the amount of
$63,000. Additionally, as the property is not City-owned, it is recommended that contingency funding in the amount of
$9,450(15%of proposed costs)be approved to cover any unforeseen circumstances identified through further evaluation
of the site. Thus,the total available contract amount, including possible contingencies, is not to exceed$72,450.
D. Review of Traffic Conditions at Bartlett Avenue and Loftus Drive
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the Traffic Commission's recommended improvements,including the
traffic striping and signage plan for: (1)The installation of a stop sign on Loftus Drive(heading westbound) at the
intersection of Bartlett Avenue; and (2)The installation of a yellow marked school zone crosswalk across Loftus Drive at
the intersection of Bartlett Avenue.
ACTION: Moved by Director/Council Member Ly,and seconded by Director/Council Member Clark to approve Consent
Calendar items A through D. The motion unanimously carried by the following vote: AYES: Yes:Alarcon,
Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly
5. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER&STAFF
A. Request to Participate in the 710 Coalition
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize participation in the 710 coalition, including the payment of
membership dues and execution of appropriate agreements.
City Manager Allred requested this item be deferred to another meeting to give staff an opportunity to meet with a neighboring
City who wants to discuss this issue with staff.
Brian Lewin—expressed support for the City's participation in the 710-Coalition.
Juan Nunez—asked what the financial contribution will be for the City to participate in the 710-Coalition.
City Manager Allred explained to Mr. Nunez the requested contribution for calendar year 2013 was$6,000. If Council
approves participation, the money will come from Measure R funds.
Mayor/President Armenta clarified that the 710-Coalition participation would not be funded through the City's general fund.
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8; 2013
Page8of 13
B. Water Quality Funding Initiative
Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Provide input on mandated water quality projects and costs to the City, and
(2) Receive and file this report.
Public Works Director Marcarello reviewed the staff report and PowerPoint presentation advising Council of some of the new
programs and emerging needs as it relates to water quality and the County's proposed funding initiative which is going to be
important over the next six to twelve months throughout the County of Los Angeles. He advised there is a new MS-4 Permit
for storm water. He advised Council of some of the major changes that were made to the MS-4 Permit. Mr. Marcarello
informed the Council that the City previously cooperated with the County on a County-wide permit; however the Regional
Water Quality Control Board shifted a lot of these responsibilities over to the cities which means there will be a lot more work
entailed. The next program is the increased water quality program activities such as TMDLs(Total Maximum Daily Loads),
which are strict numeric limits to certain pollutants that are in a water source,explaining there may be a TMDL for trash;
metals, and bacteria. He noted that previously the City has been using hest practices by street sweeping which most cities do
to try to move pollutants.TMDLs require taking water samples to set strict pollutant limits and once the City goes over those
limits it can be subject to significant penalties.
City Manager Allred explained the Total Maximum Daily Load determines how much metal can go into the storm drains. He
explained this is going to be an obligation of the City to monitor and limit the metal that goes into the storm drains.
Mr. Marcarello advised staff has been working regionally to address these issues. Cities are going to see significant,
additional unfunded mandates from the State as well as an increase in administrative work setting up local cooperative
agreements with neighboring cities and doing some of these things on a watershed basis. He advised the City is in the Rio
Hondo Watershed so the City is partnering with the City of San Gabriel, El Monte, Temple City,Arcadia and all of our
neighboring cities to meet some of these issues.
Management Analyst Sean Sullivan explained the City has a general fund budget of$75,000 annually for National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) related activities that contribute to water quality permits. Mr. Sullivan continued with
the PowerPoint presentation explaining Federal law dictates the State put these permits in place to comply with clean storm
water runoff. The$75,000 fund covers administrative costs, permit fees to the State, participation in regional groups, and the
City's contribution efforts in covering some of the TMDLs. He provided the City Council with some estimates of the costs
stating the City has to retrofit the 661 catch basins with screens that prevent trash from entering the water way at an estimated
cost of$500,000 to$600,000. The ongoing costs is estimated at$300,000 annually based on the need to clean the basins
out on a regular basis and maintain the infrastructure. Mr. Sullivan advised Council that the TMDLs have no compliance
points until 2016,so there is initial monitoring, plans and studies being done on a region-wide basis. The City's buy-in is
covered under the General Fund in the amount of$5,000 to$10,000 a year to pay for the professional services. Mr. Sullivan
discussed the effects the new MS-4 Permit will have in terms of costs being in the millions or higher.
Mr. Sullivan then discussed the County's work towards a Water Quality Funding Initiative which is a parcel fee to cover the
costs of water quality programs. The County would collect the fee and the cities would receive a percentage. The parcel fee
would be placed on all parcels in the County and provide a consistent and steady revenue stream for all cities in Los Angeles
County to reach the compliance points for the storm water permits. Management Analyst Sullivan explained how the County
arrived at the calculations indicating the parcel fee will range from $8 to$83 for a single family residence, but the average fee
is$54 per parcel which covers more than ninety percent of residential single family homes.
Thereafter followed a series of questions from Council Member/Board Member Clark and responses from Mr. Sullivan
regarding the parcel fee calculations and not being apportioned based on pervious to impervious land and the inability to
appeal the parcel fee.
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page9of 13
City Attorney Richman explained that under Proposition 218,the fees are established based on an engineer's estimate that
attempts to be exact, however,there are situations where the accuracy of the Engineer's Estimate can be challenged, but not
at this point.
Mayor/President Armenta confirmed this is mandated by the County and not by the City.
Management Analyst Sullivan stated that was correct, it comes on the property tax bill,collected by the County and
administered by the County.
City Attorney Richman added that is only if the measure is approved explaining the protest and ballot process to the City
Council.
