Loading...
CDC - Item 2A - Minutes 9-25-07Minutes of the Regular Meeting ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION September 25, 2007 Chairman Tran called the regular meeting of the Rosemead Community Development Commission to order at 6:02 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, at 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The pledge to the flag was led by Chairman Tran and Commissioner Clark led the invocation. ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Commissioners Clark, Low, Taylor Vice-Chairman Nunez, Chairman Tran Absent: None 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Resolution No. 2007-19 Claims and Demands Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2007-19 for payment of Commission expenditures in the amount of $23,891.57 demands 9306 through 9310. B. Minutes September 11, 2007 - Regular Meeting C. Acceptance of Bids and Award of Contract for Traffic Signal Improvements at Del Mar and Graves Avenue On September 6, 2007, bids were received for the subject project, which provides for left-turn phasing in the north-south direction at the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Graves Avenue. The Community Development Commission will consider award of the contract to Steiny and Company, Inc., in the amount of $76,350. Recommendation: That the Community Development Commission accept all bids and award the project to Steiny and Company, Inc. in the amount of $76,350 and authorize the Chairman to sign the contract on behalf of the Commission. Rosemead Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2007 Page 1 of 13 • Vice-Chairman Nunez made a motion with a second by Commissioner Low to approve Consent Calendar items A, B, and C. Vote resulted: Yes: Clark, Low, Nunez, Taylor, Tran No: None Absent: None Abstain: None D. Engineering Proposal for Sewer System Management Plan In accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, public agencies are required to develop and implement a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) and schedule to properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system, and mitigate any sewer overflows that may occur Recommendation: that the Community Development Commission approve the engineering proposal from Willdan and direct staff to begin development of the Sewer System Management Plan Item D was pulled by Executive Director Chi due to attorney advice. 3. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS - None 4. MATTERS FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & STAFF A. Study Session - Mobile Home Park Existing mobilehome parks are an important part of the affordable housing stock in the City of Rosemead. The City understands that existing parks are coming under economic pressure to convert to more profitable land uses or to subdivide into mobilehome condominium lots. However, the City also understands that park residents could be displaced as a result of a mobilehome park conversion. These residents may be unable to find space in other parks to move their home to or unable to afford the move even if a space was available. The City desires to protect the park residents from unreasonable evictions and undue financial hardship caused by a mobilehome park conversion. At the same time, the City desires to recognize the rights of park owners to pursue changes in land use. As a result of these issues, the City is drafting an ordinance to regulate mobilehome park conversion proposals. The proposed ordinance, which will be discussed this evening, will Rosemead Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2007 Page 2 of 13 establish both the procedural and substantive requirements for applications to close or convert existing mobilehome parks. Economic Development Director Ramirez presented information to the Commission regarding the proposed Ordinance to regulate mobilehome park conversions. Ms. Ramirez reported the City hopes to protect mobilehome owners from unreasonable evictions/undue financial hardships and also recognize the rights of park owners to pursue changes in land use. Ms. Ramirez indicated State Government Code provides basic conversion requirements. The City ordinance is required because State code leaves some discretion to the City in regards to content of applications and procedures. Ms. Ramirez reported conversion codes from 15 cities/counties were reviewed prior to creation of the City's draft ordinance for Commission review. Commissioners Low, Clark and Taylor requested additional information and suggested changes. Economic Development Director Ramirez announced the Ordinance would be fine tuned based on Commission input and after additional legal research, would be brought back for approval. B. Study Session - Property Maintenance At the August 28, 2007 City Council meeting, the City Council was presented with a draft property maintenance ordinance. Based upon the comments made by the City Council at that meeting, staff researched and revised the ordinance to address those issues. The revised ordinance was presented to the City Council at the September 11, 2007 City Council meeting. During the meeting, there were several issues raised by the City Council including providing a comparative analysis of the City's existing procedure with the proposed ordinance. Ultimately, the City Council requested that a study session be held to discuss the proposed property maintenance ordinance and the existing method of code compliance. Based upon the City Council's request, the proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance No. 854 