MINUTES OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 8, 2022
The City Council of the City of Downey held a Regular City Council Meeting on March 8, 2022, at 6:52 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Downey City Hall, 11111 Brookshire Avenue, Downey, California, Mayor Pacheco presiding.
PRESENT:
Council Members:
Blanca Pacheco
Catherine Alvarez
Sean Ashton
Claudia M. Frometa
Mario Trujillo
Mayor
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
(teleconference)
ALSO PRESENT: Gilbert Livas, City Manager
John Oskoui, Assistant City Manager
Yvette M. Abich Garcia, City Attorney
Aldo E. Schindler, Deputy City Manager/Community Development Leslie Murray, Chief of Police
Dan Hurlock, Fire Chief
Delfino Consunji, Public Works Director
Jason Chacon, Interim Director of Parks & Recreation
Anil Gandhy, Director of Finance
Alicia Duarte, CMC, City Clerk
The Invocation was delivered by Council Member Frometa. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Ashton.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS; REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS;
CONFERENCE/MEETING REPORTS
Council Member Trujillo acknowledged residents voicing their concerns about the future of businesses in Downey and stated that Council would be discussing reopening to the public.
He directed staff to research hiring a design company to erect a statue of Karen and Richard Carpenter to be installed in a location with ample parking. He reported a meeting with City Manager Livas and Maria Rivas to discuss Downey's Sister Cities and announced a trip to Guadalajara and Zapopan, Mexico to meet with their Mayors. He clarified that this trip would be out of pocket and would not involve use of City funds. He thanked Public Works staff for replenishing trees in the City. He reported attendance at the Arts and Culture Subcommittee Workshop to discuss the future of arts, culture, and history in the City.
Council Member Alvarez welcomed the public to the City Council meeting. She reported attending the Contract Cities Conference in Sacramento, where she spoke to State legislators on ways to increase resources for the community. She stated that a pending lawsuit has come to an end. She requested a report on how the Los Angeles County eviction moratorium has impacted residents and cities with similar moratorium ordinances. She requested a status report of traffic accidents from 2020 to present. She thanked Shower of Hope for a successful event.
She reported working with Community Development to neuter cats and dogs on the streets and expressed her desire for better care of animals in the City.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022
Council Member Ashton directed staff to research lowering speed limits per Assembly Bill
43. Council Member Frometa stated she was participating remotely from Orlando, where the Downey High School Dance Team won second place at the National Dance Competition. She reported receipt of feedback regarding a certain establishment, which will be discussed by the City Council. She reported attending the Arts and Culture Subcommittee Workshop. She reported attending the Downey Sister Cities Association social event and a meeting with SoCal Gas regarding the first Hydrogen Home. She noted that today is International Women's Day and celebrated the achievements of women in science and education. She acknowledged the crisis in Ukraine and expressed her hopes for a resolution to this conflict. She thanked staff for the social media campaign to educate residents on the benefits of expanding the tree canopy in the City. She noted the frequency of street races and street takeovers and directed staff to continue speed enforcement efforts and bring back a report regarding other initiatives the City can establish to reduce speeding and racing in the City. She thanked Council Member Ashton for his years of service to the City and wished him the best
Mayor Pacheco welcomed the public to the virtual Council meeting. She reported attending a conference of the Cal Cities State Board to discuss support or opposition to legislative bills. She reported attending the California Contract Cities legislative tour, where a press conference was held regarding Senate Bill 986 which addresses the theft of catalytic converters by making it easier for law enforcement to trace stolen parts by requiring the Vehicle Identification Number etched onto the catalytic converter and prohibiting cash sales. She noted that Senate Bill 1472 addresses the street racing that has been occurring not only in Downey but in other cities as well. She directed staff to track the status of Senate Bill 986 and Senate Bill 1472. She reported attending the Cops and Kids event at Golden Park and the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) graduation. She stated that she is filming monthly videos with Downey Fire Department and that the March video is about smoke alarms. She invited the public to the Sister Cities Association Meeting on March 16 at Golden Park. She wished everyone a happy International Women's Day.
PRESENTATIONS: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ZONE CODE AMENDMENTS TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR TATTOO ESTABLISHMENTS AND AMEND HOME OCCUPATION STANDARDS: Community Development.
INTRODUCED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY AMENDING TITLE IX ("LAND USE") TO AUTHORIZE BODY ART FACILITIES IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONES OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY; TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS ON THE OPERATION OF HOME OCCUPATIONS; AND, TO PROHIBIT SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES AS
HOME OCCUPATIONS
Mayor Pacheco opened the Public Hearing at 7:19 p.m.
City Clerk Duarte affirmed receipt of the Proof of Publication. It was moved by Council Member Ashton, seconded by Council Member Trujillo, and carried 5-0, to receive and file the publication.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022 2
City Planner Crystal Landavazo presented the staff report. She provided background on the item and stated that the matter was brought to the City's attention after receiving written correspondence from an attorney. She provided information on the 2010 legal decision stating that tattoo establishments cannot be prohibited under First Amendment protections. She provided an overview of regulation on tattoo establishments and the regulations the City seeks to place in the zone text amendment. She clarified the purpose of the Ordinance was to bring the Municipal Code into compliance with current law, establish standards for tattoo establishments, and provide clarified home occupation standards.