Management Analyst Sullivan continued with the presentation advising the parcel fee funds would be distributed 50%to the
Watershed Authority Groups. The City is a part of the Rio Hondo Group, along with 16 other cities as well as the local
unincorporated county area; 40%to the municipalities, and 10%to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for
administration and maintaining the common infrastructure. Rosemead's direct return will be approximately$614,000. Since
no parcel is exempt so the City will be required to pay the parcel fee on the 40 parcels it owns which would be$12,000,
leaving a net of$602,000 the City will receive from the funding initiative. However the City's ongoing annual costs will exceed
that amount. He advised the County will hold the protest hearing on January 159. The election will be in the spring provided
the County does not receive a majority of protest votes at the hearing.The City will have to cast a vote on all forty parcels and
staff is looking for input regarding the storm water programs and the unfunded mandates as well as the funding initiative.
Council Member/Director Clark understood there are ninety-two Total Maximum Daily Loads that have to eventually be
removed and asked how many of those the City has addressed and if there was a time frame when all ninety-two have to be
addressed.
Public Works Director Chris Marcarello replied the City has only addressed the trash Total Maximum Daily Loads with the
catch basin inserts; noting thirty-three have been incorporated into this.
Management Analyst Sullivan added the Los Angeles County permit directly incorporates thirty-three Total Maximum Daily
Loads and the City is subject to six of them. He explained that five TMDLs are in the initial stage. He said staff is currently
working on the trash, metals and bacteria TMDLs. There were three new ones included in the permit which are nutrients,
pesticides and a chemical compound PAH. He advised the trash is the only one the City currently has that has a solid
compliance point, which is October 2016. The metals and bacteria that staff is working on now are in the development and
study stages and the reports are due in the next year. The initial steps will take place in two to three years. Staffs best guess
regarding the new TMDLs that have been included would have between four to six year implementation phases.
Council Member/Director Clark asked if the Court has made a determination as to who is responsible. City Manager Allred
advised the Supreme Council submitted a finding that cities are not responsible for point of sources. Even though the cities
are responsible in some ways,they do not have all of the responsibility.
Ron Esquivel—representing Rosemead School District, stated the School District owns five parcels and will be subject to
$35,000 a year in fees. He expressed his concerns regarding the initiative discussing how badly school districts get hit with
unfunded mandates and the suspension,on several occasions, of the Proposition 98 funds. He advised Rosemead School
District cannot afford to pay$35,000 in fees every year. He mentioned the School District submitted a protest letter in
opposition for each of their parcels. He urged the City Council not to support the Water Quality Funding Initiative.
Council Member/Board Member Ly stated the City's concern is not with the fact the City is going to receive$602,000: rather
the City's concern is that the annual cost is going to be approximately$750,000. Even if the City received that full amount,the
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page 10 of 13
City would still be short and the General Fund would have to cover$103,000 in additional unfunded mandates, and that does
not include the one-time cost of about$5 to$6 million. He noted the problem is not a County problem. The County is trying to
solve a problem that was created by the State Regional Water Quality Board. He advised that cities have attended these
meetings and voiced their opposition and the board voted unanimously to approve the permit. The problem is an unelected
board that is making decisions and passing those decisions on without strategies and without funding. Thereafter followed a
discussion between the City Council and Mr. Esquivel about the initiative and its effects on local government and school
districts.
Mayor Pro TemNice President Low expressed concern that there are people who are not aware of the initiative and asked if
the City can assist in educating residents about the initiative.
City Attorney Richman replied the City could inform residents about the initiative because it is not a City measure.
Brian Lewin—suggested the City Council direct staff to look into adopting the Los Angeles County Storm Water Code
because it is comprehensive and addresses very specific problematic behaviors that are not addressed in the City's Municipal
Code. He said the code proscribes very specific behaviors and can be used as a tool for education. He also suggested the
City Council consider an aggressive outreach program once the ordinance is in place targeting both residences and
businesses to educate them and smooth the transition into the new standards. He provided some examples that are
prohibited in the County Storm Water Code.
After a brief discussion between Mr. Lewin and Council Member/Board Member Clark about CalPoultry, Mr. Lewin
recommended the City Council direct Planning Division staff to look into incorporating more low to modest cost storm water
quality friendly provisions into the standard design requirements and conditions of approval suggesting some items that can
be included.
Mayor/President Armenta asked Mr. Lewin to email the City Council the information he mentioned.
Juan Nunez—asked for clarification on the proposed property tax bill to property owners.
Council Member/Board Member Clark expressed her concern regarding the notice that was sent to the property owners. It
did not comply with the first requirement which is to inform the public. She explained the State passed a bill that allowed
storm water to fall under Proposition 218. She said the notice was sent during the Christmas mail season, so a lot of people
did not pay attention to it and while it stated"Official Notice of a Public Hearing;" most people don't care what a public hearing
is. She felt the notice was misleading and should have stated the hearing is for a fee or tax. She said the Board of
Supervisors did not see the notice, it was prepared by the engineering staff for the Flood Control District. Her problem is if this
is the way the other things are going to be done,this is setting up a huge bureaucracy that are called Watershed Authority
Groups(WAGS). They are not made up of elected officials so there is no way you can appeal it and they will have huge power
to decide what project they will approve and what project they won't. The public will have no way of stopping them. If this is
an example of the bureaucracy they have started by deceiving the public purposely then she had no confidence that they are
going to make the right decisions on what they will allow for projects. She discussed her involvement in storm water for many
years noting that she was in Sacramento on September 119 protesting this very type of thing. She felt this was a huge
problem and to remove 92 TMDLs would have to be done in a comprehensive fashion and not peace mail. She discussed an
article in the Tribune that talks about water pollution cannot he pin pointed to a single source. She provided examples of
people putting cigarette butts on the street,changing a car's oil or antifreeze on the street and allowing some of that to leak
into the storm drain; or the person who just dumps it in the catch basin. There is always going to be people that are not going
to obey the law and those things will not be taken out by the swales and infiltration basins. And while swales and infiltration
basins will take out some of the pollution,they will not take out all of the pollution. She said there has to be an "end of the
pipe"cleaning of this. She advised of some of the proposals suggested to divert dry weather flows into treatment plants. She
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page 11 of 13
was very passionate about opposing this because it will just alienate the public so they will not vote for the right proposal later
on.