and a copy of our existing procedures (Los Angeles County Building Code) are attached to the staff report for review. Rosemead Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2007 Page 3 of 13 Recommendation: That the Rosemead Community Development Commission direct staff to notice a public hearing for the October 9, 2007 City Council meeting to consider the adoption of a property maintenance ordinance for the City of Rosemead. Executive Director Chi introduced a presentation to review current code enforcement activities and the proposed new ordinance. Mr. Chi reported the authority for code enforcement activities is currently found in the Building Code which is vague and subject to staff interpretation. Mr. Chi indicated that the majority of property owners who are contacted respond and comply with staff requests. If a property owner doesn't comply with code enforcement requests, the case is then turned over to building inspectors, as specified in the building codes. Building inspectors then take the items before a City prosecutor to conduct an administrative hearing. At the administrative hearing, staff makes their case to the prosecutor who then renders an initial decision. The property owner can comply with the City prosecutor's decision or appeal to the City Council. If compliance still isn't achieved, a criminal misdemeanor can be filled against the property owner according to existing code. Mr. Chi explained the new proposed ordinance incorporates the basic elements of building code ordinance but is more definitive and includes contemporary terms, definitions and processes to ensure code enforcement staff and property owners receive a fair review. In the proposed system, code enforcement would send out initial notices; those that don't comply would be asked to attend an office conference with a designee of the City Manager. Compliance issues could be solved in a variety of ways: administratively, through a civil injunction or criminal misdemeanor ruling through the judicial system. Individuals would still have the option to appeal administrative and civil decisions, but not criminal decisions. CDC Attorney Rachel Richman advocated protection of property owner's due process rights by having criminal proceedings handled in the courts. This would also maintain the separation of the powers. Commissioner Clark asked for clarification regarding which cases could be handled administratively versus criminally. Commissioner Taylor clarified with the new ordinance, a resident can only appeal the abatement cost to the City Council at the tail end of the process and felt residents should also be able to appeal at different stages of enforcement. Executive Director Chi summarized the proposed changes: 1) Remove building inspector staff from process and allow code enforcement staff to handle citations, 2) Remove City prosecutor from administrative process and 3) allow for civil and Rosemead Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2007 Page 4 of 13 • • administrative decisions to be reached in addition to any criminal proceedings. He conceded the ordinance could be updated based on Commission and resident input at the study session. Frances Chavez, Rosemead resident, felt property issues needs addressing in the City and advocated the use of civil means, rather than criminal. Yolanda Soto, residing at 3352 Muscatel, spoke against the concept of "property police" and asked for a definition of a misdemeanor. She also spoke against the taking over of abandoned properties. Chairman Tran also disagreed with the taking over of abandoned properties and other allegations on a postcard distributed by a political group and indicated staff would educate the public on the actual provisions of the ordinance. Commissioner Low announced a lot of the information on the postcard distributed was incorrect and hoped the discussion would clarify matters. Chairman Tran announced the postcard was not distributed by the City, but rather by Rosemead Guardians, a publication of Rosemead Partners. Vice-Chairman Nunez suggested staff address the postcard to abate concerns. Victor Ruiz, Rosemead resident, indicated he was not aware of the ordinance; he spoke against criminal penalties in the current and proposed ordinance. He supported the creation of a Commission made up of residents for appeal purposes, rather than the Council. Commissioner Low asked for clarification on situations that would warrant a criminal case. CDC Attorney Richman explained the definition would depend on the terms specified in the ordinance. Currently anything that violates the Building Code is considered a misdemeanor. Commissioner Low surmised the ordinance terms might help ensure compliance as a last case option. Ms. Richman indicated in her experience few cases go to court and explained procedures across cities vary the gamut from administrative to criminal. Commissioner Clark acknowledged properties exist that need to be cleaned up but suggested the proposed ordinance was too long and invasive. She stated for 15 years the process was in place to give at least two letters and then the property owner came before the Council which served as the Appeals Board. Mayor Tran stated that was not the case and Mr. Chi said there was an interim Rosemead Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2007 Page 5 of 13 • step during which the City Prosecutor met with Building Staff to review the case and the City Prosecutor would make an interim decision before the Appeals process. Building Official Guerra clarified both Mrs. Clark and Mr. Chi were correct since both