Loading...
CC - Minutes - 12-12-17MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AND CITY COUNCIL, THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR JOINT MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2017 The special meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Low at 6:16 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California PRESENT: Mayor Low, Mayor Pro Tem Ly, Council Members Armenta and Clark ABSENT: Council Member Alarcon STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Manis, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager McKinney, Director of Finance Lieu, Director of Parks and Recreation Chacon, Director of Public Works Ramirez, Director of Community Development Kim, and City Clerk Donohue 1. WORKSHOP A. Two -Year Budget Director of Finance Lieu presented a power point presentation on a proposed two — year budget. She explained the pros and cons of a two-year budget, in order to maintain a structurally balanced General Fund budget with regular, recurring revenues that are sufficient to cover ongoing expenditures and evaluate feasibility of implementing a two-year budget cycle. Pros included thinking further out, only have to update the changes for the second year, and eliminate printing of budget books for one year. The cons of a two-year budget are challenges with balancing, implementing during tough economic times; difficult to project top revenue sources such as property taxes, T.O.T, and sales taxes; difficult to project new revenues sources as a result of legislative rulings and required reporting requirements; difficult to project CalPERS retirement costs; does not take into account factors such as staff turnover, program cancellations, delay in capital improvement projects; difficulty in projecting fund balances & accurately estimating General Fund Reserves. Council Member Armenta asked what staff's opinion was for a city like Rosemead. Director of Finance Lieu replied she would suggest a one-year budget process based on the programs the City has and Capital Improvement Projects, which make it easier to project and balance the budget. ACTION: Motioned by Council Member Armenta and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ly to continue with the 1 -Year Budget process. Motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly and ABSENT: Alarcon Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 1 of 32 2. CLOSED SESSION The City Council will meet in Closed Session to discuss the following items: A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Number of cases: 2 B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Case Name: City of Rosemead vs. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Case Number: BS 169937 C. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT: Government Code Section: 54957 Title: City Manager City Attorney Richman announced the City Council would only discuss two items in closed session. There would be no discussion on item 2B in closed session. Mayor Low recessed the City Council meeting to closed session at 6:22 p.m. and reconvened back from closed session at 7:10 p.m. City Attorney Richman announced the City Council took the following reportable action in closed session: ACTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Ly and seconded by Council Member Armenta to appoint Gloria Molleda as the City Manager of the City of Rosemead. A formal agreement would be approved on the January 9, 2018 City Council Agenda. Motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: Armenta, Low, Ly and NOES: Clark and ABSENT: Alarcon. RECONVENE TO REGULAR MEETING The regular joint meeting of the Rosemead City Council and Successor Agency to the Rosemead Community Development Commission was called to order by Mayor Low at 7:10 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PRESENT: Mayor, Chair Low, Mayor Pro Tem, Vice -Chair Ly, Council Members, Board Members Armenta and Clark ABSENT: Council Member, Board Member Alarcon PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Council Member Clark INVOCATION was led by Mayor Pro Tem Ly Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 2 of 32 STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Manis, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager McKinney, Director of Finance Lieu, Director of Parks and Recreation Chacon, Director of Public Works Ramirez, Director of Community Development Kim, and City Clerk Donohue 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Inez Jauregui expressed concerns with issues regarding animal control and the need of proper tools for animal control staff. Mayor Pro Tem Ly suggested to Ms. Jauregui to speak to Assistant City Manager McKinney to assist on her animal control concerns. Carlos Quintero, resident expressed concerns with security and the high level of transients that enter the Garvey Community Center. City Manager Manis explained the City was working with the Sheriff's Department to have a presence during the day and the City has created a Sheriff sub -station at Garvey Community Center for Community Safety Officers. Measures such as extra bars have been welded on the fence between the Garvey Community Center and the wash to avoid people slipping through the fence. Security cameras have been installed and all trees have been trimmed for better visibility. Lastly, the main entrance now has a ding sound to notify staff when the public enters the center. Council Member Armenta inquired if grants are available to fund for a security guard at the center to overlap when a Sheriff Deputy or Community Safety Officer could not be present. Mayor Low stated that a security guard option could be looked at in the future. 4. PRESENTATIONS A. City Video Presentation City Manager Maris announced the City was a finalist of the Eddy Awards and created a video as part of the submittal for the Business Friendly City Award. The video was presented at the City Council meeting. B. Rosemead Fitness and Health Contest Winners — Item was deferred C. Night Garden Photography Contest Winners Brian Lewin, Beatification Committee Board Member, introduced winners of the Night Garden Photography Contest. A fundraising benefit event for the Beautification Committee and the Asian American Association of Artist. Mr. Lewin presented certificates to the photography winners Beverly Morton, Jim Morton, and Benson Dao. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 3 of 32 Council Member Armenta thanked Beautification Committee Member Katrina Padilla-Sornoso for the photography event idea and recognized Beautification Committee Board Members for their work on the event. D. National Arbor Day Proclamation City Council Members presented the Arbor Day Proclamation to the Rosemead Public Works Team. E. Recognition for Outgoing City Manager Bill R. Manis Mayor Low commended outgoing City Manager Manis for his work with the City of Rosemead and wished him well at his new position. Council Member Armenta commended outgoing City Manager Manis for his service to the city. Council Member Clark wished him well on his new endeavors. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated there have been positive changes in the City attributed to the City Manager and staff. City Manager Manis thanked the City Council for the opportunity to serve the City and the City Manager and commended his team and residents for their ongoing support. The City Council presented outgoing City Manager Manis a plaque of recognition for his public service to the City of Rosemead. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit 16-08, a City Initiated Request for Review Recommendation: That the City Council either uphold or reverse the Planning Commission's decision for Conditional Use Permit 16-08 and adopt or deny Resolution No. 2017-66 (Attachment "A" or "B"). RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-08, A REQUEST TO OPERATE A PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 7516 EMERSON PLACE, IN THE LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE (APN: 5286-017-004) Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 4 of 32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, REVERSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-08, A REQUEST TO OPERATE A PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 7516 EMERSON PLACE, IN THE LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE (APN: 5286-017-004) Assistant Planner Lao reported the City initiated a Request for Review, requested by Mayor Pro Tem Steven Ly under Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.160.060, to further review Conditional Use Permit 16-08. On November 27, 2017, the Planning Commission adopted a denial resolution for Conditional Use Permit 16-08 to operate a place of religious assembly. The subject site is located at 7516 Emerson Place, in the Light Multiple Residential zone. City Attorney Richman announced Council Member Clark recused herself from the dais due to conflict interest of her real property near the project area. Mayor Low opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Joie Mattern opposed Conditional Use Permit 16-08 and urged the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the operation of the temple. Ms. Mattern stated she had health concerns with the smoke of burning incense, increase traffic, and noise disturbances by the temple. She explained, the people at the temple disregard the neighbors and the community by operating with an invalid permit and play loud karaoke. She suggested the temple relocate to an empty parcel site on Del Mar Avenue between Emerson Place and Hellman Avenue. Howard Mattern resident, opposed Conditional Use Permit 16-08 stating the temple is out of character with the neighborhood and not enough parking. He