Council Member Ly proposed the City not support the initiative and that staff be present at the hearing on the 151h to explain
the City's concerns with the mandates the Regional Quality Control Board is putting on the cities. He added his
recommendation that it be expressed that the following four things need to happen: (1)there needs to be an appeal process;
(2)the majority of the watershed authority groups need to be property owners; (3)there should be an exception for new
buildings that have water collection treatments built in; and (4)there needs to be a list of projects associated with the fees. He
felt that if these four things are included, it would help to relieve some concerns.
Council MemberlBoard Member Clark totally agreed with Council Member/Board Member Ly.
Council Member Ly added that for a long time, the City has been discussing this issue with engineers who see one straight
line and he hoped on the 15th when the Board hears the matter,they will be willing to hear compromises.
Mayor Armenta directed staff to receive and fie the report.
ACTION: Moved by Council Member Clark, and seconded by Council Member Ly,who amended the motion to direct staff to
mail a protest letter in opposition to the parcel fee on all 40 parcels and include a letter with the protests outlining
the four items that Council member Ly proposed with an overall admonition that this be done in a comprehensive
manner and go back to the drawing board and do it right. The motion unanimously carried by the following vote:
AYES: Alarcon,Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly
6. MATTERS FROM MAYOR&CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Pro TemNice President Low asked if staff had addressed the City's concerns with the Lunar New Year celebration.
Parks and Recreation Director David Montgomery-Scott replied that EDI Media was given a letter addressing the City's
concerns about past issues during the Lunar New Year celebration.
Mayor Pro TemNice President Low asked how residents can be more informed about residential crimes.
Chief of Police Lieutenant Murakami stated there are no trends in specific areas of Rosemead and suggested residents be
vigilant about out of the ordinary activities and call the police.
City Manager Allred advised Council the City's overall crime has gone down and the City conducts two safety meetings for
residents and an a-alert program to keep residents informed.
Mayor/President Armenta suggested implementing a phone tree system, where all block captains stay informed.
Council Member/Director Low asked that staff contact the local newspaper and inform them about the City's adopted
Chinese translation of the name Rosemead.
City Manager Allred replied staff would send a press release.
Council Member/Director Clark expressed concerns that the City needs to enforce the issue of dog feces on lawns and
parkways and keep the fecal matter from going into the storm drains.
City Manager Allred stated that information would be added to the City's newsletter, e-alerts and Facebook page.
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page 12 of 13
Mayor/President Armenta reported she attended a conference and met with legislators and spoke about realignment, local
control with unfunded mandates and discussions on Proposition 30.
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council Mayor Armenta adjourned the meeting in memory of the
Sandy Hook Elementary victims, at 9:40 p.m.The next regular City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on January 22,
2013 at 7:00 p.m.
Carol Cowley. Interim City Clerk
APPROVED:
Sandra Armenta Mayor
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page 13 of 13
MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
JANUARY 8,2013
The regular joint meeting of the Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council was called to order by Mayor
Armenia at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member/Director Alarcon
INVOCATION: Council Member/Director Clark
PRESENT: Mayor/President Armenta, Mayor Pro TemNice President Low, Council Members/Directors Alarcon, Clark, and Ly
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman,Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth,Community
Development Director Ramirez, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott, Public Works Director Marcarello,
Management Analyst Sullivan and City Clerk Molleda.
1. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Ron Esquivel—invited the City Council to the Educational Foundation's second Annual Casino Night fundraising event on
March 161h from 6:30 pm to 11:00 p.m.
Lanny Alplanalp—expressed concern regarding abandoned shopping carts on Muscatel Avenue. He mentioned that he
made flyers to hand out to people who leave shopping carts on streets and gave each Council Member a flyer. Mr.Alplanalp
stated that foreign language has made it difficult to communicate and asked if the City could have the flyer or something
similar translated into the languages commonly used in Rosemead and make it available so that when he hands the flyers out,
the people will understand what it says.
Mayor/President Armenta responded that the residents need to know it is a violation and suggested Mr.Alplanalp report the
location of the abandoned shopping carts to Code Enforcement Officers.
Council Member/Director Alarcon stated that residents can also call the company the City contracts with to report
abandoned shopping carts and they will pick them up.
Pat Trujillo—inquired about the tree project on her street and the type of trees that are being planted.
Mayor/President Armenta explained that the tree-planting project consisted of replacement of diseased trees with new trees.
Public Works Director Marcarello advised the tree planting project was taking place along Muscatel Avenue, Ivar from
Marshall Avenue to Mission Drive. He stated that all diseased trees would be replaced with Crape Myrtle trees.
2. PRESENTATION
• Proclamation on the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance(VITA) Program and the federal Earned Income Tax
Credit(EITC)
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2073
Page 1 of 13
City Council presented a proclamation encouraging all qualified City residents to take advantage of the Volunteer Income Tax
Assistance Program(VITA)and the Federal Earned Income Tax Credit. She explained that anyone earning less than $51,000
per year may qualify for up to$5,891 in earned income tax credit(EITC)which can be used to lower their income taxes or
increase their income tax refund. She advised of the free income tax services being offered and where the events will be held.
Juan Nunez—asked if the City had a barking dog ordinance and commented on the City of Los Angeles'ordinance and
penalties. He advised that his neighbor's dogs bark continuously. He confirmed that he called Animal Control but nothing has
been done.
Mayor/President Armenta stated the City's noise ordinance includes dog barking.
City Manager Allred suggested that Mr. Nunez meet with Public Safety staff.
Council Member/Director Clark asked what the fines for violation of the barking dog ordinance is and if staff keeps a log of
fines collected. She stated that she has had complaints from other people and she was concerned as to whether the
procedures being followed by Code Enforcement was effective. She felt the City needs to crack down on this issue.
City Manager Allred responded that fines can be up to a thousand dollars for repeated offenses. Mr. Allred confirmed he
made some notes as to what the City of Los Angeles was doing and staff would discuss it tomorrow at the staff meeting.
Mr. Nunez—asked what can be done about residents who do not put away their trash cans after the trash was picked up.
Mayor/President Armenia explained to Mr. Nunez that the City has an ordinance that addresses trash cans and suggested
Mr. Nunez use the City's Round the Clock service to report issues to the appropriate department. Ms. Armenta asked who
residents call for animal issues after hours.
