Loading...
PC - Item 3A - Minutes 10-02-09Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 2, 2009 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Herrera at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Chairwoman Herrera INVOCATION - Commissioner Eng ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT - Commissioners Eng_;; Hunter, Ruiz, Vice- Chairman Alarcon, Chairwoman Herrera OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Attorney Greg Murphy, Principal Planner:Bermejo, Commission Secretary Lockwood 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS; Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedure`s a'hd appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Marlene Shinen, stated that she is pleased--.with Principal' Planner Bermejo. She thanked Principal Planner Bermejo for her,trustwoithiness. ` She also thanked her staff for all the work that they-,have'done. k 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes Oct66er_19,.2009 Commissioner Eng had corrections on page 3 paragraphs 6, 7, & 8, on page 4, paragraph 11, and needed clarification on Matters from the Chairwoman & Commissioners on page 9. Commissioner. Ruiz stated that POST stands for Peace Officer Standardized Training. Commissioner Nancy Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Victor Ruiz, to approve the' Minutes of 10-19-09 with corrections. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-02, AMENDING CHAPTER 13.08 OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE (WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS) TO COMPLY WITH STATE ASSEMBLY BILL 1881 - Municipal Code Amendment 09-02 is a City initiated amendment that proposes to amend Chapter 13.08 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (Water Efficient Landscaping Regulations) to comply with State Assembly Bill 1881 (AB 1881). AB 1881 requires all cities in the State to monitor the water use for irrigation of grass, trees and other plants in landscaped areas on certain kinds of properties and public facilities. The proposed municipal code amendment will be applicable to: 1. New landscape installations or landscape rehabilitation projects by public agencies or private non-residential developers, ,excep'tfor cemeteries, with a landscaped area, including water features but excluding hardscape, equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet; 2. New landscape installations or _,landscape 'rehabilitation ; projects by developers or property managers 4' single=family and 'multi-family residential projects or complexes with a landscaped area, including water features but excluding hardscape, equal to or'geater than 2,500 square feet; and 3. New landscape installations '.that are„t;homeowner-installed, including homeowner-hired, in single-family,or,multi-family residential lots with a total project landscaped- area equal toi-wog greater, than 5,000 square feet. PC RESOLUTION,09-21 - :,RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY: OF~'ROSEM_EAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA "RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 13.08{"6F,THE,ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH WATER EFFICIENT`LANDSCAPE-REGULATIONS. Recommendat"on ;Staffirecommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 09=21, a't'i solution recommending that the City Council ADOP.,T,Ordinance, No. 885 and "Guidelines for the Implementation of the City of Rosemead Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance", amending Chapter '13.08 of.the Rosemead Municipal Code with respect to water efficient landscaping regulations. Principal Planner Bermejo presented a Power Point presentation and staff report. She also stated that a sentence needs to be added to Draft Ordinance, Exhibit B, Section 13.08.010 Purpose, which states, "The provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to be controlling over the subject matter herein in the event of any conflict between this Chapter and any other provision in the Municipal Code". She also stated in the Guidelines there is bold text on page13, under number 6, and on page 15, under 2.8 Post-Installation Irrigation Scheduling, that needs to be removed. City Attorney Murphy stated that the addition of this sentence will make sure that the new ordinance has superiority over any other provision in the Municipal Code that could be in conflict with the new ordinance. 2 Chairwoman Herrera questioned staff if this draft ordinance was made to simplify the states ordinance that they are proposing. Principal Planner Bermejo replied yes, and confirmed that the proposed ordinance will simplify the State's requirements. Chairwoman Herrera questioned staff if the City of Rosemead already has a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Principal Planner Bermejo stated the City does one. She also stated that it will become void if the City does not amend it to incorporate the State's new=req'uirements. Chairwoman Herrera questioned staff if the old requirements are out of date and less restrictive. She also questioned staff if the new ordinance will' oencourage developers and architects to limit the amount of landscaping they propose. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that the,; City's Municipal Code'. ,has minimum landscape requirements which will still be requi?ed<of projects. Vice-Chairman Alarcon questioned staff if the certification personnel are independent contractors or if they work for the water companies or architects. Principal Planner Bermejo stated they would-,.be third party irrigation contractors and landscape architect professionals hired byproperty.'owners or•developers. Vice-Chairman Alarcon questioned staff if there was anyone from the Planning Division who will check the reports. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that Planning-Division and Public Service staff will check the submittals. Vice-Chairman Alarcon questioned staff if these requirements would apply to someone who was going to do a remodel on;.their home. Principal Planner Bermetoreplied "ifjthe homeowner for a single family home was going renovate ovee, 5 000 square feet of their landscaped area, then the property owner would have to follow the_'.new requirements. A' fv Vice-Chairman Alarcon* revised his question and questioned staff if the existing home already has 5,000 square feet, will they then have to follow the requirements. Principal Planner Bermejo explained that the ordinance would only apply if the homeowner renovates over 5,000 square feet of the landscaped area. Commissioner Hunter stated that she wondered why our City does not have an ordinance that requires alternate days for watering to save water, especially during the summer. She also stated other cities have such requirements. Principal Planner stated that the City of Rosemead does have a water conservation ordinance, which is Chapter 13.04 of the Rosemead Municipal Code. She stated that the ordinance provide several stages for water rationing, and that currently water rationing is voluntary. She also stated that the City of Rosemead is in contact with the water companies and officials from the water companies have indicated that our water usage numbers are good. She also stated that the water companies use publications and mailers to encourage property owners to conserve water. Chairwoman Herrera stated that it must be working because she has seen a lot of dry areas, so we must not be overwatering. Commissioner Eng questioned staff if the ordinance will apply to existing projects and irrigation systems in place that are over one acre. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that is correct. Commissioner Eng questioned staff how many of those do we have.in the city. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that there are only a'few existing properties over an acre that would be potentially affected by the new ordinance. She said that the City of Rosemead Parks, Southern California Edisori`; ;and Wal'-Mart may be some of those large existing sites. She also stated that staff will-have to survey the City and work with the water companies to monitor their water usage forl'aridscaped areas. . Commissioner Eng questioned staff if=we are going to g15era time period so that people will have time to become in compliance with this ordinance. She='also stated that this will be in effect in January 2010. Principal Planner Bermejoreplied that existing landscapes over an acre will not be required tore-do their irrigation systems. She also stated that they will be monitoring them to make sure they are nof;wasting water.. She also stated they will work with the water companies for monitoring assistance. Comm issioner'Eng,ystated so they are not required to submit this whole package that is being proposed for'thecnew installation in order to become into compliance. Principal; Planner Bermejostated we will be looking at what their usage of water is and working on.programs for them. Commissioner Eng, questioned staff if we would be in compliance with this ordinance if we let property owners; who have the expertise, install their own irrigation system so it is cost effective fort.them. She also stated that with this ordinance it states the certification of completion needs to be signed off by a licensed architect. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that under 1.2 Applicability in the guidelines they will be able to do it themselves and there are other options of who would be able to sign off. Commissioner Eng questioned staff if the building division inspectors would still inspect projects for compliance. Principal Planner Bermejo replied yes they will 4 Commissioner Ruiz questioned staff if there will be a guideline so the homeowner will have a step by step program to go by to get it certified. Principal Planner Bermejo replied yes. Commissioner Eng requested staff to clarify the grading requirement. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that large projects, such commercial developments or land subdivisions, will have to submit a formal grading plan, but smaller projects that do not have to do significant grading may submit a simplified version,- Commissioner Eng referred to the draft ordinance in the applicability section and stated that cemeteries are exempted in this ordinance. She questioned staff if schools and religious institutions are subject to this ordinance. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that privatea schools, religious,jnstitutions, and temples would be subject to this ordinance, but`a public school would have to follow the State's requirements. Chairwoman Herrera opened the Public Hearing and:`asked if there was anyone in favor of the project. Jim Flournoy questioned staff if this ordinance will consider two lots as one lot fora project or if the two lots will be considered separately.. Principal Planner Bermejo:rstated that the, cumulativey area of project site will be considered. Jim Flournoy questioned if ; a new landscape project refers to the total new landscape area,in a project or;the ezisting.area: Principal Planner Bermejo questioned Mr. Flournoy what he was referring too. Jim Flournoy, stated he Was referring to number 3 on the bottom of the second page of the Plannih4,pommission Agenda. Principal Planneif Bermejo referred to an example she used earlier and stated if you had 8,000 square feet-,pi landscaping and you modified 5,000 square feet of that you would fall into that category and have to follow this ordinance. Jim Flournoy questioned staff if orchards are categorized as edible plants. Principal Planner stated yes they are. Brian Lewin stated that he is glad to see an ordinance like this put into place considering storm drains and all the water run off he sees. He also questioned if existing projects will be grandfathered in, because there are a lot of irrigation run off issues. He also questioned if existing businesses would eventually be required to modify their existing irrigation systems to be in compliance with