processes occurred. Building Official Guerra clarified the process under the current Building Code: zoning violations were sent straight to the City prosecutor and building code violations were heard before the Building Appeals Board prior to referral to the City prosecutor. Interim Director of Public Safety Anderson explained the initial enforcement and the hearing process will not change under the new ordinance. Commissioner Clark maintained that steps taken by staff such as "please" letters are not documented in the new ordinance. She objected to owners loosing their right of appeal if they don't respond within 10 days and their notice is lost or never received due to vacation or other causes. Mr. Anderson pointed out that process does not take place until after the hearing with the new ordinance until after receipt of a certified letter; he indicated the appeal process applies to both sides. He further explained the initial enforcement will not change and pointed out initial staff procedures are not spelled out in the current ordinance either. Chairman Tran suggested staff procedures be included in the new ordinance. Commissioner Clark opposed the wording that specified owners will be guilty of a separate offense for each day the violation is continued and suggested removal of that wording. Mr. Anderson clarified the wording is standard and consistent with other laws and commented a court judge has the ability to adjust fines incurred if necessary. Chairman Tran asked Mr. Chi to clarify items on the postcard. Executive Director Chi indicated the portion that states owners do not have the right to appeal to council is incorrect. Commissioner Taylor asserted the right to appeal in the proposed ordinance only exists regarding the abatement cost after initial determination is made. Interim Public Safety Director Anderson confirmed Mr. Taylor was correct regarding what portion of the enforcement process can be appealed. He pointed out another appeal process exists for non-criminal offenses for 10 days after a registered letter notice is sent to owners and indicated provisions are in place to protect owners. Rosemead Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2007 Page 6 of 13 • • Executive Director Chi went on to address a claim on the postcard that all violations will be criminal misdemeanors and stated that in fact this is true under the current regulations, but not the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Clark asked who decides whether an offense is criminal. Mr. Chi replied the decision would be made by code enforcement staff; the goal is to achieve compliance, not take anyone to court (a last case resort). Chairman Tran asked for clarification on who makes the decision currently. Mr. Chi indicated building department staff makes that determination now. Commissioner Clark asked if a violation is not criminal what it is considered. Mr. Chi replied if it is not criminal, then it is an administrative or civil offense. Chairman Tran recessed the meeting briefly to open the City Council meeting and reconvened the CDC meeting at 7:11 pm. Commissioner Taylor clarified the second appeal opportunity described by Mr. Anderson was before a hearing officer, not the City Council. He went on to describe a provision that states the hearing officer decision is final; judicial review of the hearing officer's decision is subject to time limits. Mr. Chi replied the intent of holding the study session was to clear up inconsistencies in the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Taylor commented that information regarding the Rehabilitation Appeals board was not provided as requested at the previous meeting. Mr. Chi asserted he met with staff who described how the process worked and incorporated elements of those procedures into the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Taylor asserted that building inspectors were part of Rehab meeting to explain violations. He asked why the Rehab meetings stopped. Mr. Chi replied the previous City Manager stopped the Rehab meetings; Building Official Guerra confirmed the action taken by the former City Manager. Mr. Chi went on to address an incorrect statement on the postcard which indicated the City will take over abandoned property. It is an option under special circumstances but not a standard course of action for maintenance issues. Rosemead Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2007 Page 7 of 13 • • Commissioner Clark conceded that portion of the postcard was incorrect - that it should have stated the City could, instead of would take property. Chairman Tran pointed out staff is proposing the ordinance, not council as stated on the postcard. Jim Flournoy, Rosemead resident, supported the new ordinance and suggested staff letters to owners be available for review prior to implementation. He also pointed out LA County building code is scheduled for an update in January 2008. Brian Lewin, residing at 9501 Ralph Street, supported the ordinance but recommended enforcement response procedures are fine tuned. He suggested review of regulation regarding tree branches, visible trash cans and storm water. Stella Martinez, residing at 2463 La Presa Avenue, spoke against the ordinance. Commissioner Low asked Ms. Martinez how she would suggest making Rosemead a cleaner place. Ms. Martinez replied she takes care of her property, owners are adults and not all have the financial means to comply with the new regulations. Commissioner Low replied the ordinance is geared towards those that don't take cage of their properties and thanked her for her