Chief of Police Lieutenant Tim Murakami stated residents can contact the Public Safety Center or call the Baldwin Park Animal
Shelter after hours.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued—Municipal Code Amendment 12-01,Amending the Rosemead Municipal Code to Add
Regulations Pertaining to the Licensing and Operation of Home Occupations in the City of Rosemead
Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: (1) Conduct a public hearing and take public
testimony; (2) Introduce for First Reading, by title only, Ordinance No.925, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,CALIFORNIA,APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 12-01,
ADDING NEW CHAPTER 5.41 TO THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE LICENSING AND
REGULATION OF HOME OCCUPATIONS;AND AMENDING CHAPTERS 17,16, 17.20, 17.24,AND 17.74 OF THE
ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS; (3)
Adopt the Negative Declaration as the CEQA determination for the project; and (4)Adopt Resolution No.2012-70,
entitled:A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA,ADDING A HOME
OCCUPATION BUSINESS LICENSE FEE
City Manager Allred requested the ordinance for Home Occupation Businesses be deferred to allow staff to make sure the
ordinance complies with new State Law resulting from passage of AB 1616 which impacts this issue.
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8. 2013
Page of 13
Community Development Director Michelle Ramirez explained that AB1616 will affect home businesses that are categorized
as cottage foods, which are foods that people grow on their property or cook on their property,that are not chemically
enhanced.
Council Member/Director Ly expressed concern that this ordinance has been delayed for over six years and if the Planning
Commission does not meet until February, it would be March before any action is taken.
Community Development Director Michelle Ramirez recommended the Public Hearing be opened and closed,and be brought
back at a later date to give staff time to review A81616 in order to insure the City's ordinance was not in conflict with the new
law.
Council Member/Director Ly confirmed that under the City's current ordinance, residents could not operate any type of
business out of their home.
Council Member/Director Clark agreed with staff in deferring the item to a future meeting.
Mayor Pro TemNice-President Low questioned whether the ordinance would have to go back to the Planning Commission
before it comes back to Council,after staff reviews the new State Law AB 1616. She asked if it was possible to adopt the
Ordinance as is,and amend it at a later date, if there are any changes to be made based on the new law.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied the ordinance could be adopted,and if an applicant applied for a business
license dealing with cottage foods,they would be exempt from this ordinance because staff would have to obey State law.
She explained State law pre-empts the City's ordinance. Ms. Ramirez explained further that one conflict is the current
ordinance requires that the applicant has to live or reside in the home in order to operate a home occupation.According to the
cottage food AB 1616, the applicant can have employees that do not live in the home. Staff has to address specific issues for
the cottage food businesses mentioning there is also some language dealing with parking. She explained these issues would
have to be included and applied only to the cottage food section of the ordinance.
Council Member/Board Member Clark clarified that AB 1616 was allowing people to come into a home and process food in
a home catering business.
City Attorney Richman responded that catering is not a good description for this law. She stated them is a long list of food
types that can be made in the home and they have to be the types of food that are considered non-dangerous in the sense
they can't grow bacteria or things like that. She mentioned some of the foods. She said if the ordinance is not in place we
have to allow them in residential uses. The benefit is the City can have some regulations. She confirmed the Bill provides
three options: It has to be allowed in residential uses; or the City can pass an ordinance that allows it but with certain
conditions the City is allowed to place on the business such as regulating traffic, spacing between how often and where the
businesses can be located. However, there are things that cannot be prohibited such as being required to allow them to have
one full time employee in addition to the operator. She confirmed people are allowed to go to their homes to purchase the
product under certain circumstances.
Mayor/President Armenta opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m.
Brian Lewin—expressed support of the home occupation ordinance; however, in light of what's included in the new law, he
thought It would be a good idea to allow staff to review the new State Law before adopting the ordinance. He asked the status
of the commercial vehicle residential parking-permit program that was approved by Council some time ago.
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page of 13
City Manager Allred replied the City Council did not approve that program explaining it was part of the strategic plan study but
the City decided not to go forward with the program.
Juan Nunez—asked if the ordinance is to bring in more revenue to the City expressing his concerns if the ordinance is
adopted.
There being no further public comments, Mayor/President Armenta closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m.
Council Member/Director Ly commented that only one section of the code needed to be addressed resulting from AB 1616.
He felt the ordinance can be adopted and staff can amend that section to comply with State law.
Council MemberNice-President Low confirmed with Community Development Director Ramirez the ordinance does not
allow home businesses to hire part-time employees.
City Manager Allred stated the ordinance is consistent practice with other cities and staff does not want to encourage traffic in
residential areas.
Community Development Director Ramirez explained the idea of a home occupation business is not to change the dynamics
of a residential area. If the City allowed home occupation businesses to employ people, it can become difficult for Code
Enforcement Officers to enforce the law. She added the ordinance specifically lists occupations that the City does not want in
neighborhoods so it is easier for Code Enforcement to cite those businesses that are not allowed in residential neighborhoods
such as auto mechanics.
City Attorney Richman reiterated the options were to place the ordinance on hold; bring it back with the changes, adopt the
ordinance as is;and bring it back with the amendments, or as a separate section of the code, so it doesn't interfere with the
existing code.
Mayor/President Armenta stated there are residents that want to establish a home business and to delay the ordinance any
further could be detrimental to the City,as far as being business friendly.
ACTION: Moved by Council Member/Director Ly, and seconded by Mayor Pro TemNice-President Low to introduce for first
reading by title only Ordinance No. 925, adopt the Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution 2012-70.