Council Member Trujillo asked how many tattoo establishments the City currently has. Ms.
Landavazo responded that the City has issued a business license to one tattoo establishment. Council Member Trujillo clarified the location of the establishment. He asked whether the City has a limit on the number of tattoo establishments. He confirmed that the City cannot prohibit tattoo establishments but can regulate the location of such establishments. Ms. Landavazo stated that tattoo establishments must be treated similar to personal service uses. She noted that the establishment would be limited to commercial areas but a distance requirement could not be applied as it is not applied to other personal service uses such as beauty salons. Council Member Trujillo asked whether the City could limit the number of tattoo establishments. City Attorney Abich Garcia stated that this question would need to be researched as it relates to First Amendment activity.
Mayor Pacheco asked to clarify the definition of a tattoo and whether services such as microblading would qualify. Ms. Landavazo stated that the Ordinance does define a tattoo as pigmentation of the skin and that microblading would fall into that category. She explained that this requires that such establishments comply with health and safety regulations.
Council Member Trujillo requested more information on the written correspondence received from the attorney. Ms. Landavazo responded that the attorney was enquiring for a client who wanted to open a tattoo establishment in the City and was challenging the fact that tattoo establishments are prohibited by the fact that they are not allowed under the Municipal Code.
Council Member Frometa directed staff to research the number of tattoo establishments the City could permit. City Attorney Abich Garcia advised the importance of having the amendment added to the Municipal Code to prevent future legal challenges and suggested that Council direct staff to research this question and report back to Council. Council Member Frometa directed staff to research limiting the number of tattoo establishments.
Council Member Ashton confirmed that tattoo establishments are not allowed because they are not identified in the Municipal Code. He questioned how a tattoo establishment is currently operating in the City if this usage is not currently allowed. Ms. Landavazo stated this was likely in response to a similar challenge. She noted staff's intent is to clarify regulations to prevent additional challenges or the occurrence of unique circumstances. Council Member Ashton asked whether there are any other applicants interested in opening a tattoo establishment. Ms. Landavazo responded that there are two interested parties, the attorney who submitted the written correspondence and another party who made an enquiry in January 2022.
Council Member Trujillo directed staff to research location regulations to prohibit establishments in proximity to schools.
Mayor Pacheco opened this item for public comment. Mayor Pacheco asked City Clerk Duarte if there were any written comments received regarding the Public Hearing item. Mayor Pacheco asked City Clerk Duarte if there was anyone on the teleconference line who would like to comment regarding the Public Hearing item.
Armando Herman, non-resident, commented in favor of tattoo establishments and in opposition to location restrictions.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022 3
Juan Martinez, resident, commented in opposition to location restrictions for tattoo establishments.
Jang Lee, resident, expressed his concerns regarding First Amendment rights and the impact of tattoo establishments on the community.
BC, resident, commented that tattoo establishments should be allowed under the model of the Hydrogen Home, with no subsidies to build or run the establishment.
It was moved by Council Member Frometa, seconded by Council Member Ashton, and so ordered by the Mayor to close the Public Hearing at 7:34 p.m.
It was moved by Council Member Ashton, seconded by Council Member Alvarez, and carried 5- 0 to introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Downey amending Title IX ("Land Use") to Authorize Body Art Facilities in the Commercial Zones of the City of Downey; to amend the condition on the operation of Home Occupations; and, to prohibit specified activities as Home Occupations.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA, CONSENT CALENDAR AND NON -AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Pacheco asked City Clerk Duarte if any written public comments were received regarding Agenda, Consent Calendar and Non -Agenda items. City Clerk Duarte confirmed 58 written comments were received.
Jim Noboa commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to the location and the high risk of criminal activity. He suggested alternative businesses to occupy the retail space and asked Ojos Locos Sports Cantina to relocate.
Erwin Noboa commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to the location and the high risk of criminal activity. He suggested alternative businesses to occupy the retail space and asked Ojos Locos Sports Cantina to relocate.
Sandra Noboa commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to the location and the high risk of criminal activity. She suggested alternative businesses to occupy the retail space and asked Ojos Locos Sports Cantina to relocate.
Christina Olson, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding noise level, drunk patrons, more homeless persons, safety issues, and potential criminal activity.
Susan Shaw, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding proximity to Downey High School, the uniform, human trafficking, and parking. She asked the City to consider an alternative location.
Sara Montano, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding family values.
Deborah Thorwart commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding the liquor license issued.
Resident, no name provided, commented in support of Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to the boost in revenue and resolution of the issue of squatters in the empty lot.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022 4
No name provided, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding proximity to the high school, influence on the City's youth, and the dress code.
Natasha Khalife, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding negative attention, proximity to schools, and increased crime rates and sexual assault.