diligence as a homeowner. Marlene Shinen, residing at 8447 Drayer Lane, South San Gabriel, spoke in support of the ordinance; indicating residents need code enforcement so they don't have to confront neighbors themselves and denounced the postcard as a political ploy. Alejandro Gandara, Rosemead resident, commended the City for holding a study session and suggested Commission members make suggestions rather than focus solely on ordinance critiques. He pointed out the current code passed by senior members of the Council made violations a criminal offense. Commissioner Taylor pointed out current code is from LA County building code. Jim Clouet, residing at 3719 Ivar Avenue, spoke against the intent and spirit of the ordinance and indicated with criminal offenses the burden of proof falls upon the government, whereas in civil lawsuits, that is not the case. Ron Gay, residing at 4106 Encinita, spoke in support of clean up efforts to attract retailers, suggested the session be used to gather input rather than for politics and advocated all five members of the Commission work together. He pointed out programs are available for those that can't afford property maintenance. Rosemead Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2007 Page 8 of 13 • • Todd Kunioka, residing at 8400 Wells Street, felt statements made on the postcard were distorted and advocated the formation of a citizen's commission for property maintenance issues. Commissioner Low supported Mr. Kunioka's suggestion of a citizen commission. Barbara Murphy, residing at 9125 Bentel Street, suggested the Commission stop fighting and clean up the City, as that was the number one identified resident concern she heard during campaign efforts. Rudy Sellan, residing at 8813 Fern Avenue, agreed the City needs to be cleaned up but disagreed with the tree and trash regulations and spoke against placing liens on homes for noncompliance. He felt information should be posted on the internet. Commissioner Low requested clarification.on tree regulations. Commissioner Clark read the section of the ordinance that defines tree branches within five feet of rooftops as an overgrown vegetation violation. Ms. Clark commented she did not support this portion of the ordinance. Katrina Sornoso, residing at 3903 Earle Avenue, expressed support of City cleanup efforts and expressed concern about portions of the ordinance. She supported the postcard that was sent out as a freedom of democracy. Ms. Sornoso asked if the Ordinance was drafted by staff. Executive Director Chi confirmed it was written by staff. Ms. Sornoso asked if translators will be provided at hearings. Chairman Tran responded that in the past translators were provided. Commissioner Taylor pointed out the new ordinance states owners will need to bring and pay for their own translator. Ms. Sornoso asked if staff will speak to homeowners or just cite violations. Executive Director Chi replied staff doesn't speak all the languages spoken in Rosemead, but will try to have staff available to translate. Mr. Chi felt Commissioner Taylor brought up a good point and staff can modify the ordinance if directed to. Ms. Sornoso suggested nuisance definitions are influenced by cultural norms; using water to make lawns green might be offensive to some. She also suggested home owners should be addressed differently than absentee owners. Rosemead Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2007 Page 9 of 13 • • Chairman Tran thought the home owner distinction was a good point and commented the ordinance will be available to the public before adoption. Commissioner Clark agreed properties need to be cleaned up, but indicated the question that remains is how. Ms. Clark maintained that 95% of postcard contents were accurate. She enumerated each statement from the postcard anc referenced them in the ordinance. Vice-Chairman Nunez asserted the current code does not specify assistance available to property owners in violation. Interim Public Safety Director Anderson read the entire definition of an abandoned structure which was much broader that what was on the postcard. Commissioner Low felt it was important to look at the intent of the ordinance - to help the City clean up properties. Commissioner Clark maintained if a provision was written in the ordinance, it could be utilized. Mary Redd, residing at 3323 N. Evelyn, spoke against restrictions about trees and produce in the front yard. Commissioner Clark asked if the produce restriction could be taken out. Commissioner Low asked staff why the produce section was in the ordinance. Interim Public Safety Director Anderson explained the ordinance was taken from another city. The purpose of the lengthy definitions was to eliminate arbitrary enforcement. Commissioner Low felt it was important to remember the intent of the ordinance. Commissioner Clark disagreed with one person on staff (who is not elected by the people) to having the power to grant or deny an appeal. Commissioner Low felt it was fine to have staff serve in that role and would save the City money by not having to involve an attorney. Vice-Chairman Nunez asserted Commissioner Clark wrote the postcard. Commissioner Clark commented she provided information to the group because she alleged Vice-Chairman Nunez refused to accept three changes she requested during the second hearing on the matter were not made to the ordinance draft. Rosemead Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2007 Page 10 of 13 Vice-Chairman Nunez asserted he wanted the full document before the Commission and public for discussion at the study