City Attorney Richman read the title of the ordinance into the record: ORDINANCE NO. 925 AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 12.01,ADDING NEW CHAPTER 5.41 TO THE ROSEMEAD
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF HOME OCCUPATIONS;AND
AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.16, 17.20, 17.24,AND 17.74 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS
The motion carried by the following roll call vote:AYES: Alarcon, Armenta, Low, Ly; ABSTAIN: Clark
B. Continued—Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 11-14 8772 Valley Boulevard
Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: (1)Adopt Resolution No. 2012-02, entitled: A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,CALIFORNIA,APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 11-14 FOR A NEW ON-SALE BEER AND WINE(TYPE 41)ABC LICENSE FOR HUNAN SEAFOOD
RESTAURANT, LOCATED AT 8772 VALLEY BOULEVARD, IN THE C-3D(MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8. 2013
Page 4 of 13
OVERLAY)ZONE(APR: 5390-001-038); and (2)Approve Conditional Use Permit 11-14 subject to the thirty-four(34)
conditions outlined in the"Conditions of Approval"document,dated December 17,2012.
Assistant Planner Lily Trinh reviewed the staff report advising on February 14, 2012,the City Council conducted a noticed
public hearing for an appeal from the Planning Commission's decision on January 17, 2012 to deny Conditional Use Permit
11-14 for a new on-sale beer and wine(Type 41)ABC License for the Hunan Seafood Restaurant located at 8772 Valley
Boulevard. At the direction of the City Council staff met with the applicant and his consultant several times and agreed on a
revised floor plan. For this reason it is recommended the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2013-02 with findings and
approve Conditional Use Permit 11-14 subject to thirty-four(34)conditions. Ms. Trinh added the Applicant's consultant
contacted staff this morning requesting the hours of operation be changed to 10:00 a.m.to 1:30 a.m. instead of the agreed
upon hours of 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. She advised staff has discussed the change to the hours of operation with the Chief of
Police who is not in favor of this request.
Michael Lewis-representing the Applicant Tony Tan and Hunan Seafood Restaurant expressed concern with the proposed
hours of operations. He advised the hours of operation under the current permit allows the restaurant to stay open until 1:00
a.m. and staff is recommending 11:00 p.m. He noted that 1:00 a.m.would be more consistent with the service of alcohol,
which is what the applicant is requesting. He reminded the City Council that the application originally included an
entertainment license for Karaoke and dancing. The facility already has a DJ booth, stage, and dance floor and as part of the
changes being made to the project the applicant has agreed to cover the dance floor, remove the DJ booth, and make the
stage area unusable for Karaoke,on the premise that the applicant would proceed with the changes in the CUP and at some
future date come back for the entertainment license. He stated if Council would amend the condition to allow for a later
closing time the applicant would agree to close earlier to accommodate staffs concern. Until the Council approves the
entertainment license it was not likely the restaurant would stay open to 1:00 a.m.or 1:30 a.m.
City Attorney Richman explained to Mr. Lewis that the Hunan Seafood Restaurant would be required to amend their
Conditional Use Permit in order to obtain the entertainment license,anyway.
Mr. Lewis stated, in that case,the applicant requests restaurant be allowed to stay open until 1:00 a.m. as the current permit
allows.
City Manager Allred clarified that Mr. Lewis was proposing to amend Condition No. 25 to indicate that in the event an
entertainment license is obtained, the hours can be extended to 1:00 a.m.
City Attorney Richman reiterated that Mr. Lewis would like language added to the Conditional Use Permit to state,"in the
event, or at such time the applicant comes back for an entertainment license, and if its granted, the hours would change from
11:00 p.m. to 1:30 am:
Thereafter followed a discussion between staff and Mr. Lewis regarding who approves the entertainment pert and the
Conditions of Approval.
Assistant Planner Trinh stated the restaurant does not currently have an alcohol license and therefore, the City does not
restrict the hours of operation.The applicant requested the hours of operation be from 8:00 a.m.to 11:00 p.m. when he
submitted his application. Currently the business is operating from 11:00 a.m.to 1:00 a.m. However,when the applicant
obtains an alcohol license,then the Conditions of Approval will control the hours of operation.
Mayor Pro TemNice-President Low confirmed the business was going to be a restaurant that will serve alcohol. She
thought the restaurant should be allowed to stay open until 12:00 a.m. Ms. Low stated when the applicant returns for an
entertainment license,then the time can be extended to 130 a.m. if there haven't been any problems.
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8. 2013
Page 5 of 13
Chief of Police Lieutenant Murakami felt a family restaurant that serves beer and wine is fine. He agreed with Ms. Low, if the
closing time is 11:00 p.m. to begin with and the applicant maintains operating the restaurant in a lawful manner,then the City
could consider extending the hours he would be opposed to approving closing time of 130 a.m. After being asked by Mayor
Pro TemNice President Low if he would be opposed to a closing of 12:00 a.m., Police Chief Murakami said he would have to
think about that.
Council Member/Director Ly inquired about the hours of operation for the Sunday Cafe and TGI Friday's.
Assistant Planner Trinh responded that Sunday Cafe does not have an alcohol license and they can operate whatever hours
they wish. TGI Friday's has an alcohol license and operates until 2:00 a.m.
Council Member/Director Ly agreed with Mayor Pro TemNice Chair Low in extending the hours to midnight because it is
part of the downtown area and it is consistent with good restaurant use but later than that he agreed with Chief of Police
Murakami, because it is creating a night life.
Mayor/President Armenta agreed with Mayor Pro Tem Low and Council Member Ly. She expressed her thoughts that it was
too bad the City has had negative experiences with the business in the past. She mentioned she has spoken to the owner
several times and he really wants to prove to the City that he wants to be a reputable business. She agreed with extending
the closing time to 12:00 a.m.with the understanding that if they want to add the entertainment license,they are going to have
to be a good business.
Thereafter followed a discussion regarding the CUP being in effect for as long as the restaurant is in existence,adding a six
month trial period under the extended hours of operation.
City Attorney Richman confirmed a condition can be added stating the applicant return after six-months with a report from the
Chief of Police or staff, to consider whether the City Council wants to make additional changes to the Conditional Use Permit,
if no conditions were violated.
Mayor Pro TemNice-President Low confirmed with City Attorney Richman that if the applicant violates any of the conditions,
the City could retractor revoke the extended hours of operation.
City Attorney Richman replied yes,the use permit is conditional and the Council did have that ability. Staff can come back at
any time if there are any violations of the conditions. However, a revocation is an actual hearing with more substance and due
process and,there needs to be significant violations.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the City Council being the reviewing authority and the authority that would approve the
entertainment permit when the application is submitted.