Todd and Tish Raynesford commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding degrading and devaluing the City.
Cameron McNeil, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding the location, increased crime, and safety.
Martha Cordoba, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding sexism and respect for women.
Antzela G., resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding proximity to the high school and churches, the name of the bar, the dress code, and the image of the City.
Sonia Pena, non-resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding family values, the City's reputation, the location, the business's history of violence and crime activity.
Dawn Diaz, Ojos Locos Sports Cantina, commented regarding Item No. 10. to clarify that the business's uniforms are modeled after cheerleaders and will not consist of lingerie or bikinis. She provided a copy of the business's proposed uniform standards and compared them to that of existing restaurants in Downey. She requested modification to the language of the proposed Ordinance.
Leticia Flores, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding the number of establishments serving alcohol in the City.
Rocio Duarte, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding crime and safety, family values, the location, human and drug trafficking. She suggested alternative businesses that would support local youth.
Tania Aguilar, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding increased violence.
Theresa Espinoza commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding exploitation of women, and an increase in accidents, drugs, pornography, sexual harassment, and prostitution.
Miguel Rojas commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding more bars in the City.
Virginia Garcia commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding family values and proximity to the high school.
Ana Terrones, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding increased crime.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022 5
Rose Shelton, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding proximity to the school, increased crime, and too many bars in the City.
Ruby Romano, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding crime and safety and the number of bars in the City.
Sarah Bueno, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding drunk and disruptive behavior, promotion of women as sex objects, and promotion of sexual harassment.
Melissa Urday, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding the impact on family -owned restaurants, increased crime, family values, and the City's legacy.
Marcela Salazar, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding the City's identity, violence and disruption, and the proximity to the high school.
William Austin, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding the business's status as a restaurant instead of a sports bar, the proximity to the high school, family values, drunken disturbances, the type of people attracted by the business, the location, and the property value of homes and businesses in Downey.
Michael Williams commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina and stated he and his family will not vote for any council member who does not oppose this business.
Monica L. Flores, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding the effect on children in the City.
Carmela Andrade, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding other Ojos Locos Sports Cantina locations, employee attire, and proximity to the high school.
Lissette Rivera, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding family values and safety. She commented in support of the proposed Ordinance in Item No. 10 but stated it was a band -aid for those opposed to the business. She expressed concerns regarding proximity to the high school, drunk drivers, fights, and increased crime rates.
Jennifer Alvarez commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding the location, students frequenting the business after school, the business's history of crime, traffic, and the effect on the nearby senior apartment complex. She urged Council to conduct further studies and hold community meetings regarding this issue.
Marcella Barba-Olmos, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding proximity to the high school and the business's track record of serious violent and assorted crimes in and outside their other locations.
A.I Liberto, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding traffic, the location, and an increase in crime. They expressed their desire for family -oriented restaurants that offer different cuisines.
Susan D. Neff, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding proximity to the high school and the patrons attracted by the business. She wished Council a happy International Women's Day.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022 6
Claudia Silvia, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding the location and attraction of drunk drivers, thieves, and all-around unhealthy people to the City.
Dora Basurto-Friedman and Howard Friedman, residents, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding employee attire, criminal behavior, and the location of the business.
Angelo Basurto commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding the location, increase in crime and the impact on law enforcement. He stated that a change to employee attire is not enough to address these issues.
Jose, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding the background of other Ojos Locos sites, a history of violence and crime, questionable events, employee attire, and proximity to the high school.
Liza Adrian commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding minors entering the business, the location and proximity to the high school, family values, exploitation of women, and attraction of people who will cause problems.
Karyn-Armijo-Canett, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding the business being a sports bar rather than a restaurant, increased crime, service of alcohol, employee attire, the location, noise, parking and trash issues, and lack of enforcement.
Karina Saucedo, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding illegal and violent activity connected with every Ojos Locos location including withheld wages, labor law violations, sexual harassment, overserving of alcohol, violent fights, shootings, and murders.
Amalia Soto, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding the establishment's bad reputation and increased crime in the community.
Consuelo T.Y. Maradiaga commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding family values and proximity to the high school.
Ronald J. Davis and Lupita Davis commented regarding Item No. 10 and stated that, while employee attire is an issue of concern, their primary concern is lack of transparency. They required to be fully informed of the behind -the -scenes deliberation on the approval of Ojos Locos Sports Cantina.
Juanita Farias, resident, commented requesting assistance regarding rent stabilization.
Lee Squire, resident, commented regarding the fiduciary duty of public officials to residents of the City they serve.
Maura Cotero, resident, commented in favor of the rent stabilization committee proposed in Item No. 12 due to rent increases and stagnant wages.
Renee Thompson, resident, commented regarding her concerns about drug usage at Apollo Park.
Amanda S. commented in opposition to the Ordinance proposed in Item No. 10 and commented in support of Ojos Locos Sports Cantina. She stated that the business will be a friendly and fun place, and noted that the business would create many new jobs in the City.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022 7
Roy Zahabian commented in opposition to the Ordinance proposed in Item No. 10 due to concerns regarding the impact of additional regulations on businesses.