session. Mr. Nunez suggested the statement pertaining to abandoned property seizure should contain the word "could" instead of "will", since Mr. Anderson stated code enforcement staff would not declare properties abandoned if behind in property taxes. Commissioner Clark stated that she had the minutes from the last meeting. Chairman Tran stated that was correct and that he was bring it back for discussion. Commissioner Clark stated it was being brought back without having anything taken out and if they had been willing to take those items out "we might not had to go to the people with it". Vice-Chairman Nunez asked what she meant by "we". Chairman Trans stated that she was part of this. Commissioner Clark stated that she alerted the group about it. Vice-Chairman Nunez stated she alerted the group to write it. Commissioner Low reiterated that Mr. Nunez had not taken out the items Ms. Clark had asked for because he wanted it to be brought back to the study session for review; therefore, Ms. Clark was upset and worked with the group to produce this card to scare some of the people. Ms. Low felt that the public was not informed of the ordinance study session where they could come and bring their suggestions. Chairman Tran commended Commissioner Taylor for stating that he had not' seen the card and had nothing to do with it. Mr. Tran pointed out that the residences are invited to come to study sessions and council meetings to provide their input on issues. Commissioner Clark replied that Mr. Tran was objecting to letting the public know. Chairman Tran asked how that was so. Commissioner Low reiterated that the only thing that Mr. Nunez had asked was to bring back the ordinance the way it was so the Commission could talk about it. Ms. Low stated that because the items Ms. Clark asked for were not removed, Ms. Clark was not happy and therefore she went and sent the card out. Commissioner Clark stated absolutely. Rosemead Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2007 Page 11 of 13 • • Commissioner Low (inaudible) Commissioner Taylor stated that this was a study session to bring information back and asked when they would receive information on the Rehabilitation Appeal Board to reactivate it and stated that he was unaware that Mr. Lazaretto had made an independent decision to stop an entire board that this council runs. He asked if staff would bring information back regarding reactivating that board. Executive Director Chi stated the board could not be reactivated. Commissioner Clark stated that they wanted both the way the use to do it and the new way they were proposing. Commissioner Taylor felt a side by side comparison of the old and new codes should have been provided to the Commission. Executive Director Chi pointed out the existing code is attached to the new code. Commissioner Clark commented this was the first time the prior code was provided after previous discussions. The Commission, CDC Attorney Richman and staff discussed the definition of an attractive nuisance. Ms. Richman clarified that one of the definitions of a public nuisance is something that is offensive to the senses and interferes with the enjoyment of lifestyle. Commissioner Clark expressed concern about the regulation which defines tree branches within 5 feet of a rooftop as a nuisance and suggested removal from the ordinance. Chairman Tran agreed. The Commission discussed the placement of liens on property under the current and proposed code. Commissioner Clark expressed concern because her issues stated previously were not incorporated into the draft version distributed until she brought it to staffs attention. Commissioner Low, Nunez and Tran felt scare tactics were used to bring people to the meeting. Councilmember Clark requested the ordinance be put on the City's website. Chairman Tran and Commissioners Low and Taylor requested information about the Rehabilitations Board. Rosemead Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2007 Page 12 of 13 0 • Building Official Guerra described the process as involving informal and formal noticing declaring substandard property. If the owner failed to comply, a public hearing before the Rehabilitation Board took place and further failure to comply resulted in referral to the city prosecutor in some cases. These steps were part of the ordinance with the exception of the informal letter/appease notice. The Commission discussed staff taking direction based on individual council concerns versus direction from a majority consensus. Councilmember Low felt people could misinterpret information on the postcard and suggested the City send a clarification letter. Commissioner Taylor requested information about a clarification letter sent about fences. Commissioner Low advocated the City had a responsibility to set the record straight. The Commission discussed the contents of the postcard; most of items were in the ordinance (not all) but Chairman Tran, Vice-Chairman Nunez and Commissioner Low felt the postcard statements did not tell the whole story. Chairman Tran supported Commissioner Low's motion to send a clarification letter to residents. The Commission discussed ways to implement this motion. CDC Attorney Richman suggested staff bring a letter back for City for approval. 5. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:17 pm. The next Community Development Commission meeting is scheduled to take place on October 9, 2007 at 6:00 pm. Respectfully submitted: APPROVED: John Tran COMMISSION SECRETARY CHAIRMAN Rosemead Community Development Commission Meeting Minutes September 25, 2007 Page 13 of 13