Council Member/Director Clark assumed Council Member Ly was going to make the motion and requested that a review be
done in six months. Council Member Ly had no objections to adding a six month review.
Mayor/President Armenta stated staff could review and monitor the restaurant on a monthly basis.
Mr. Lewis—stated the applicant wants to work with the City and does not have any intentions other than running a very
legitimate operation. He said the applicant asked for everything he wants up front including an entertainment license. He
advised that it was going to take some time for the tenant improvements before the business can open. He asked what the
six-month review would consist of.
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page 6 of 13
Mayor/President Armenta advised the review would be a report from the Chief of Police and staff. Thereafter a discussion
ensued between the City Council and Mr. Lewis about the length of time to make the tenant improvements and whether they
could apply for the entertainment license at the six month review.
Community Development Director Ramirez explained the applicant will have to file for an entertainment license,which is a
separate issue and will not be part of the six month review. The applicant would be responsible for the timing of the
entertainment license application.
Mayor/President Armenta opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor/President
Armenta closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
ACTION: Moved by Council Member/Director Ly,and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-President Low to approve and
amend the Conditional Use Permit 11-14 with one addition to the Use Permit, Condition No. 35,that the City will
conduct a review of the Conditional Use Permit within six-months and amend Condition No. 25 to extend the hours
of operation to midnight.The motion unanimously carried as follows: AYES:Alarcon,Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Ly commented on Consent Calendar Item 4.0 and acknowledged Cynthia Imperial, Jay's wife who was in the
audience.
A. Claims and Demands
• Resolution No. HDC 2013—01
Recommendation:to approve Resolution No. HDC 2013-01 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN
THE SUM OF $204,819.98 NUMBERED 1552 THROUGH 1553 INCLUSIVELY
• Resolution No. HDC 2013-02
Recommendation:to approve Resolution No. HDC 2013—02 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN
THE SUM OF $4,072 NUMBERED 1555
• Resolution No. 2013-01
Recommendation:to approve Resolution No, 2013-01 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF$876,115.10 NUMBERED
79613 THROUGH 79806 INCLUSIVELY
• Resolution No.2013—03
Recommendation:to approve Resolution No.2013—03 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF$415,298.84 NUMBERED
79807 THROUGH 79859 INCLUSIVELY
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page 7 of 13
B. Ordinance No.926—Second Reading: General Plan Amendment 11-02,Zone Change 11-02, and Modification
12.01 -2751 Del Mar Avenue
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt at its second reading, Ordinance No.926,entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 11-
02, CHANGING THE CURRENT DUAL LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM COMMERCIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION AND APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 11-02
CHANGING THE DUAL ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS FROM P(PARKING)AND R-2(LIGHT MULTIPLE
RESIDENTIAL)ZONES TO R-2(LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL)ZONE, LOCATED 2751 DEL MAR AVENUE(APN:
5285-035-047)
C. Award of Contract for Jay Imperial Park Design
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement
with Lawrence R. Moss&Associates for landscape architectural design services for Jay Imperial Park in the amount of
563,000. Additionally, as the property is not City-owned, it is recommended that contingency funding in the amount of
59,450 (15%of proposed costs) be approved to cover any unforeseen circumstances identified through further evaluation
of the site. Thus,the total available contract amount, including possible contingencies, is not to exceed $72,450.
D. Review of Traffic Conditions at Bartlett Avenue and Loftus Drive
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the Traffic Commission's recommended improvements, including the
traffic striping and signage plan for: (1) The installation of a stop sign on Loftus Drive(heading westbound)at the
intersection of Bartlett Avenue;and (2) The installation of a yellow marked school zone crosswalk across Loftus Drive at
the intersection of Bartlett Avenue.
ACTION: Moved by Director/Council Member Ly, and seconded by Director/Council Member Clark to approve Consent
Calendar items A through D. The motion unanimously carried by the following vote: AYES:Yes:Alarcon,
Armenta,Clark, Low, Ly
5. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER&STAFF
A. Request to Participate in the 710 Coalition
Recommendation: That the City Council authorize participation in the 710 coalition, including the payment of
membership dues and execution of appropriate agreements.
City Manager Allred requested this item be deferred to another meeting to give staff an opportunity to meet with a neighboring
City who wants to discuss this issue with staff.
Brian Lewin—expressed support for the City's participation in the 710-Coalition.
Juan Nunez—asked what the financial contribution will be for the City to participate in the 710-Coalition.
City Manager Allred explained to Mr. Nunez the requested contribution for calendar year 2013 was$6,000. If Council
approves participation,the money will come from Measure R funds.
Mayor/President Armenta clarified that the 710-Coalition participation would not be funded through the City's general fund.
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page 8 of 13
B. Water Quality Funding Initiative
Recommendation: That the City Council: (1) Provide input on mandated water quality projects and costs to the City;and
(2)Receive and file this report.
Public Works Director Marcarello reviewed the staff report and PowerPoint presentation advising Council of some of the new
programs and emerging needs as it relates to water quality and the County's proposed funding initiative which is going to be
important over the next six to twelve months throughout the County of Los Angeles. He advised there is a new MS-4 Permit
for storm water. He advised Council of some of the major changes that were made to the MS-4 Permit. Mr. Marcarello
informed the Council that the City previously cooperated with the County on a County-wide permit however the Regional
Water Quality Control Board shifted a lot of these responsibilities over to the cities which means there will be a lot more work
entailed. The next program is the increased water quality program activities such as TMDLs(Total Maximum Daily Loads),
which are strict numeric limits to certain pollutants that are in a water source, explaining there may be a TMDL for trash,
metals, and bacteria. He noted that previously the City has been using best practices by street sweeping which most cities do
to try to move pollutants. TMDLs require taking water samples to set strict pollutant limits and once the City goes over those
limits it can be subject to significant penalties.
City Manager Allred explained the Total Maximum Daily Load determines how much metal can go into the storm drains. He
explained this is going to be an obligation of the City to monitor and limit the metal that goes into the storm drains.