Roxana Abergel, resident, commented in opposition to the Ordinance proposed in Item No. 10 due to concerns regarding the impact on the business community.
Bijan Radnia commented in opposition to the Ordinance proposed in Item No. 10. She stated the City should not impose any new uniform regulations as State has uniform ordinances in place. She commented that Ojos Locos would generate at least 200 jobs. She noted that the attire shown in local newspaper articles would only be worn for special events and the images came from another business called Twin Peaks.
Jack Afshar, resident, commented in opposition to the Ordinance proposed in Item No. 10 due to concerns regarding additional red tape for businesses in Downey. He stated that Ojos Locos Sports Cantina will add a lot of jobs and generate sales tax, payroll tax, and property tax revenue.
Downey Tenants Union commented in favor of the rent stabilization committee proposed in Item 1101 rimF�
Elsa Van Leuven commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding employee attire. She requested that the City Council hold an open meeting and invite all persons running for City, Council, State, and Federal offices.
Howard Friedman, resident, commented regarding Item No. 10. He commented that he was not in favor of the Ordinance. He stated that he did not understand why a Conditional Use Permit was issued as other Ojos Locos locations have their female servers attired in lingerie, minors at the establishment on evenings and weekends, criminal activity in the surrounding area, and fights and public drunkenness.
Armando Herman, non-resident, commented in opposition to the proposed Carpenters statue and suggested a Metallica statue. He commented regarding traffic, Council Member Frometa, Southern California Gas, International Women's Day, maintenance of residential trees, and Council Member Ashton.
Juan Martinez, resident, commented regarding Item No. 9. He stated that he submitted a public records request for the identified documents to be destroyed and requested to understand the policy for destruction of records.
Jang Lee commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina. He commented regarding the Covid-19 vaccine and in opposition to the vaccine mandate.
Liza Adrian commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding the effect on Downey's image. She stated that the business is considered a "breastaurant" and noted female opposition to the opening of the business.
Jose, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns that it will attract the wrong people. He stated that City needs more steakhouses, sushi restaurants, high -end restaurants, and a Trader Joe's. He asked the Council to maintain Downey's image as a family -oriented City. He commented regarding speeding and requested the City update the street signs.
BC, resident, commented regarding the closure of the Council Chambers, mask mandates, and emergency declarations. He urged Council to support the recall of Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022 8
Rebecca Cantor, resident, commented in support of Council Member Alvarez and in favor of rent control.
Karina Saucedo, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina. She stated that her concern is not because of the dress code but the illegal and violent activity connected with Ojos Locos locations, including withholding of wages, violation of labor laws, sexual harassment, overserving of alcohol, and violent fights, shootings, and murders. She stated that the business is a bar, not a restaurant. She cited a list of lawsuits pertaining to sexual harassment and retaliation.
Yolanda Anderson, resident, commented in opposition to Ojos Locos Sports Cantina due to concerns regarding proximity to the high school, a senior apartment complex, the Downey Civic Center, and various churches. She expressed her concern regarding an increase in public drunkenness and DUIs. She stated that other Ojos Locos locations have reported instances of stabbings, shootings, and gang activity and noted that Downey Police Department is already stretched thin.
Having no one else, Mayor Pacheco closed Agenda, Consent Calendar and Non -Agenda Public Comment.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Ashton pulled Item No. 8 for separate discussion.
Mayor Pacheco pulled Item No. 10 for separate discussion.
It was moved by Council Member Ashton, seconded by Council Member Frometa and carried 5- 0, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
2. APPROVED MINUTES: Regular Meeting of February 22, 2022: City Clerk.
3. WARRANTS ISSUED: Warrant Nos. 357693 — 358003; Payroll Wire Numbers 30004201 & 30004206 — 30004208; EFT Nos. 11273 — 11304; Manual Wire No. 2223 — 2226, in the total amount of $3,281,038.31: Finance.
4. APPROVED PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KOA CORP. IN THE AMOUNT OF $96,610 FOR DESIGN OF PROPOSED ROUNDABOUT AT THE RIVES AVE. AT QUILL DR.
INTERSECTION; AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT; AND,
AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT AS DEEMED NECESSARY (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 22-17):
Public Works.
5. APPROVED FREEWAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS); AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT; AND, AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AND ALL AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT: Public Works.
6. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RULES AND REGULATIONS: Community Development.
APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 22-3161, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY UPDATING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 904 OF THE DOWNEY CITY CHARTER
7. APPROVED ANNUAL RATE ADJUSTMENTS REQUESTED BY CALMET SERVICES, INC. FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND RECYCLING SERVICES: Public Works.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022 9
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 22-8055, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DOWNEY APPROVING RATE ADJUSTMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES PROVIDED BY CALMET SERVICES, INC. TO RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS
9. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 22-8056, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DOWNEY APPROVING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN OBSOLETE RECORDS OF THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT: Finance.