this ordinance. City Attorney Murphy stated this actually is a question for the State and it is up to the State at this point. He also stated we do not know what the State will do. Brian Lewin questioned staff if the City has any plans at this time. City Attorney Murphy and Principal Planner Bermejo stated no, not at this time. Chairwoman Herrera stated is there anyone against this Ordinance. None Chairwoman Herrera closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Eng questioned staff if the square footage of 2;500_ to 5,000 square feet, is that the State's standard that we are following. Principal Planner Bermejo replied yes.. Commissioner Victor Ruiz made a motion;'seconded by,,Vice-ChairmanWilliam Alarcon, recommending that the Planning Commissi4on,"'ADOPT Resolution No. 09- 21, a resolution recommending that the City Coun'cilt:ADOPT Ordinance No. 885 and "Guidelines for the Implementation of the City of Rosemead Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance", amending Chapter 1,3x08 of the Rosemead Municipal Code with respect to water 'efficient Iandscapi"r g~regulations. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon,Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM'T,HE CHAIRWOMAN & COMMISSIONERS None 6. MATTERS FROM THE`,PRINCIPAL PLANNER & STAFF A. Annual WaI7Mart Review Principal Planner Bermejo presented her staff report and PowerPoint presentation. Chairwoman Herrera opened the item to the public and asked if there were any questions. Jim Flournoy stated that there are two items that he feels still need to be resolved; one is the Alquist-Priolo report that was used and submitted to the State of California. He also stated that Wal-Mart and the Panda Restaurant used the 1998 building code, but feels that Wal-Mart did not meet the standards of the 1998 building code. Brian Lewin stated that he would like to address the issue of signage and stated that he feels that we still need signage at the intersections of Rush Street and San Gabriel Boulevard and Rush Street and Walnut Grove Avenue. He also stated that the signage should be northbound and southbound and that trucks are not to be on Rush Street ever and requested this be added as a Condition of Approval. Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that he does not recall any problems with trucks using Rush Street, and that the intent of the condition is not to let them use this driveway entrance as a delivery route. He stated that it is a major street and they may need Rush Street to get through to San Gabriel Boulevard. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that on the May 18, 2009 staff' provided the Planning Commission with a report that provided an overview ofd all the Geological and Geotechnical Soils Investigation studies that had been completed prior to the issuance of building permits. She also stated the City reviewed the studies and determined that Wal-Mart was in compliance. She further stated,, with, respect to,.the signage, staff worked with our traffic consultant, Joanne Itagaki 'She' stated that the. Wal-Mart trucks are complying with entering the site at Walnut Grove Avenue, but on very,few occasions there will be a non-Wal-Mart driver that will enter the-,site using the' Rush Street driveway. She also stated the previous signage'at,,'the,Rush Street driveway entrance was not visible from the intersection where the signall;light is located, and that the truck driver could not really know that they could not tuim-%,into that driveway until they actually did the turn. She also stated '"staff feels that the$new signage will improve the situation and feels it is not appropriate to install any furthen',signage on San Gabriel Boulevard, Walnut Grove, and Rush Street. Shealso stated'it would be appropriate to wait and see if we receive any further complaints, and -if .complaints are received the matter it can be taken tothe~Traffic Commission. Jennifer Guenther stated that she is here on'ibehalf of Wal-Mart, and she would like to thank Principal Planner' Bermejo for all the work she has done on this project and concurs with Marlene Shinen's earlier, comments. She also stated she would like to address the comments that were made, as well as discuss the proposed wall for the transformer, and explain how they came to the conclusion that it should be adequate mitigation. She also stated she would like to address the comments made by Jim Flournoy, regarding the transformer and the Alquist Priolo Act. She stated that there is informationin the file from, Southern California Edison stating that undergrounding that particular transformer at the Wal-Mart site is infeasible, and therefore what has been done for the transformer is adequate with regard to Edison's specifications. She stated that in regards "t'6'`the :Alquist-Priolo Act, she would like to remind the Planning Commission that Mr. .Flournoy filed a law suit several years ago challenging this store based upon that motion, and the court dismissed his action and then he entered into a settlement agreement in which he agreed not to raise the issue again. She also stated that she believes that the City has records of the settlement agreement. She also stated that several noise studies have been done, the first one being commissioned by the County of Los Angeles, which found that the noise levels did not exceed the noise ordinance levels. She further stated that the City commissioned their own noise study, which found that the store was generating noise levels that were above the City's code requirements. A second study was also done by Dudek, which determined that noise was coming from the roof top equipment, however after speaking with the engineers at Wal-Mart she was told that it was unlikely that the noise was coming from the roof top equipment. She said the only time that the development exceeds the 7 noise levels is in the early morning hours of between 4:00 a.m. - 5:00 a.m. Therefore, Wal-Mart commissioned another study by Waylan Accoustics to pinpoint the exact location