stated the temple has not complied with city ordinances by operating illegally and suggested they relocate to develop their temple. Nancy Eng stated she opposed Conditional Use Permit 16-08 due to the increase of traffic and parking issues. As a Planning Commissioner, she recused herself out of respect and integrity and valuable work of the Planning Commission. The organization stated they have 600 members and based on documented activities, it was clear that the use was not limited to friends and families. She also added the president stated he was not aware of past code violations. She urged the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Phong Tran expressed support of Conditional Use Permit 16-08 and stated that he and his family go to the temple to pray. The temple is a peaceful place and want to fit and cooperate with the community. Richard Mak spoke on concerns on behalf of his parents and sister, who live next door to the temple. He stated the problem with the project was that it's on a bad Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 5 of 32 location and the temple was two houses away from an elementary school. Mr. Mak spoke about the events shown in the temple's facebook page, adding they have been operating illegally. He pointed out the pictures show burning of incenses, a smoke barrier as tall as the house, illegally operating a restaurant in the back yard, and cars illegally parked blocking driveways. Council Member Armenta asked Mr. Mak if the current temple owners of the property also owned additional properties in other cities. Mr. Mak replies yes and the actual owner of the property is Binh Dinh Association and the applicant of the project as Mr. Ky Do. Ruth Mak resident, expressed opposition of Conditional Use Permit 16-08, reference a statement made by Mayor Low in 2012 in an article, "it is a reminder for all of us, all elected officials, we need to have integrity." She added the Binh Dinh Association has shown little integrity. On Nov. 20" the Temple organizers were not honest about their member attendance. Ms. Mak reiterated her frustration on the illegal parking and blocking of her driveway by the temple members. She stated a petition exists with 360 signatures from residents asking the City to deny CUP 16-08. Michelle Du expressed support of the temple stating this is the one original temple from her hometown. There is special meaning to the families, heritage and culture. She stated they understood the concerns addressed by the public and would like to work with them to resolve them. Ms. Du also explained most members do work and only could attend the temple during the weekends to pray. She requested the support of the City Council to continue operation of the temple. Ky Do, applicant of the temple, stated the Chinese -Vietnamese community risked their lives to come to America and practice their freedom of religion. The temple is a place of non-profit, to find peace of mind and where friends and family have reconnected. In 2015, the president passed away and newly elected president, Mr. Do stated it was his duty to update all permits. He expressed the neighbors were discriminating them because they practiced a different religion. He indicated the traffic was due to the increase staff in the school and not the attendance of the temple. David Brockway spoke about the noise abatement issues that had been addressed as well as the use of smokeless incense, which were non -carcinogenic. As for traffic, Dr. Do changed the temple hours from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. to not interfere with the dropping off or picking up of students in the morning and afternoon. Mr. Brockway stated many churches started in households and have branched out which was not unusual or new to the worship community. He expressed there may be discrimination on religious grounds. Barbara Murphy stated that according to Planning Department there are 11 assembly permits in the City of Rosemead. Five permits in R -land six in R-2 zones. She explained she visited all the temples and churches which all had adequate Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes ofDeeember 12, 2017 Page 6 of 32 parking. The project property did not have the adequate parking for their members. She stated there are codes the city has to enforce. William Su urged the City Council to approve the permit and added this was the only temple they had to meet with family and friends. He expressed the elderly would be most affected if they do not have a temple to go pray. He reiterated, the Mak Family should allow the temple to open communications to resolve other issues and asked to look at their events in a positive way of worship. Sonia Phan (used Vietnamese translator) stated she frequents the temple since her husband passed away and it was because of the temple she became a doctor and has helped a lot of people. She also mentioned her children and grandchildren attend the temple to help them be better people in the community. She respectfully asked the City Council to help fulfill their need and to their elderly members keep the temple operating. Betty Kwan submitted information to the City Council regarding building codes. According to building codes 3408(A) and Chapter 11(B), a change in use or occupancy, or function, has to be considered as new construction. Where there is new construction, it has to be ADA compliant. If not compliant, then it is considered disability discrimination. She added the floor plan and parking driveway was not ADA compliant. She suggested the city exercise their state power for health, safety, and morals and welfares, which was not discrimination against a religious organization. Brian Lewin stated that while freedom of religion and practice of religion was an important thing, the City has its right to exercise its powers to protect the well- being and its welfare of its residents to provide reasonable restrictions. The Planning Commission was unable to make those findings. With 57 pages of code violations issued over the years, there is no benefit to the community. They talk about respect, and have shown complete disrespect to the city, its rules, code enforcement officers, and the neighborhood in that community. Asked as a resident, to act in the interest of the well-being of the residents of the city. John Ta on behalf of his family who attends the temple, talked about their customs and traditions passed on to the next generation. The temple is more than a place of worship, it's a place of remembrance. He stated the traffic, code violation concerns, running a restaurant out of the backyard are being addressed. He spoke to organizers of the temple and they are eager to make changes in an attempt to operate and keep their traditions. Don Young spoke about his childhood times at his church in Vietnam. He started to attend the Rosemead temple in 2015 and saw his old classmates and old childhood friends. Asked the Council to grant the permit to continue to allow him to pray and reunite with his friends. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 7 of 32 Niem Thai on behalf of his parents, expressed support of the temple and asked to keep it open and the president should be responsible for resolving the issues expressed by the public. Kathy Bahm submitted information to the City Council and stated as a parent of a student of Emerson School and school volunteer, she did not see any incense go from the temple to the school. In addition, the traffic was always an issue in California, not necessarily due to the temple. She stated she took pictures of the traffic from 7:35 am and it's from the parents and not the temple. Qui Nguyen resident, stated there were issues that could be resolved and workable. He asked to open a dialogue to resolve any future problems. Cynthia Thai resident, the temple members make positive contributions to the community. The faith has a positive impact for generations and to assure future generations to continue the support in a spiritual way. She explained they promote unity within the community and show their desire to work with the City. Margaret Clark councilmember spoke as a resident, stating she lived too close to the property to be able to vote. She wanted to correct some things that have been said. The implication has been said, that the Mak Family was the only one that was concerned about the project, which was not the case. Her family owns property right across the street from the school and the residence that has been converted to a temple. Her granddaughter grew up there and remembers the smoke. This was not just the Mak Family, and resented that implication. She added there was a petition from a lot of parents who were also concerned. Mr. Bob Bruesch attended the Planning Commission meeting and mentioned that the parking lot at Emerson School did not even hold the amount for teachers they currently have. There have been two kids that have been hit by cars recently because of traffic. She expressed additional concerns stating, a statement was made that the Planning Commissioners did not fully evaluate the land use implications but they were not given all the facts. The staff report stated only two dates in 2016, of violations but when she asked for background information on the project, she was given 57 pages of code violations of the property, which should have been given to the Planning Commission. Fortunately they did vote to deny it twice. There have been no apologies for the 26 years of violations that have been going on. Two days before the item was coming before the City Council, there was a truck parked in front of the driveway of the Mak Family. What if there was an emergency and they couldn't get out. This is a public safety issue and you have to make a finding. If you are going to allow a change that it will not be injurious to properties in the vicinity from a public safety stand point. She reiterated that another statement was made that they did not realize there were problems, yet there are 26 years' worth of code violations. She suggested the temple look into partnering with the Boca Dharme Seal Temple on 3027 Del Mar Avenue, their building could built on a large enough structure to accommodate the temple. She reiterated the concerns expressed were not discriminating against a religious organization but a public safety issue. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 8 of 32 Council Member Armenta asked Mrs. Clark how many violations the temple had. Mrs. Clark replied there were 57 pages worth of violations and she spent hours going through them. She showed a picture of a facebook page of an outside event of the temple, but they were not supposed to have events outside. Mayor Low recessed the City Council meeting at 8:51 p.m. and reconvened back to the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Chante Hang (used Vietnamese translator) expressed support of the temple and stated the temple is the only place where the elderly have to worship and fulfill their spiritual needs. Kathy Banh expressed support of the temple and stated most of the members are older or elderly people of the community. Most of the people that do work attend the temple during the weekend. The most attendees that do attend the temple is about 10 to 15 people during the week and 40 the max during an event over the weekend. If the temple has to relocate, it will create a hardship for some people. Oai Tran (used Vietnamese translator) expressed an apology to the Mak Family for any issues that had resulted. The complaints the Mak Family have expressed have been addressed by the temple. He asked the family that the temple would be happy to help them in addressing further concerns. Chichi Tran spoke in support of the temple on behalf of her parents and her patients at Garfield Medical Hospital and asked the Council to support their place of worship. Chien Nguyen (used Vietnamese translator) expressed support for the temple and teach their members to not take for granted the freedom they have to practice their religion. He added the temple allows them to keep practicing their traditional customs from their homeland. Tawny Lam expressed support of the temple that serves as a spiritual engagement. She also, shared that Buddhism is not just a religion, it's a practice and teaching of kindness and compassion. David Vuong (used Vietnamese translator) stated he was in support of the temple and added that their faith is common and practiced all over the world. He shared stories of his migration trip to America and the ability to have the freedom of worship. Rose Tran (used Vietnamese translator) stated she was fortunate to reside near the temple and attends every Sunday to worship and pray. She expressed support of the establishment of the temple ask asked the City Council for their support. Benjamin Wang (Mandarin translator used) expressed support of the temple at the current property because they did not have the financial means to have a larger Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 9 of 32 space. The small space gave the members the sufficient space to worship in peace and gives them reason to volunteer and not affect the local neighborhood. Run Quan Zheng (Mandarin translator used) stated the temple has a substantial contribution to the community. He spoke about traffic issues in the neighborhood and stated traffic flow has not been addressed. He stated that religious faith should not be used on top of public safety. Michael Vo, Mayor of Fountain Valley expressed his support for CUP 16-08. He added the temple was not just a place of worship, but a place where they share their blessings. The temple has more benefits to the community and there are people who want to live near a temple. Victor Parra stated he provides exercise classes on Sundays to members of the temple. He explained, members gather after the class and have a meal together in the backyard. He expressed support for the temple. Brian Quach stated he was expressing his support of the temple and its members. He stated that Mr. Do does want to do the right thing and applied for the proper permits by working with the community and the City. City Attorney Richman announced the reason why some people received six minutes to speak was because they required translation services under the law. Otherwise, the public speaker time is three minutes. Steven Tsai stated he had been invited by the temple to their activities and observed the members are kind and humbled. They sacrifice time, money, and share a value and believe. The temple has also been working with neighbors to address noise concerns as well as traffic. He asked the City Council to approve the project and allow the temple to operate. Jenny Doo stated the temple usually has their major events in restaurants. The issue with the block truck was actually not a temple member who blocked the driveway. She stated the temple started using the smokeless incense and she urged the City Council to approve the CUP 16-08. Mayor Low closed the public hearing at 10:07 p.m. Vietnamese and Chinese translators announced the close of the public hearing to the audience. Council Member Armenta shared that while working at Emerson Elementary School, she remembered the smell of burning incense. She noted there was about two to three supporters that lived in Rosemead and asked at what point the City protects its residents and quality of life. It's been difficult to find parking and the added traffic is dangerous for the students walking to school. She expressed concern with the 26 years of violations of the temple and the impact on the quality of life of the surrounding residents. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 10 of 32 She shared a facebook page showing the Temple advertising a restaurant in a residential area and a day later the advertisement was changed to a public and government service. She reiterated this was not about religion, it's about safety and protecting residents and children. She thanked the Mak Family for providing additional information on the effects of smoke and Betty Kwan for speaking about the ADA issues of the temple. She asked staff how the Temple was abiding by any parking restrictions or ADA requirements. Director of Community Development Kim explained in accordance with the city's municipal code, parking for assembly purposes such as the Temple, required one parking space per 75 square foot of assembly area. Based on the assembly area of the Temple, onsite parking requirement is met. In order to establish ADA use, there is a multi -state process starting with approval of the use, plan submittal to meet ADA, and those improvements would have to be made. Council Member Armenta asked if the ADA requirements were not met, could they operate the temple. Director of Community Development Kim replied the building requirements would have to be met in order to operate. Council Member Armenta pointed out on the Temple's facebook page, pictures showing a restaurant being operated. She asked what the requirements to facilitate a restaurant in a residential home were and what would be considered a restaurant. Director of Community Development Kim replied restaurants are not permitted in a residential zone. There is a condition, should the City Council approve the resolution, requiring the Temple to remove the kitchen and tables from the back yard area. A restaurant is considered where food is prepared and served in a commercial type area. Mayor Steven Ly interjected that a restaurant consists of preparing, serving, and selling food. Council Member Armenta referred to a picture showing a wall barrier installed to avoid the smoke. She asked how we are protecting the residents and students from the smoke of the burning incense at the temple. Director of Community Development Kim replied he was not aware of the installed smoke barrier. Mayor Pro Tem Ly interjected and stated that Condition no. 22 states smokeless incenses shall be used or other material that does not emit or produce smoke or water vapor. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 11 of 32 Council Member Armenta expressed frustration due to the Temple or association having 57 pages of code violations and saying they did not know. She reiterated it questioned their integrity, respect, honor and compassion. She asked Temple President Ky Do when he became aware of the code violations and did he try to remedy the violations. Ky Do, President of the Temple, replied he had been president of the Temple for the last two years and learned of the citations in 2016. As a result, he started to apply for the business license and has been working with the City since 2016. Council Member Armenta asked staff when the Temple first applied for a business license. Assistant Planner Lao replied the Temple applied for their Conditional Use Permit on October 17, 2016. Council Member Armenta asked Mr. Do who was in charge of the Temple prior to him. Mr. Do replied, the temple was run by volunteers and the last president has passed away. Council Member Armenta asked who owned the property at 7516 Emerson Place. Mr. Do replied the property is owned by Binh Dinh. Council Member Armenta indicated the association has a facebook page registered under Binh Dinh Association and if the pictures were of the Temple. Mr. Do stated the pictures on the facebook page were not posted by the association and he had not yet seen them. Mayor Pro Tem Ly referred to attachment L of the staff report, a letter from the Attorney General's office title The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). He explained based off testimony, houses of worship suffer discriminatory more, in terms on how they are approved in land use and by overall use. RLUIPA was an opportunity for Congress to clean up the language about that and also to defend the first amendment right. He continued to read an excerpt of the letter, "In 2000 Congress, by unanimous consent, and with the support of a broad range of civil rights and religious organizations, enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act... To date, the Department has opened nearly 100 formal investigations and filed nearly 20 lawsuits related to RLUIPA's land use provisions... One of the issues raised repeatedly from participants was that municipal, county, and other state and local officials are insufficiently familiar with the land use provisions of RLUIPA and their obligations under this Federal civil rights law." Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 12 of 32 He noted, regardless whether we agree or disagree with RLUIPA, this is something we should have considered and definitely something that the Planning Commission should have considered even at the local official level. He continued to read, "Protection against substantial burdens on religious exercise... justified by a compelling government interest" meaning it would be very difficult to prove in order for the City to override a first amendment religious assembly or argument. We must where ever possible use "least restrictive means" that is interpreted as by saying, we may have issues with this specific temple in this specific location. What are the issues, could they be resolved through a Conditional Use Permit and conditions of approval. If they meet the code in every other way, and if we can agree to smokeless incense, agree to restrictive hours so it does not affect students, then we must take that avenue over completely banning them out right. The letter also states, RLUIPA applies widely not only to diverse places of worship, but also to religious schools, religious camps, religious retreat centers, and religious social service facilities such as group homes, homeless shelters, and soup kitchens, as well as to individuals exercising their religion through use of property, such as "home prayer gatherings or Bible studies." This is very similar to that, this is the same reason why our code section 17.12 of the code allows for religious assembly in the R-1 and R-2 zone. He continued reading, "While zoning is primarily a local matter, where if conflicts with Federal civil rights laws such as the Fair Housing Act or RLUIPA, Federal law takes precedence." Over all its really important to know that in order for us to look at the RLUIPA and how this applies, we have to look at two other historical situations from the past. The first one was in 2005 when the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued the City and said that our election materials were not adequately translated into the major languages represented in the city. We had to enter into a consent decree with the Federal government staring that all materials now had to be translated on based of our major languages. Secondly, we dealt with the issues of Cal Poultry, the smell of the chicken really affected the community. The lawsuit was going against us, and a key argument was the civil rights issue. One issue people claimed and was understood by the courts was the way chicken was prepared which involved a lot of cultural and religious understanding. By the city trying to shut down Cal Poultry, we were affecting that religious practice. Now we have a potential RLUIPA case here where we are potentially denying their Conditional Use Permit, we've given them recourse. They have gone to the planning division and they were given conditions of approval, on top of agreeing to other additional conditions. He referred to a publication of court case Guru Naka Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, stating, "Court conflicts could be minimized by specifically recommending conditions that would be consistent with the general plan." He referenced the 30 conditions of approval and asked staff if these are consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Code, and are there any needs for a Zone Variance. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 13 of 32 Director of Community Development Kim replied the conditions were consistent with the General Plan and there were no zone variances. Mayor Pro Tem Ly continued stating the temple applied for a Conditional Use Permit in the R-1 area from the Planning Division based of the General Plan to meet those requirements. He referred back to a court case stating the court "granted summary judgement for Guru Nanak because it concluded the County substantially burdened Guru Nanak's religious exercise, and the County did not proffer evidence of compelling interest to justify such burden." When we ban them from completely exercising their religious right, we are significantly burdening them. He reiterated the Temple agreed with the conditions along with using smokeless incense and restricting their operating hours, to minimize affect with students and traffic. He also, referenced court case Harbor Missionary Church Corporation v. City of San Buena Ventura regarding relocation and what is least restrictive, which puts a burden on the temple. He explained the majority of the congregants are senior citizens that work and the Temple was their only respite. Lastly, he referred to another court case involving the City of Walnut and a Zen Center, where the DOJ got involved. Because the Zen Temple felt they had RLUIPA grounds. Two key things on this matter were the bias on how it was perceived; and the second, dealt with schools. He referred to the Planning Commission minutes of November 20' 2017 page 16, "Commissioner Herrera expressed that although she loved the establishment and what they are doing, that she did not love the proposed location for the project and that there are four alternative locations." It's been stated they should work with other temples in the city and that was sensitive towards a culture and in a sense a violation of RLUIPA. He referred to another court case Center Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas and Jorge Orozco Pastor v City of Yuma, stating, "had they been a secular organization rather than a church, it would not have needed the religious conditional use permits" that is a very important statement because the key part of RLUIPA says, if there are other uses that are secular, whatever we require of that secular, whatever we require of a religious assembly, cannot be greater than what we require of a secular use. He asked staff, for example would we require a conference center, wanting to do a bbq area, to get a conditional use permit to only use smokeless bbq, such as propane.. Director of Community Development Kim replied staff would have to look into that if smoke from a bbq was an existing issue or concern. Mayor Pro Tem Ly shared when his parents passed, it was tradition to burn fake money, and fake gold to have in the afterlife. Asked if this practice would be banned since it creates a lot of smoke. Director of Community Development Kim responded no, the City was not banning an entire practice. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 14 of 32 Mayor Pro Tem Ly explained when we are talking about equal use or equal application that is what RLUIPA is saying. He shared growing up, his parents attended houses of worship were food was always provided and volunteers cook it. RLUIPA is quite clear, federal law takes precedence and we swore to protect the constitution of the United States which includes the First Amendment. Although they have had 26 years of violations the next generation is now trying to fix. They came to the City in 2015 to try and fix the violations and learned there were building issues. They were working with the Building Official, who advised them to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. He reiterated his concerns on RLUIPA issues arising and wants to make sure they are being heard and their rights are being protected. If we can work on a Conditional Use Permit that will be a win-win situation, it would truly benefit everybody. Council Member Armenta asked members of the Mak Family on their quality of life being affected by the Temple next door and had it been remedied. Richard Mak stated his father had been speaking with the Temple to address their concerns with members blocking their driveway. Council Member Armenta clarified her concerns had nothing to do with religion but with public safety of residents. Mr. Mak continued to explain their quality of life has dramatically been affected in the last couple of years. He described in the past the property was rented at times as an entertainment venue. This last time the property transitioned to a temple, it was successful with more member attendance and they have established a kitchen in the back yard to serve food. Over the last year they started singing karaoke, which caused his family to call the police to report loud noise complaints. Council Member Armenta stated the Mak family were disgruntled, their quality of life has changed. Ms. Mak is a highly regarded school teacher at Garvey School District, quality of life is being diminished living next door to the temple. She asked staff if the temple was changing the occupancy of function of the temple with the approval of a permit. Director of Community Development Kim clarified the home was built as a residence and the current use is not a residence use, it would be an assembly use. The temple would need to submit building plans which will be checked according to the California building code. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated changes would only have to be made if the Conditional Use Permit was approved. Council Member Armenta asked resident Nancy Eng how her quality of life has been impacted living near the temple. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 15 of 32 Mayor Low recessed the City Council meeting at 11:13 p.m. and reconvened back at 11:21 p.m. Nancy Eng, resident stated she did not live adjacent to the temple; however, she encounters parking issues due to the people parking on her driveway or in front of her driveway. Ms. Eng added she has called Public Safety Center many times to report the parking issues which usually occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Mayor Low stated she was impressed with Mr. Ly's court analysis samples which brought up more concerns to the City. She reiterated the issues involving the temple were burning of incense, which they have agreed to use smokeless incense in condition no. 22. The temple has been trying to fix all violations, yet the parking has been an increased issue involving their members. The proposed Conditional Use Permit gives the temple the opportunity to follow the rules, if they do not the city may shut them down. Mayor Pro Tem Ly expressed concern if the DOJ got involved and the City loses. He preferred constructing a Conditional Use Permit with conditions of approval and hold all parties accountable. He asked City Attorney Richman if the resolution would require three votes in favor, in order to pass. City Attorney Richman replied yes, the government code requires the majority vote for all resolutions and ordinances in order to pass. If the resolution does not get approved by the City Council, the Planning Commission's decision stands. Mayor Pro Tem Ly clarified to the public if the resolution did no pass, then the Planning Commission's decision stands which means�the denial of the Conditional Use Permit. He reiterated his concerns under RLUIPA, which puts the city at risk. He asked why staff was recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 16-08. Director of Community Development Kim explained staff's reason for recommending approval was because in the R2 Zone, churches and religious assemblies are permitted with a conditional use permit. Staff had been working with the applicant for over a year and they have been diligent with complying with the city's code requirement. Mayor Pro Tem Ly reiterated the Conditional Use Permit follows the code and there have been added conditions such as the use of smokeless incense. He asked staff if the applicant was difficult to work with. Assistant Planner Lao replied the applicant had been very responsive and receptive to suggestions by staff, such as hours of operation. Mayor Pro Tem Ly asked staff if parking issues have been looked at in the neighborhood. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 16 of 32 Director of Community Development Kim explained parking issues was difficult, because the zoning code requires specific number of parking stalls for different types of uses. Based on the square footage of the assembly area, the project meets code. Mayor Pro Tem Ly reiterated conditions of approval do meet code which the applicant was satisfied. In addition, added restrictions like using smokeless incense and reducing the hours of operation to 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Monday through Friday to accommodate the school hours. Assistant Planner Lao assured the City Council, staff confirmed with the applicant on the added conditions which they agreed to. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated the applicant agreed to additional restrictions to work with the community. He asked if there were other conditions to assure a safe guard of the quality of life for residents. Otherwise, the city would be violating the least restrictive use concept of RLUIPA and putting the city in jeopardy. Council Member Armenta asked if the Temple was currently operating without the proper permits. Assistant Planner Lao replied staff has advised the applicant to not operate as a temple until they receive their Conditional Use Permit. Council Member Armenta expressed the Temple was operating recently, knowing they did not have the proper permits to operate. She asked Mr. Do to confirm. Mr. Do's response was inaudible. Council Member Armenta stated the pictures submitted by the Mak family showed people parking in front of their driveway to go to the temple. Asked if the temple was not operating any other services. Assistant Planner Lao replied no other services were being provided. Council Member Armenta asked the City Attorney since the residence has violated for 26 years and has 57 pages of citations, what was the probability that the city could be sued, due to the fact that the temple operated all these years, while breaking our ordinance. City Attorney Richman stated anyone could sue the city regardless of whether there are strong facts or weak facts, it's not within our control. Council Member Armenta asked the record to show the Temple was stating they were not having any type of service, because then would be violating the city ordinance and a citation that had been given to them. She asked if anybody in the Mak Family, witnessed the temple operating some type of service. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 17 of 32 Mr. Mak stated he did not know what would be considered a service, but definitely there was a gathering and one person tried to light an incense, and was told not to. He noted people go in and out, but he was not sure what they were doing. They don't take pictures of the temple unless it's on their own property, however all the pictures submitted to the City Council were available on the temple's public facebook page. Mayor Pro Tem Ly asked for clarification when it's not considered a service if people gather to pray. City Attorney Richman stated the city could have to review the code on the definitions of a religious assembly. Furthermore, since the property is a residence, people can have gatherings. Council Member Armenta stated she was contacted by Anita Chu, Superintendent of Garvey School District, to voice her opposition to the project. Director of Community Development Kim read the definition of a religious assembly in the code, "Places of religious assembly means any facility specifically designed and used to accommodate of person's for the purpose of fellowship, worship or similar conduct of religious practice and activities. Places of religious assembly includes, limited associated accessory uses i.e. religious school activities that are not full time, residence for clergy, and office space, and excluding schools with regular daily sessions. It also includes functionally related internal facilities Eke kitchen, multipurpose rooms etc. and functionally accessory uses such as temporary aid shelters to provide humanitarian assistance." City Attorney Richman explained when you have an RLUiPA case, it is very fact sensitive, where you would have to establish substantial burden and you would have to show what the activities of this particular assembly are and are we substantially burdening them. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated it was his understanding that completely banning the temple from practicing their religion at the site was a substantial burden. He indicated the project was being treated similar to a commercial use and not a residential use in an R2 Zone, which requires a Conditional Use Permit. He continued by referring to court case of Central Familiar, which involves equal use and should be treated at the very least equal to if not less stringent than a secular use. He inquired to staff if similar conditions of approval would be placed on a regular home or duplex in the R2 Zone. Director of Community Development Kim replied a duplex in an R2 Zone would not need a Conditional Use Permit. Mayor Pro Tem Ly noted when you have a use that is permitted, granted by a Conditional Use Permit, which meets the code, the City was still proposing to add Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 18 of 32 additional conditions of approval that are more stringent to the religious assembly's proposal. He expressed concerns with violating the right of equal use. Mayor Low suggested to add conditions to address the current concerns of residents. City Attorney Richman stated what Mr. Ly was referring to, in situations where we are putting additions to the Conditional Use Permit, cities have been sued over those conditions themselves, as being in violation of RLUIPA. We are permitted to use least restrictive means, based on facts which are presented to the City Council. The applicant would have to prove substantial burden and the City would have to show there was a compelling interest and facts that could show that. Mayor Low reiterated there were multiple issues being discussed such as traffic and noise issues. However, the burning of incense, was being addressed by condition no. 22. Mayor Pro Tem Ly suggested to add a condition which addressed no karaoke on the premises. Mayor Low stated the temple was willing to compromise and asked the Mak family what they were willing to compromise. Council Member Armenta expressed concerns stating no matter how many conditions are placed, if the temple was not willing to abide by them they are not being truthful. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated he understood Ms. Armenta's sentiment, but the conditions of approval would come in place. If the applicant violates any of the conditions, then the city could shut them down and they could not claim RLUIPA, because they had agreed to the conditions. He asked Mr. Mak if he had additional concerns to share with the City Council. Mr. Mak stated based on their experience, parking is an issue, as well as the increase of noise and continued smoke. Mayor Low reiterated the applicant was going to start using smokeless incense. Mr. Mak asked if the Temple turns on one regular incense, would they be violating their conditions and if he could videotape or take a picture of it happening. City Attorney Richman clarified to Mr. Mak the city was not giving him legal advice. In general if you are in the public, there is a general rule that you could film. Mr. Mak asked how will the city address the parking issues and crowd noise from the temple. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 19 of 32 Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated in reading the Planning Commission minutes the temple generally has four events a year, but our special event permits are only issued 3 times a year. The applicant needs to have one less event and have it added to the conditions per the code. Mr. Mak asked if a capacity limit would be imposed on the temple. Director of Community Development Kim responded the fire department sets the occupancy limit. He would have to check if there are occupancy limits for outdoor activities. Council Member Armenta asked if the house of worship was open to anybody or was it limited to whom they deemed members. City Attorney Richman responded it's not a public facility like a government facility, the temple is still considered private. Mr. Mak asked if the temple burns incense inside the house and has smoke dissipating, could that be addressed. Director of Community Development Kim replied the condition was written so it specifically says only smokeless incense shall be used. Council Member Armenta asked to add to the Conditional Use Permit that no burning of anything would be allowed. Mr. Mak asked if the applicant had a kitchen request in the plans. Director of Community Development Kin replied there is a kitchen inside the house. Mr. Mak indicated that staff report also indicated the temple kept operating even though they were told by code enforcement to cease operation until they had the proper permits. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated to Mr. Mak that he had rights and that's what the Conditional Use Permit was for. A contract between the city and the applicant which states they are going to follow the rules. The city could fine them or take them to court if they do not follow the rules. Assistant Planner Lao referred to the staff report, "on April 26, 2016 the case was closed as a religious assembly establishment ceased operations. On August 16, 2016 code enforcement case 16-0347 was re-established, as the Public Safety Department received a complaint about the noise and the smoke from the incense. According to the Public Safety Department, the property owner was issued an administrative citation for operating a religious establishment without proper Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 20 of 32 entitlements. For this reason, the applicant submitted a Conditional Use Permit to operate a place of religious assembly." Council Member Armenta stated the house of worship continued to operate after they were told to stop. Assistant Planner Lao reaffirmed on April 26`x' the case was closed because the assembly ceased operations; however, in August it was reopened because another complaint was received that it had reopened. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated that without a Conditional Use Permit the temple is protected under RLUIPA. If there is a Conditional Use Permit, which they agreed to conditions, the city has enforcement authority. Mr. Mak inquired about crowd control or limits Mayor Pro Tem Ly asked staff at what point does an activity require a special event permit. Director of Community Development Kim explained a special event permit would be required for activities other than a typical assembly use. Outdoor events for assembly purposes, would require them to obtain a permit which are used three times per calendar year. Through the special event permit there can be other specific conditions that apply for that specific permit. Occupancy limits for a specific building is set once the applicant goes through the plan check process and when it's reviewed by the fire department. City Attorney Richman advised Council to be careful on listing specific limits, the applicant will have to abide with current city laws, fire code, building code, and State laws as stated in condition no. 10. Mr. Mak reiterated his concerns on parking issues. Pictures provided show traffic bumper to bumper during a regular day and drivers blocking driveways. City Attorney Richman explained that if a driver blocks his driveway, then the individual receives the ticket. A religious assembly would not be tied to the traffic violation of an individual. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated condition no. 19 also addresses traffic by limiting the hours of operation between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., to limit the impact on the school as well. Saturday and Sunday are limited to 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Specifically on Wednesday, operating hours will stop at 1:00 p.m. due to the school's short day schedule. Mr. Mak requested the temple's operating hours be reduced for the weekend as well. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 21 of 32 Council Member Armenta proposed looking into permit parking in that area. Mayor Pro Tem Ly agreed and suggested staff look into a parking and traffic study in the area and bring back options for the city council. Council Member Armenta stated while working at the school near the temple, street sweeping was done before school hours to minimize impact on parking for the residents. - City Attorney Richman reaffirmed council could direct staff to look into a traffic study to help with parking issues. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated the weekend is when many of the senior citizens have time to attend the religious service. The applicant has been willing to agree with all conditions, as also request that they are not using audio visual equipment that would generate loud type of noises. Mr. Mak asked of people are preparing food in the temple outside the normal operating hours, would that be a violation of a condition. Director of Community Development Kim replied the kitchen in the backyard will be removed as part of the condition. Mayor Low clarified by removing the kitchen outside it means they will not be able to cook outside. Director of Community Development Kim referred to condition no. 21 "All activities shall take place within the interior of the building while the doors and windows are closed. There shall be no amplification of music or voice outside of the building. Sound as measured at the property line shall not exceed a noise performance standard of 60 DBA during hours of operation." The 60 DBA is the city's noise ordinance requirement. Mayor Pro Tem Ly reiterated the city would look into a parking and traffic analysis and figure out options in terms on how to treat off street parking. Mayor Low urged the temple organizers to communicate with their members to not park in anybody's driveway. Council Member Armenta reiterated until the Temple meets their ADA requirements and abides with all the planning and building codes, they are not to have any services as they will be in violation of their conditions. Mayor Low asked the applicant if he understood if the Conditional Use Permit is passed, going forward they would have to comply with all the conditions. If they violate any of the conditions, the city has the right to revoke the Conditional Use Permit and they would not be able to operate. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 22 of 32 Director of Community Development Kim stated once the Conditional Use Permit is approved, the applicant would have to start obtaining the building permit to occupylegally. Council Member Armenta reiterated if they use the property other than a residence, and they have any type of gathering, cooking, etc. prior to getting all the permits, being ADA compliant, then they would be in violation. Director of Community Development Kim stated if the Conditional Use Permit is approved, the property would no longer be a residence once the improvements are completed. They should not have any gatherings as an assembly, but there is a residential component since there is a care taker on the property. City Attorney Richman stated like other religious assembly activities there are other activities which have to occur in the building. Mr. Mak stated the temple had been breaking the code consistently and asked what the enforcement method would be. Mayor Pro Tem Ly suggested the applicant return before the City Council for review of their compliance of the conditions in six months. Council Member Armenta asked what hours of operations were originally proposed from the temple. Assistant Planner Lao replied the temple had proposed 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. seven day a week. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated the applicant was reducing the hours during the weekday and therefore proposed new hours for weekend. The weekend is the most important time that they have. If they are willing to compromise for the sake of the school, giving them two hours on a combined weekend to the loss of five hours during the week is fair. Mr. Mak stated their quality of life is not being improved with the weekend hours. Mayor Low asked if the City Council would like the item to come back for review in six months with the current hours. City Attorney Richman explained the Conditional Use Permit is conditioned in a manner that makes the applicant consistent with the code. You can add conditions or changes in the event there is an understanding that we could revoke the Conditional Use Permit. But the ability to impose new conditions after the fact, will be limited because now they have a Conditional Use Permit in place. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 23 of 32 Council Member Armenta suggested the temple keep their weekend operating hours from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. since they already had that time set prior to the proposed conditions. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated he would like to preserve their time from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. during the weekend. Mr. Mak reiterated the temple was already operating with a time of 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. during the weekend and it would not impact them to stay the same. Mayor Low asked the applicant if they could operate from 10:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. during the weekend. Mr. Ky Do stated he was a victim of discrimination and racism from their neighbor. Mr. Do replied yes, we are willing to compromise on the time. We are trying to buy the house and the neighbors are not willing to sell to the Chinese Vietnamese people. Mayor Pro Tem Ly reiterated condition no. 19 would read, "Operating hours will be 10:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday." Condition no. 31, "the applicant cannot exceed three special events per year, and still must go through the permit process." And condition no. 21, which limits their activities indoors and noise, and also condition no. 10, to comply with local, State and Federal laws. He requested to add "including but not limited to occupancy limit" to condition no. 32. City Attorney Richman added the Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the City Council after six months from when they received their certificate of occupancy or final building permit. At the six month review staff will present information to the City Council to determine compliance with the conditions of approval. ACTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Ly and seconded by Mayor Low to approve Resolution 2017-66 reversing the Planning Commission's decision and approving the Conditional Use Permit 16-08, a request to operate a place of religious assembly with the subject to the amended conditions to include a total of 32 conditions of approval. Motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: Armenta, Low, Ly and ABSENT: Alarcon Mayor Pro Tem Ly directed staff to look into a parking and traffic analysis. Mayor Low recessed the city council meeting at 12:54 a.m. and reconvened back at 1:00 a.m. Council Member Armenta stated she hoped this would not set a precedence in other neighborhoods, resulting in more temples. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 24 of 32 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Clark pulled item F for a separate discussion. A. Claims and Demands • Resolution No. 2017-64 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $703,904.70 NUMBERED 98115 THROUGH NUMBER 98264 INCLUSIVELY, WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2017-64 ® Resolution No. 2017-65 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,068,306.69 NUMBERED 98291 THROUGH NUMBER 98376 INCLUSIVELY, WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2017-65 • Resolution No. 2017-18 SA . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $1,044,532.61 NUMBERED 10225 THROUGH NUMBER 10227 INCLUSIVELY, WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2017-18 SA B. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommendation: That the City Council approve the minutes from the regular meeting on November 14, 2017, and the special meeting on December 6, 2017. C. Proposed Adoption of Fourth Amendment to the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Joint Powers Agreement Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 25 of 32 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2017-67, approving the fourth Amendment to the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments' (SGVCOG) Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT AS ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL'S GOVERNING BOARD D. Proposed City of Rosemead/County of Los Angeles Cooperative Agreement — Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council enter into a cooperative agreement with County of Los Angeles for the Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program in the amount of $75,000. E. 2018 City Council Meeting Schedule Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a City Council meeting schedule for the 2018 calendar year. G. HR Dynamics & Performance Management, Inc., Professional Services Agreement Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the professional services agreement with HR Dynamics & Performance Management, Inc. for Human Resource services for an amount not to exceed $150,000. ACTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Ly and seconded by Mayor Low to approve Consent Calendar items A, B, C, D, E, and G, with the exception of item F. Motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly and ABSENT: Alarcon F. Resolution 2017-61 — Resolution to Uphold the Planning Commission's Decision for Modification 17-05 Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution 2017- 61, consistent with its direction provided at the November 14, 2017, Council Meeting to uphold the Planning Commission's decision for Modification 17-05. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 26 of 32 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION FOR MODIFICATION 17-05, A MODIFICATION OF DESIGN REVIEW 14-06, TO RE- CLASSIFY THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT OF THE MIXED USE PROJECT TO A SHOPPING CENTER USE, FOR THE INCORPORATION OF RESTAURANT USE IN FIVE OUT OF THE FIVE UNITS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 9036-38 GARVEY AVENUE, IN THE MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A MIXED USE AND DESIGN OVERLAY (C-3/MUDO/D- 0) ZONE (APN: 5282-026-052) Mayor Pro Tem Ly recused himself from the dais regarding item F of the agenda. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Armenta and seconded by Mayor Low to approve Resolution 2017-61, to uphold the Planning Commission's decision for Modification 17-05. Motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: Armenta, Low and NOES: Clark and ABSENT: Alarcon City Attorney Richman explained because the item was not an action recommendation, therefore the Planning Commission's decision remains. 7. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Traffic Signal Maintenance and Repair Agreement and Budget Amount Increase — St. Francis Electric Recommendation: It is recommended that Council take the following actions (1) Increase the annual contractual amount for St. Francis Electric by $73,050, for a total amount of $180,000, which would include a 5% contingency. (2) Increase the budgeted amount for traffic signal maintenance for FY 2017-18 by $30,000 for a total budget amount of $180,000. Senior Management Analyst Piatt presented a brief report on St. Francis Electric two-year contract that began January 1, 2017, with an option to renew for two additional years, to maintain and repair all of the City -owned traffic signals at an annual cost of $106,950 or $8,912 monthly. Due to a lack of responsiveness from the previous contractor (Siemens Industries), there was a backlog of needed repairs and necessary equipment upgrades, which was not accurately budgeted under the contract with St. Francis Electric. As a result, St. Francis Electric's contract was under budgeted and staff anticipated an amount needed of $172,039 annually or $14,337 monthly. Staff recommend an increase annual contractual amount for St. Francis Electric of $73,050, for a total amount of $180,000, which would include a 5% contingency. Secondly, increase the budgeted amount for traffic signal maintenance for FY 2017-18 by $30,000 for a total budget amount of $180,000. Council Member Armenia stated she requested additional documents to review the back logs on what was paid. She referred to the scope and terms of the contract Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 27 of 32 which the contractor agreed to furnish to the city, including all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the professional traffic signal maintenance, and services necessary for the project. She questioned why staff was requesting more funding, when services should have been covered in the contract and asked who was maintaining the traffic signal contract previously. Director of Public Works Ramirez explained in the last three years, with large staff turnover from department heads, project managers, and analyst, there was a variety of staff that maintained the contract. There had not been consistency in overseeing the traffic signal contract in the last three years. Council Member Armenia stated in addition to the regular monitoring from January to December 2017, the City exceeded its funding in nine months from the original amount awarded to the contractor. Director of Public Works Ramirez explained the monitoring had been at the same amount as stated in the contract. When talking about labor and cost, it does deal with the monitoring part of it. As for the maintenance, repairs needed included emergency repairs, back log repairs, and regular wear and tear repairs that were not included in the monitoring; therefore, it was an additional cost. Staff had been monitoring the contract in the last three months and has seen a decline in maintenance cost. The contractor guides technical staff in purchasing parts, which saves the City 15 percent of the cost that would have been charged. Lastly, when St. Francis first were hired, they were given the authority to work on a back log of repairs to traffic signals right away, which contributed to the initial increase in cost. Council Member Armenta asked for a list of details of responsibilities of what the contract entailed. She asked for clarification of the last bullet in the contract, the maintenance and the inspections of flashing beacons in pavement, flashing crosswalks, and electronic speed feedback sign, including checking power supply voltage, solar equipment, and replace any batteries as needed and replacing damaged of malfunctioning lamps, LED indications, in road warning lights, and detection pads. Director of Public Works Ramirez clarified the monitoring was strictly inspections, and anything that required replacement or upgrade fell under the maintenance. The contract covers both monitoring and maintenance when read through it. Council Member Armenia reiterated the contract states the maintenance and inspection includes, replacing damaged or malfunctioning lamps. Director of Public Works Ramirez replied the maintenance and inspections and replacements falls under maintenance and the city gets charged, therefore it's not a monitoring cost. Council Member Armenia expressed concerns with the amount of $172,039 additional funding being requested. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 28 of 32 City Manager Manis clarified staff was only requesting $73,000 in additional funding. Director of Public Works Ramirez explained out of the $180,000, the $106,000 had already been budgeted. Staff is requesting additional funding amount of $73,000 to cover the contract. As for the $30,000, staff was not asking for money, but to increase the actual budget amount in order to match the expenditures in the budget. Council Member Armenta suggested the City should to go out to bid. City Manager Manis stated should the City go out to bid, the cost could come out at $180,000. Director of Public Works Ramirez stated additional funding through December is needed when the contract is done. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated a budget amendment would be required in order to cover the added cost of the contract. Council Member Armenta expressed concern as to why staff was bringing the item before the City Council after the contract budget had exceeded. Director of Public Works Ramirez explained the issue was first brought to her attention by the Director of Finance in July, along with many other department issues that have been addressed in the last couple of months. Staff has been reviewing the bills and working with the contractor to decrease cost. During which time, staff tried to take the item before the City Council at another meeting, but unfortunately the item was pushed to the current meeting. City Manager Manis noted Mrs. Ramirez had been organizing and cleaning up the Public Works Department, while working on various projects and new assignments. Council Member Armenta clarified her concerns were not directed to staff, but the request for additional funds for Public Works projects which had been budgeted for previously. Director of Public Works Ramirez reiterated the traffic signal project was not budgeted properly, based on the work which had to be done. Council Member Armenta asked the Director of Finance if the City would be in the red, if council proceeded with the funding request. Director of Finance Lieu replied the City would not be in the red. The city has had an increase in sales tax, transient occupancy tax, and $500,000 in additional revenue than budgeted. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 29 of 32 Mayor Pro Tem Ly expressed concerns with the staff report, citing that additional documentation and information on how the money was going to be spent was missing; therefore he could not support the funding request. He asked what the timeline would be if staff put out a bid for traffic signal maintenance. Director of Public Works Ramirez noted the process would take a few months and a contract could be awarded in March or April. City Attorney Richman reminded the City was under contract with the current contractor until the end of December. Mayor Pro Tem Ly asked if there was cap on that contract cost. Director of Public Works Ramirez responded there was no cap in place. The monitoring, the contractor knew they had a set amount. As for the maintenance, it was not set because it's based on repairs and replacement that fluctuate. Council Member Armenta requested an itemized breakdown of what is being used for maintenance and what amount is being used for monitoring to have a better understanding of where the money is going. Mayor Pro Tem Ly reiterated his concern with insufficient documentation provided to the City Council and not knowing where the money would be going towards. Director of Finance Lieu stated as long as there was an amended contract and budget amendment, there was no specific timeline. Mayor Low deferred the traffic signal contract item to the next meeting in January 2018 and directed staff to provide an itemized list. S. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL Council Member Clark request 8.A to be moved up on the agenda. A. Accessibility and Technology Reimbursement Administrative Policy (Agendized by Councilmember Armenta) Recommendation: Discuss and provide direction to staff. Mayor pro Tem Ly stated he liked option B in the staff report to continue the monthly reimbursement of $150 and increase the $300 for Technology Reimbursement up to $650 for every two calendar years. Council Member Armenta clarified the Council is looking at the $650 option. ACTION: Moved by Council Member Clark and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ly to amend Administrative Policy 30-02, to continue the monthly reimbursement of Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 30 of 32 $150 and increase the annual reimbursement up to $650 for every two calendar years. Motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly and ABSENT: Alarcon Mayor Pro Tem Ly inquired how the list of cities was put together for the survey provided and in the past also included Contract Cities. Council Member Clark stated each member of the City Council sits on many boards and therefore uses their phones a lot, so comparison with other cities is not relevant. 7. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF B. Rosemead Boulevard Highway Safety Improvement Program Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council provide direction on how they would like to proceed with the Rosemead Boulevard HSIP project. City Engineer Fajardo reported as part of the City's Fiscal Year 2010-11 Capital Improvement Program, the City Council approved a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) project. The project is funded primarily through the State of California HSIP Program with a total approximated approved grant of $454,000 and required City matching contribution of approximate $58,000, for a total project approximation of $512,000. The project's original scope of work included the installation of wider crosswalks, pedestrian lighting, landscaped parkways, new traffic safety striping, a bike lane, signage, countdown pedestrian signals, and traffic signal improvements. Unfortunately, through the submittal of the encroachment permit application, Caltrans eliminated most of the originally proposed items and approved only the installation of the sidewalk and minor traffic modifications at the intersection of Mission Drive and Valley Boulevard along Rosemead Boulevard. Mayor Pro Tem Ly inquired what type of landscape -was being proposed. City Engineer Fajardo stated the landscape permitted by Caltrans was not too pleasant. Council Member Clark,asked why did it cost $100,000 to plant trees and if staff could go out to bid. City Engineer Fajardo responded it was due to the cost of higher gas tax, transportation, and fuel. The cost was the engineering cost estimate and it was an approximation with a ten percent deviation. Council Member Clark asked if there was a cheaper labor cost. Director of Public Works Ramirez stated the City has to pay the prevailing wages rates, which raise the cost of the project. Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 31 of 32 City Manager Manis reiterated the city has to pay the increase in cost, anywhere from 25 to 27 percent on a project due to prevailing wage rates. City Engineer Fajardo added the project was a federal project, and the city would have to pay for prevailing wages, disadvantaged business enterprise, and traffic control along Rosemead Blvd. Mayor Pro Tem Ly stated since the funding sources used was a highway safety improvement grant, lighting district fund, and Measure R, some landscape should be incorporated. ACTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Ly and seconded by Council Member Armenta to direct staff to go with the option that includes landscape on the project and allocate the remaining amount of money from Measure R. Motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: Clark, Armenta, Low, Ly and ABSENT: Alarcon Council Member Clark left the City Council meet at 1:42 p.m 8. MATTERS FROM MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL B. City Council Comments - None 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 1:43 a.m. The next regular City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on January 9, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber. l�larc Donohue, City Clerk Polly Loi, l layor Rosemead City Council and the Successor Agenda to the Rosemead Community Development Commission Special and Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 32 of 32