OTHER BUSINESS
8. APPROVE A RESOLUTION TO RATIFY THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO AB 361 AND RE- AUTHORIZE REMOTE TELECONFERENCING FOR AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS: City Attorney.
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 22- , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY MAKING THE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO AB 361 AND RE -AUTHORIZING USE OF REMOTE TELECONFERENCING PROVISION FOR AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS.
This item was pulled by Council Member Ashton for separate discussion.
Council Member Ashton stated he wished to discuss the item as masks are no longer required in most public spaces.
Council Member Frometa stated she would like to consider the changes to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Los Angeles County of Public Health guidelines. She proposed that the City Council not renew the Resolution and move forward with opening the Council Chambers.
Council Member Alvarez stated that the State of California no longer requires masks for indoor or outdoor use. She advocated for opening the Council Chambers as the public would like to participate in person.
City Attorney Yvette Abich Garcia noted that if the Resolution is not renewed, the City Council may authorize another resolution pursuant to AB 361 if required.
It was moved by Council Member Ashton, seconded by Council Member Frometa, carried 5-0, to not renew the Resolution making the findings pursuant to AB 361 and re -authorizing use of remote teleconferencing provision for an additional 30 days.
10. REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING BUSINESS ATTIRE FOR RESTAURANTS AND BARS:
Community Development.
INTRODUCED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY ADDING CHAPTER 13 ("FOOD HANDLERS") OF ARTICLE IV ("PUBLIC WELFARE, MORALS, AND POLICY") OF THE DOWNEY MUNICIPAL CODE.
Mayor Pacheco commented regarding the feedback received by the community. She asked staff what the City can do to address the concerns of the residents.
City Manager Livas asked City Prosecutor James Eckart to respond to resident concerns. City Prosecutor Eckart clarified that the type of business being operated is a land use permit by right at the location and the City does not have the authority to approve or deny the business. He stated that the sole issue before the Planning Commission was issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the use of a DJ.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022 10
Mayor Pacheco asked whether the Planning Commissioners could have prohibited the business from opening. Eckart responded that Planning Commissioners do not have the legal authority to prevent the business from opening and could only make the decision of whether the business could operate with a DJ.
City Attorney Abich Garcia stated there were two applications before the Planning Commission, for the approval of the site plan and the Conditional Use Permit for the DJ. She stated that if the site plan were denied, the applicant could build on the Denny's location without Planning Commission review. She added that, without approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the DJ, the applicant could open without music as the usage is allowed per the Zoning Code. She reiterated that the Planning Commission could not have prevented the restaurant from opening at that location. City Attorney Abich Garcia reminded the City Council that discussion on the item is solely on the Ordinance regarding attire.
Council Member Ashton stated that most restaurants do serve alcohol as well. He asked if there were a percentage of food served that determines whether the establishment is a restaurant. City Prosecutor Eckart explained that this is dependent on the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license issued. He stated that under a Type 47 license, the business should be a bona fide eating establishment as defined by ABC and serve a minimum 50.01 % food. City Attorney Abich Garcia added that this is a condition of approval on the permit given to Ojos Locos.
Council Member Ashton asked what ABC or the City can do if the business is in violation of the permit. City Prosecutor Eckart responded that ABC can issue formal notices, suspend the license, or ultimately revoke the permit. He noted that the City may have additional remedies in certain instances.
He stated that the City may revoke the business license or apply administrative or civil remedies if the business is violating the law. He informed City Council that the expectation is that the business will comply with the ABC license and the City cannot know until the business begins operations.
Council Member Alvarez asked if, under the terms of the proposed Ordinance, the business can hold contests such as bikini contests. City Attorney Abich Garcia responded that such contests are considered special events and are not allowed. She elaborated that, under the terms of the Conditional Use permit, they are allowed to have a DJ and certain sports Pay -Per -View events.
Council Member Alvarez asked what the City can do if businesses do not comply with the Ordinance, if adopted. City Prosecutor Eckart responded the City could issue administrative citations and consider administrative remedies such as revocation of the business license or revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Council Member Alvarez asked how many citations are required before a business license is revoked. City Prosecutor Eckart responded that there is no set number required in the Downey Municipal Code.
Council Member Frometa stated that no City may prohibit a business from coming in but may establish parameters for how the business operates. She expressed that her concerns are similar to those raised by the public. She asked City Attorney Abich Garcia to clarify the type of permit issued to the establishment. City Attorney Abich Garcia responded that the business will be operating a restaurant under a Type 47 ABC license wherein food must be served at all times and a DJ will perform Thursday through Sunday until 1 a.m. and on Sunday until 11 p.m. She reiterated that the DJ and Pay -Per -View events are the only allowed forms of entertainment. She stated that no special contests, forms of exhibitions, or events are allowed at the location.