Mr. Marcarello advised staff has been working regionally to address these issues. Cities are going to see significant,
additional unfunded mandates from the State as well as an increase in administrative work setting up local cooperative
agreements with neighboring cities and doing some of these things on a watershed basis. He advised the City is in the Rio
Hondo Watershed so the City is partnering with the City of San Gabriel, El Monte, Temple City,Arcadia and all of our
neighboring cities to meet some of these issues.
Management Analyst Sean Sullivan explained the City has a general fund budget of$75,000 annually for National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)related activities that contribute to water quality permits. Mr. Sullivan continued with
the PowerPoint presentation explaining Federal law dictates the State put these permits in place to comply with clean storm
water runoff. The$75,000 fund covers administrative costs, permit fees to the State, participation in regional groups, and the
City's contribution efforts in covering some of the TMDLs. He provided the City Council with some estimates of the costs
stating the City has to retrofit the 661 catch basins with screens that prevent trash from entering the water way at an estimated
cost of$500,000 to$600,000. The ongoing costs is estimated at$300,000 annually based on the need to clean the basins
out on a regular basis and maintain the infrastructure. Mr. Sullivan advised Council that the TMDLs have no compliance
points until 2016,so there is initial monitoring, plans and studies being done on a region-wide basis. The City's buy-in is
covered under the General Fund in the amount of S5,000 to$10,000 a year to pay for the professional services. Mr. Sullivan
discussed the effects the new MS-4 Permit will have in terms of costs being in the millions or higher.
Mr. Sullivan then discussed the County's work towards a Water Quality Funding Initiative which is a parcel fee to cover the
costs of water quality programs. The County would collect the fee and the cities would receive a percentage. The parcel fee
would be placed on all parcels in the County and provide a consistent and steady revenue stream for all cities in Los Angeles
County to reach the compliance points for the storm water permits. Management Analyst Sullivan explained how the County
arrived at the calculations indicating the parcel fee will range from S8 to$83 for a single family residence, but the average fee
is$54 per parcel which covers more than ninety percent of residential single family homes.
Thereafter followed a series of questions from Council Member/Board Member Clark and responses from Mr. Sullivan
regarding the parcel fee calculations and not being apportioned based on pervious to impervious land and the inability to
appeal the parcel fee.
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8. 2013
Page 9 of 13
City Attorney Richman explained that under Proposition 218, the fees are established based on an engineer's estimate that
attempts to be exact, however, there are situations where the accuracy of the Engineer's Estimate can be challenged, but not
at this point.
MayorlPresident Armenta confirmed this is mandated by the County and not by the City.
Management Analyst Sullivan stated that was correct, it comes on the property tax bill, collected by the County and
administered by the County.
City Attorney Richman added that is only if the measure is approved explaining the protest and ballot process to the City
Council.
Management Analyst Sullivan continued with the presentation advising the parcel fee funds would be distributed 50%to the
Watershed Authority Groups. The City is a part of the Rio Hondo Group, along with 16 other cities as well as the local
unincorporated county area;40%to the municipalities;and 10%to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for
administration and maintaining the common infrastructure. Rosemead's direct return will be approximately$614,000. Since
no parcel is exempt so the City will be required to pay the parcel fee on the 40 parcels it owns which would be$12,000,
leaving a net of 5602,000 the City will receive from the funding initiative. However the City's ongoing annual costs will exceed
that amount. He advised the County will hold the protest hearing on January 151h. The election will be in the spring provided
the County does not receive a majority of protest votes at the hearing. The City will have to cast a vote on all forty parcels and
staff is looking for input regarding the storm water programs and the unfunded mandates as well as the funding initiative.
Council Member/Director Clark understood there are ninety-two Total Maximum Daily Loads that have to eventually be
removed and asked how many of those the City has addressed and if there was a time frame when all ninety-two have to be
addressed.
Public Works Director Chris Marcare llo replied the City has only addressed the trash Total Maximum Daily Loads with the
catch basin inserts; noting thirty-three have been incorporated into this.
Management Analyst Sullivan added the Los Angeles County permit directly incorporates thirty-three Total Maximum Daily
Loads and the City is subject to six of them. He explained that five TMDLs are in the initial stage. He said staff is currently
working on the trash, metals and bacteria TMDLs. There were three new ones included in the permit which are nutrients,
pesticides and a chemical compound PAH. He advised the trash is the only one the City currently has that has a solid
compliance point,which is October 2016. The metals and bacteria that staff is working on now are in the development and
study stages and the reports are due in the next year. The initial steps will take place in two to three years. Staffs best guess
regarding the new TMDLs that have been included would have between four to six year implementation phases.
Council Member/Director Clark asked if the Court has made a determination as to who is responsible. City Manager Allred
advised the Supreme Council submitted a finding that cities are not responsible for point of sources. Even though the cities
are responsible in some ways,they do not have all of the responsibility.
Ron Esquivel—representing Rosemead School District, stated the School District owns five parcels and will be subject to
$35,000 a year in fees. He expressed his concerns regarding the initiative discussing how badly school districts get hit with
unfunded mandates and the suspension,on several occasions, of the Proposition 98 funds. He advised Rosemead School
District cannot afford to pay$35,000 in fees every year. He mentioned the School District submitted a protest letter in
opposition for each of their parcels. He urged the City Council not to support the Water Quality Funding Initiative.
Council Member/Board Member Ly stated the City's concern is not with the fact the City is going to receive$602.000; rather
the City's concern is that the annual cost is going to be approximately$750,000. Even if the City received that full amount,the
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page 10 of 13
City would still be short and the General Fund would have to cover$103,000 in additional unfunded mandates, and that does
not include the one-time cost of about$5 to$6 million. He noted the problem is not a County problem. The County is trying to
solve a problem that was created by the State Regional Water Quality Board. He advised that cities have attended these
meetings and voiced their opposition and the board voted unanimously to approve the permit. The problem is an unelected
board that is making decisions and passing those decisions on without strategies and without funding. Thereafter followed a
discussion between the City Council and Mr. Esquivel about the initiative and its effects on local government and school
districts.