the noise. The Waylan Acoustic study determined it came from the transformer. Southern California Edison's Engineers were contacted to perform a test on the transformer with the store's power shut down 4 hours. She stated that the report stated that there was nothing wrong with the transformer, however when the store was powered up in the morning it did exceed the noise level. Based on that study, they designed the wall to reduce the noise and confirmed with Dudek that this would work. She also stated she would like to request from the Planning Commission that they would give her some assurance that this will be an investment well spent and that the noise issue would be resolved. Commissioner Ruiz questioned Jennifer Guenther, if the analysis indicates what the decibel readings would be once the wall is constructed. Jennifer Guenther replied that the report states with the installation of the sound wall the noise level is calculated to be 43 DBA or less, which complies with City: requirements. Commissioner Ruiz questioned staff what the City's DBA requirement is- Principal Planner Bermejo stated that between the hours of 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. it is 60 DBA and between the hours of 1&00 p.m. - 7:00 a.rii.,Jtjs 45 DBA. Commissioner Ruiz stated that this will 'comply with the &it 's requirements of noise pollution. Commissioner Eng stated that the wall is, not constructed yet and questioned Ms. Guenther if the study is based on the materials that will be used to construct the wall. Jennifer Guenther replied,.yes that is part of ifr:and the other factor is the shape of the wall. She also stated there, will be; reflection!'abilities allowing the noise to go upward instead of in the`direction offfe residents: Jim Flournoy questioned if. the 6 foot:wall will be high enough so it will not affect the third floor of the condos. Jennifer Guenther stated yes, 6 feet is adequate. Vice-Chairman Alarcon,.questioned Jim Flournoy if he or anyone else had requested a noise study for the Panda Restaurant or the Bank. Jim Flournoy replied but his response was not audible. Commissioner Eng stated she visited the site between 8:45 a.m. - 9:15 a.m., and while walking on the sidewalk, she could hear the transformer noise. She also stated that a single-family home can hear the transformer noise louder than the condo resident because of the level of the transformer. She also stated that while sitting in her parked car on the west side of Delta Avenue, with the windows closed, she could not hear the transformer, but she could hear the traffic, She stated that with the windows down she could hear the transformer noise. She also stated that she can see why some residents would be concerned if they want to keep their windows open. Commissioner Eng questioned if the installation of the 6 foot tall wall would result in a wall that is taller than the condominium buildings. Principal Planner Bermejo projected a photo of the transformer and the existing block wall on the screen and indicated the location of the proposed block wall with her pointer. She gave a description of the proposed wall and stated it will have a decorative trellis top. Commissioner Eng questioned staff about the proposed materials. Principal Planner stated that staff would require that it be constructed of natural wood materials and decorative block to match the development. Commissioner Eng expressed her concern of adding'anotheft 6 feet to the wall, and questioned if there would be a height issue. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that staff was concerned with this samejssue and the residents are so far back that variable height,shoyld. not betan issue. Commissioner Eng questioned how long it would take'to construct that wall. Jennifer Guenther stated at this time she did not have that information. Commissioner Eng stated that she would like to, pgopose that once the wall is built, the Commission re-evaluate the noise issue in 3 months"instead of waiting for next year's annual review. d Principal Planner BermeJo stated`'that if we were to get a complaint staff would work with Wal-Mart as soon as possible., She also stated'`that Wal-Mart is on top of their annual reviews. Commissioner Eng stated she would like to thank Wal-Mart and stated that Wal-Mart has worked in good faiiliAo resolve.all,issues with residents' concerns. Commissioner Hunter stated that she would like Wal-Mart to check the parking lot in the evening because,there is a problem with loitering. She stated they are selling food and a man approached her and asked her for money last time she was there around 9:00 p.m. and she noticedtlat security was not nearby and found that alarming, and requested that Wal-Mart investigate the issue. Commissioner Eng questioned staff if there was a typo in the response to Condition of Approval No. 1, and asked if "2009" should be "2007". She also questioned staff why Conditional of Approval No. 50, regarding the removal of graffiti, was written to require removal within 48 hours instead of 24 hours. She questioned which one was correct, since she commonly sees the standard condition requiring removal within 24 hours. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that "2009" should be "2007." She also stated that the condition of approval was written to require removal within 48 hours, and indicated that staff has not seen any issues concerning graffiti. Recommendations to move forward were made by Chairwoman Herrera and Commissioner Eng. They stated that the noise issue should be reviewed after completion of wall in 3 months and that the rest of the conditions will be reviewed at next year's annual review. Principal Planner Bermejo confirmed the recommendations by the Planning Commission. 7. ADJOURNMENT A"« The next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, Nove'mb'er 16, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m. ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood, Commission Secretary Diana Herrera Chaiivdoman:" :w 10