Council Member Trujillo asked to confirm that the City Council would not be able to stop a stripper joint from coming to Downey. City Prosecutor Eckart responded the City may not completely prohibit such a business from entering the City, as adult entertainment is allowed in certain zones within the City. He clarified that the business in question does not meet the definition of adult entertainment as defined in a City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022 11
Ninth Circuit decision. He elaborated that food or beverage served by someone scantily clad is not protected under the First Amendment but adult entertainment would receive First Amendment protections and therefore can be regulated but not banned. He reiterated that the business is not an adult business, and, under the current code, the City cannot ban a restaurant from opening.
Council Member Trujillo asked whether City Prosecutor Eckart had viewed media from the business's operations in other states and whether those operations would be considered adult entertainment. City Prosecutor Eckart reported that he had seen videos and photos from businesses in other states. He reported that the City defines adult activity as defined by the Supreme Court, which focuses on specifed anatomical areas and specified activities. He clarified that what is being applied for is not an adult business. He noted that the business is not proposing the same type of operation in Downey.
Council Member Trujillo asked the details of the operation for which the business has applied compared to operations in Texas. City Prosecutor Eckart responded that per a letter submitted to the City Council and the applications submitted to the City, the business does not intend to operate in lingerie or in bathing suits nor will they be hosting special events at the Downey location. Council Member Trujillo confirmed that this is a different version of Ojos Locos and asked whether this model of Ojos Locos Sports Cantina is being operated anywhere else in the country. City Prosecutor Eckart stated that he did not have any knowledge of any other Ojos Locos Sports Cantina locations. with this business model in the country. Council Member Trujillo questioned if this would be the first one.
Mayor Pacheco clarified that this would be the first Ojos Locos Sports Cantina location in California.
Council Member Frometa noted that intent is different from action. Council Member Frometa stated, as the City cannot stop them from opening by law, the City can regulate activities and limit them to the DJ and Pay -Per -View events. City Prosecutor Eckart confirmed this is correct as it pertains to entertainment and clarified that this does not currently apply to attire, which is the intent of the Ordinance being considered by Council. He read from the letter submitted by Ojos Locos Sports Cantina's attorney stating the staff uniform does not and will not consist of lingerie or bikinis. He reiterated that the purpose of the proposed Ordinance is to ensure that all businesses comply with the standards set forth in the Ordinance.
Council Member Frometa clarified that the permit issued by the City does not and will not allow the type of shows and entertainment allowed elsewhere. City Abich Garcia confirmed that special contests are not permitted at the Downey location under the business's Conditional Use Permit.
Council Member Trujillo stated that the version of Ojos Locos Sports Cantina would be similar to Hooters. City Prosecutor Eckart confirmed this is what has been stated by the business. Council Member Trujillo asked if the City can legally prevent the business from opening this particular business at the former Denny's site. City Prosecutor Eckard responded that the City cannot prevent the business from opening as they are permitted by right to open a restaurant as that facility. Council Member Trujillo asked if the business was aware of public sentiment regarding the proposed business and whether the City has worked with the owners previously. City Prosecutor Eckart and City Attorney Abich Garcia stated that the City has not worked with the owners of the business previously. Council Member Trujillo asked who the owners of the business were. Deputy City Manager/Community Development Schindler responded that the owner is a corporate owner based out of Texas that had an entitlement group submit the application on their behalf.
Council Member Frometa asked how the business decided to open in Downey. Deputy City Manager/Community Development Schindler responded that he did not know but most likely their broker City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022 12
located the site, which had a vacancy, matched the business's needs, and presented an attractive opportunity.
Council Member Trujillo confirmed that the City cannot legally prevent the business from opening at the former Denny's site under the revised uniform and requested to display the proposed uniform for the public's viewing. He confirmed that if the City pulled the business's Conditional Use Permits, the business may open on the existing site without a DJ. City Attorney Abich Garcia confirmed that this is correct. Council Member Trujillo requested a report regarding surrounding cities that have successfully campaigned to stop a business from coming in.
Council Member Alvarez commented regarding the dilapidated state of the property and directed staff to reach out to the appropriate person to take care of this issue.
City Prosecutor Eckart elaborated on the Ordinance and explained its purposed in regulating attire. He displayed the uniform proposed by Ojos Locos Sports Cantina and stated that it was modeled after cheerleaders' uniforms.
Council Member Trujillo commented regarding his opposition to the objectification of young ladies in Downey and expressed his opposition to businesses like Hooters entering the City.
City Prosecutor Eckart stated that the Ordinance regulates the attire of all food handlers who provide, handle, prepare, or serve food or drinks. He explained that the Ordinance prohibits the exposure of certain areas of the body. He stated that the Ordinance prohibits exposure of areas associated with adult entertainment and prohibits other areas such as the midriff, any portion of the chest that is more than three inches below the clavicle, and any section of the leg more than three inches below the buttocks. He noted that adult entertainment establishments with all required City approvals and permits would not be subject to this regulation. He stated that the penalties set in the Ordinance include administrative remedies such as administrative fines, revocation of the business license or other entitlements and permits, and other administrative remedies available at law.
Council Member Ashton asked about the likelihood of the City being sued if the Ordinance is approved and the chances of winning such a lawsuit. City Prosecutor Eckart stated that the Ninth Circuit has determined that the regulation of attire for food servers is not subject to First Amendment protections.