Mayor Pro TemNice President Low expressed concern that there are people who are not aware of the initiative and asked if
the City can assist in educating residents about the initiative.
City Attorney Richman replied the City could inform residents about the initiative because it is not a City measure.
Brian Lewin—suggested the City Council direct staff to look into adopting the Los Angeles County Storm Water Code
because it is comprehensive and addresses very specific problematic behaviors that are not addressed in the City's Municipal
Code. He said the code proscribes very specific behaviors and can be used as a tool for education. He also suggested the
City Council consider an aggressive outreach program once the ordinance is in place targeting both residences and
businesses to educate them and smooth the transition into the new standards. He provided some examples that are
prohibited in the County Storm Water Code.
After a brief discussion between Mr. Lewin and Council MemberBoard Member Clark about CalPoultry, Mr. Lewin
recommended the City Council direct Planning Division staff to look into incorporating more low to modest cost storm water
quality friendly provisions into the standard design requirements and conditions of approval suggesting some items that can
be included.
Mayor/President Armenta asked Mr. Lewin to email the City Council the information he mentioned.
Juan Nunez—asked for clarification on the proposed property tax bill to properly owners.
Council Member/Board Member Clark expressed her concern regarding the notice that was sent to the property owners. It
did not comply with the first requirement which is to inform the public. She explained the State passed a bill that allowed
storm water to fall under Proposition 218. She said the notice was sent during the Christmas mail season,so a lot of people
did not pay attention to it and while it stated'Official Notice of a Public Hearing;'most people don't care what a public hearing
is. She felt the notice was misleading and should have stated the hearing is for a fee or tax. She said the Board of
Supervisors did not see the notice, it was prepared by the engineering staff for the Flood Control District. Her problem is if this
is the way the other things are going to be done,this is setting up a huge bureaucracy that are called Watershed Authority
Groups(WAGs). They are not made up of elected officials so there is no way you can appeal it and they will have huge power
to decide what project they will approve and what project they won't. The public will have no way of stopping them. If this is
an example of the bureaucracy they have started by deceiving the public purposely then she had no confidence that they are
going to make the right decisions on what they will allow for projects. She discussed her involvement in storm water for many
years noting that she was in Sacramento on September 111h protesting this very type of thing. She felt this was a huge
problem and to remove 92 TMDLs would have to be done in a comprehensive fashion and not peace mail. She discussed an
article in the Tribune that talks about water pollution cannot be pin pointed to a single source. She provided examples of
people putting cigarette butts on the street,changing a car's oil or antifreeze on the street and allowing some of that to leak
into the storm drain; or the person who just dumps it in the catch basin. There is always going to be people that are not going
to obey the law and those things will not be taken out by the swales and infiltration basins. And while swales and infiltration
basins will take out some of the pollution,they will not take out all of the pollution. She said there has to be an'end of the
pipe"cleaning of this. She advised of some of the proposals suggested to divert dry weather flows into treatment plants. She
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8, 2013
Page 11 of 13
was very passionate about opposing this because it will just alienate the public so they will not vote for the right proposal later
on.
Council Member Ly proposed the City not support the initiative and that staff be present at the hearing on the 15th to explain
the City's concerns with the mandates the Regional Quality Control Board is putting on the cities. He added his
recommendation that it be expressed that the following four things need to happen: (1)there needs to be an appeal process;
(2)the majority of the watershed authority groups need to be property owners; (3)there should be an exception for new
buildings that have water collection treatments built in;and (4)there needs to be a list of projects associated with the fees. He
felt that if these four things are included, it would help to relieve some concerns.
Council Member/Board Member Clark totally agreed with Council Member/Board Member Ly.
Council Member Ly added that for a long time, the City has been discussing this issue with engineers who see one straight
line and he hoped on the 15th when the Board hears the matter, they will be willing to hear compromises.
Mayor Armenta directed staff to receive and file the report.
ACTION: Moved by Council Member Clark, and seconded by Council Member Ly,who amended the motion to direct staff to
mail a protest letter in opposition to the parcel fee on all 40 parcels and include a letter with the protests outlining
the four items that Council member Ly proposed with an overall admonition that this be done in a comprehensive
manner and go back to the drawing board and do it right.The motion unanimously carded by the following vote:
AYES: Alarcon,Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly
6. MATTERS FROM MAYOR&CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Pro TemNice President Low asked if staff had addressed the City's concerns with the Lunar New Year celebration.
Parks and Recreation Director David Montgomery-Scott replied that EDI Media was given a letter addressing the City's
concerns about past issues during the Lunar New Year celebration.
Mayor Pro TemNice President Low asked how residents can be more informed about residential crimes.
Chief of Police Lieutenant Murakami stated there are no trends in specific areas of Rosemead and suggested residents be
vigilant about out of the ordinary activities and call the police.
City Manager Allred advised Council the City's overall crime has gone down and the City conducts two safety meetings for
residents and an e-alert program to keep residents informed.
Mayor/President Armenta suggested implementing a phone tree system, where all block captains stay informed.
Council Member/Director Low asked that staff contact the local newspaper and inform them about the City's adopted
Chinese translation of the name Rosemead.
City Manager Allred replied staff would send a press release.
Council Member/Director Clark expressed concerns that the City needs to enforce the issue of dog feces on lawns and
parkways and keep the fecal matter from going into the storm drains.
City Manager Allred stated that information would be added to the City's newsletter, e-alerts and Facebook page.
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 8; 2013
Page 12 of 13
Mayor/President Armenta reported she attended a conference and met with legislators and spoke about realignment, local
control with unfunded mandates and discussions on Proposition 30.
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the City Council Mayor Armenta adjourned the meeting in memory of the
Sandy Hook Elementary victims, at 9:40 p.m. The next regular City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on January 22,
2013 at 7:00 p.m.
Carol Cowley, Interim City Clerk
APPROVED:
Sandra Armenta Mayor
Rosemead Housing Development Corporation and City Council Joint Meeting
Minutes of January 0 2013
Page 13 of 13