He noted that the Ordinance serves as an exercise of the City's police powers and follows closely the law upheld by the Ninth Circuit.
Council Member Frometa asked how the penalty amounts were determined and how many times an establishment can be cited before the Conditional Use Permit may be revoked. City Prosecutor Eckart responded that there is no legal minimum amount of times the business must be cited before the process to revoke the Conditional Use Permit or business license. He explained that the City could proceed directly to revocation without administrative citations if sufficient evidence is found. He noted that typically revocation is not utilized for a single infraction but for a history of behavior. He stated that the penalty amounts established in the Ordinance are double the average amounts for most administrative violations of the Municipal Code.
Council Member Frometa proposed to double the administrative fine amounts. She asked what other cities have introduced such an Ordinance and how a City may regulate attire for food handlers. City Attorney Abich Garcia responded the City conducted a survey of cities in California and received various results such as ordinances that prohibited exposure of the midriff only and ordinances that required hair nets. She stated that the Ordinance introduced is different and may be the first in California.
Council Member Trujillo questioned whether staff considered not enacting an ordinance to regulate attire. City Prosecutor Eckart responded that the Ninth Circuit determined that regulation is not City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022 13
protected by the First Amendment in relation to servers and that such an ordinance is valid from a legal standpoint. Council Member Trujillo asked whether this Ordinance would require Police officers to regulate attire. City Prosecutor Eckart stated that enforcement would be an administrative matter and would be handled by the Code Enforcement Division. He noted the Planning Division would be involved if the Conditional Use Permit were to be revoked. Council Member Trujillo expressed his concern regarding the Police Department providing law enforcement. City Prosecutor Eckart responded that the Police Department would not be primarily involved in enforcement of the Ordinance.
Mayor Pacheco asked whether the uniform proposed by Ojos Locos Sports Cantina would be allowed if the Ordinance were adopted. City Prosecutor Eckart responded the uniform would likely not be allowed due to exposure of the midriff, part of the chest area, part of the leg. Mayor Pacheco asked about the business's response to the proposed Ordinance. City Prosecutor Eckart responded that the City received a letter from Ojos Locos Sports Cantina expressing their opposition to the Ordinance. Mayor Pacheco asked about possible litigation from the business. City Prosecutor Eckart responded that the business verbally threatened litigation if the proposed Ordinance was adopted.
Council Member Trujillo expressed concerns regarding a slippery slope if the City Council sets regulations for attire. City Prosecutor Eckart stated that if the Council were not to move forward with the proposed Ordinance, the City would still have regulations in place regarding areas associated with adult business.
Mayor Pacheco commented in favor of the proposed Ordinance.
Council Member Ashton requested to clarify who would be responsible for payment of the fine.
City Prosecutor Eckart responded that it could be both the employee and the manager for dressing in the attire and for allowing the attire to be worn. Council Member Ashton expressed his opposition to fines placed on employees for wearing uniforms required by their place of work. City Prosecutor Eckart responded that the City may utilize discretion by counseling or giving a warning instead of issuing a citation. He noted that enforcement is appropriate when employees continue to wear attire that is prohibited by law and choose to continue employment where they are asked to violate the law.
Council Member Ashton expressed his support for increasing the fine amounts. City Prosecutor Eckart advised that the Council may adjust the fine at the meeting or adopt the Ordinance as is and modify the fine via resolution in the future. Council Member Ashton asked to clarify the process if the Council were to modify the fine amounts after adoption of the Ordinance. City Prosecutor Eckart responded that the fine would be modified by resolution. Council Member Ashton clarified that the fine amount could be revisited when the City assesses its administrative fees.
Council Member Alvarez asked to bring the Resolution to the next Council meeting.
Council Member Ashton commented that the fines could be adjusted immediately by taking action at the meeting. City Prosecutor Eckart clarified that the Council could adopt the Ordinance as is or Council could modify the fine which would preclude the need to bring a resolution to Council to modify the fines unless Council would like to modify the fine amounts again in the future.
Council Member Frometa proposed doubling the fines set in the Ordinance as she felt higher fines would be more effective.
Mayor Pacheco confirmed the amounts would be increased from two hundred fifty dollars ($250) to five hundred dollars ($500) for a first offense, five hundred dollars ($500) to one thousand dollars ($1000) for a second offense of the same provision within a twelve (12) month period of time, and one thousand dollars ($1000) to two thousand dollars ($2000) for a third or greater offense of the same provision within a twelve (12) month period of time.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022 14
Council Member Alvarez enquired about amending the Ordinance to set a number of citations needed to revoke the business license. City Prosecutor Eckart recommended not to modify the Ordinance as such as it would lock the City to a minimum number of citations before action may be taken.
It was moved by Council Member Frometa, seconded by Council Member Ashton, and carried 5-0 to introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Downey adding Chapter 13 ("Food Handlers") of Article IV ("Public Welfare, Morals, and Policy") of the Downey Municipal Code as modified in Section 4992 to increase administrative fine amounts from two hundred fifty dollars ($250) to five hundred dollars ($500) for a first offense, five hundred dollars ($500) to one thousand dollars ($1000) for a second offense of the same provision within a twelve (12) month period of time, and one thousand dollars ($1000) to two thousand dollars ($2000) for a third or greater offense of the same provision within a twelve (12) month period of time.
11. APPOINTMENT OF NEW MAYOR PRO TEM FOR THE REMAINDER OF 2022: City Clerk.
City Attorney Abich Garcia presented the staff report for Item No. 11.
Council Member Ashton nominated Council Member Trujillo to be appointed as Mayor Pro Tem.
Council Member Trujillo declined the nomination by Council Member Ashton.
Council Member Frometa nominated herself to be appointed as Mayor Pro Tem. She stated that she served her term as Mayor during the pandemic and navigated very challenging times. She noted that Mayor Pacheco was given a second opportunity to serve as Mayor and desired the same opportunity to pick up where she left off. She stated that, as the most senior member of the City Council, she would bring stability to the Council.
Council Member Alvarez stated that she or Council Member Trujillo should be appointed as Mayor Pro Tem to give the opportunity to a newer Council Member. She noted that Council Member Frometa had already served as Mayor previously.
Council Member Trujillo declined the nomination by Council Member Alvarez.
It was moved by Council Member Frometa, seconded by Mayor Pacheco, to appoint Council Member Frometa as Mayor Pro Tem for the remainder of 2022. The motion failed, with Council Members Alvarez and Trujillo voting no; and, Council Member Ashton abstaining.
It was moved by Council Member Trujillo, seconded by Mayor Pacheco, and carried 3-1, with Council Member Frometa voting no and Council Member Ashton abstaining, to appoint Council Member Alvarez as Mayor Pro Tem for the remainder of 2022.
12. CONSIDERED CREATING A CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE TO DISCUSS RENT STABILIZATION; AND, APPOINTED TWO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO SERVE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE: Council Member Alvarez.
Mayor Pro Tem Alvarez requested Item No. 12. She noted that she received many calls from renters who were unable to afford their rent and that half of Downey residents rent. She stated her intent to bring renters and landlords together to discuss this issue.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022 15
City Attorney Abich Garcia advised the formation of the Subcommittee as an advisory body, which would be subject to the Brown Act.
Council Member Ashton stated he would be willing to second the motion if a second Council Member was willing to sit on the Subcommittee.
City Attorney Abich Garcia advised the Council to bifurcate the motion to form the Subcommittee and select members to sit on the Subcommittee if the first motion passes.
Council Member Ashton requested to address the item in one motion as the Subcommittee cannot form without two members serving on the committee.
Mayor Pro Tern Alvarez asked Council Member Trujillo to serve on the Subcommittee.
Council Member Trujillo requested to clarify the purpose of the Subcommittee.
Mayor Pro Tern Alvarez stated that she would like to sit down with renters and landlords and discuss how rent is affecting the community.
Council Member Trujillo asked whether any actions taken by the Subcommittee would be taken to the full Council for approval.
Mayor Pro Tern Alvarez confirmed that any actions taken by the Subcommittee would be taken to the full Council for approval.
Council Member Trujillo agreed to sit on the Subcommittee and asked to clarify the term of the appointment. City Attorney Abich Garcia stated that the City Council reviews its appointments every January so the term of the appointment would be until January 2023.
Council Member Trujillo noted the importance of the issue of rent as half of Downey residents are renters. He stated his willingness to sit on the committee and study the issues that affect renters.
Mayor Pacheco suggested changing the name of the Subcommittee.
Council Member Ashton stated the name of the Subcommittee was not as important as its commitment to the purpose of looking at issues that affect renters.
Council Member Trujillo suggested renaming the Subcommittee to the Renters' Rights Board, Renters' Protection Board, or Renters' Issues Board to expand the purpose of the Subcommittee to improve the quality of life for renters more broadly. He noted his intent to discuss other issues such as parking displacement, dumpster issues, and problems with cable and internet.
Mayor Pro Tern Alvarez agreed to rename the Subcommittee to the Renters' Rights Board.
It was moved by Council Member Trujillo, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Alvarez, and carried 4-0, with Council Member Frometa absent, to create the Renters' Rights Board and appoint Mayor Pro Tern Alvarez and Council Member Trujillo to serve on the Subcommittee.
STAFF MEMBER COMMENTS:
City Manager Livas thanked the the Public Works Department for their work on infrastructure projects such as the Solar Energy Improvements Project and construction on residential streets.
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022 16
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Pacheco adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 9:11 p.m. on February 8, 2022 in memory of former Mayor Bob Davila, 94; Jaylon Connish, 17, Warren High School student and football player; the victims of the Ukraine crisis; and, the lives lost due to COVID-19.
MARIA ALICIA DUARTE, CIVIC
City Clerk
City Council Minutes
Regular Meeting — March 8, 2022 17
BLANCA PACHECO
Mayor