Loading...
PC - Item 3A - Minutes 03-01-10Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting March 1, 2010 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairwoman Herrera at 7:00 p.m., at the Rosemead Community Recreation Center, 3936 N. Muscatel Avenue, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Eng INVOCATION - Vice-Chairman Alarcon ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT - Commissioners Eng, Hunter, Ruiz, Vice-Chairman Alarcon, and Chairwoman Herrera. OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Attorney Greg Murphy, Community Development Director Wong, Principal Planner Bermejo, Senior Planner Garry, Assistant Planner Trinh, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedures and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR• A. Approval of Minutes January 19, 2010 Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chairman Alarcon to approve the minutes of January 19, 2010 as presented. Vote Resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09.03 - AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING POULTRY SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES - The City of Rosemead is proposing to amend Chapter 17.12 of the Rosemead Municipal Code relating to the amortization of nonconforming poultry slaughter businesses in the City. The proposed ordinance requires that all poultry slaughter businesses within the City of Rosemead cease operating within three years of adoption of the ordinance. This item was initially presented to the Planning Commission on November 16, 2009. At that meeting, staff requested that the Planning Commission continue the item to December 7, 2009 to allow for further analysis of the issue. At the December 7, 2009 meeting, the Planning Commission considered the item and adopted Resolution No. 09-23 with an amendment that all poultry slaughter businesses cease operating as of December 31, 2010, a period of time which would now be less than one year. The City Council conducted a public hearing on the item on January 26, 2010. At that time it was discovered that the San Gabriel Tribune had not published the required public hearing notice for the Planning Commission hearing that began on November 16, 2009. Since the City Council cannot act on the (Municipal Code Amendment until a properly noticed Planning Commission hearing has occurred, the City Council opened the public hearing, took public testimony on the proposed ordinance, and then closed the public hearing without taking any further action until the item could be rescheduled and re-noticed for a new Planning Commission public hearing. PC RESOLUTION 10.05 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 09-03 AMENDING CHAPTER 17.12 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING POULTRY SLAUGHTER BUSINESSES Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider Resolution No. 10-05, a resolution recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Ordinance No. 883, modifying the zoning code with respect to the amortization of poultry slaughter businesses. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission consider adding extension language in Section 4 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 10-05 and Section 2 of draft Ordinance No. 883. Finally staff recommends that Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10-05 in its present form or as amended with extension language included and recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts. Senior Planner Garry presented the staff report. Chairwoman Herrera asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked staff what land uses are permitted on this site under the current zoning. Senior Planner Garry stated that site is zoned M-1 and light industrial uses are permitted. He then referred the question to Principal Planner Bermejo. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that all uses permitted under the C-3 (Commercial) zone are allowed in the M-1 zone, and that examples of industrial uses include uses such as storage facilities, caning facilities, and auto repair shops. Commissioner Hunter read the background section on page 2 of staff report and requested staff to explain why this business has continued to operate for 18-20 years. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that poultry slaughtering was originally a permitted use in the M-1 zone and the approval of such use could be made over the counter. She also stated that council approved ordinance No. 683 on May 14, 1991, to eliminate the poultry and rabbit slaughter use from the M-1 zoning regulations. Therefore, the use is legal non-conforming today. Commissioner Eng questioned staff what zoning classification is used in cities that permit poultry slaughtering. Community Development Director Stan Wong stated that such use is generally permitted in a heavy industrial zoning classification, and such uses are usually located in a rural area because this type of use requires a lot of land. Chairwoman Herrera opened the public hearing Brian Lewin addressed the Plannina Commission and stated that they have been given a rare opportunity to reconsider this item and he hopes that they will do so. Fred Herrera stated that this decision will be a difficult one and that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to represent the residents that live there. He also stated that the business has grown enough to be intrusive with the odors, discharge, and it has a negative impact on the community. He strongly recommends that the Planning Commission approve this ordinance to eliminate the poultry business from this city. Jean Hall stated that Cal Poultry does not deserve any favors. She also stated that slaughtering is an undesirable for those who have lived so close and have endured the odors for all this time. She also stated that Cal Poultry has recently stated that they did not know the community was unhappy with the odors, chicken blood, and the rest of the unpleasant procedures. This has been discussed at many Council meetings in previous years, and the mere fact that this complicated issue has been bounced back and forth from the Planning Commission and City Council shows that this is not an easy problem to resolve. She also stated that City Council officials are elected and the Planning Commission is appointed by City Council and now is the time to make the right recommendations. She also stated lets not prolong the agony anymore and be direct and to the point. She said lets set deadlines or give Cal Poultry the option of doing their slaughtering at the Azusa site and transporting the chickens to the Rosemead site to sell or help the business relocate to another site that is not near residences. Phyllis Tury stated that in the last 4 years nothing has been done. She also stated that the odors have gotten worst and she cannot even enjoy her yard on Sundays. She states that she does have legitimate complaints and she appreciates the religion that you need fresh slaughtered chickens, but not in her neighborhood. She also displayed two pictures taken in December of 2009 of dead chickens in cages that had been there for two days and stated that chicken blood is being washed into the streets and does not want this in her neighborhood. She also stated that the cages with dead chickens were visible to children walking by. They have outgrown this facility and Cal Poultry's parking lot looks like a loading dock. She also states she does not mind them selling the chickens, as long as the slaughtering is elsewhere. She also states that chickens carry bacteria and the City could be fined. Adolfo Ponce stated this is deja all over again. He has presented this item to the previous Planning Commission and now this one, we have gone through 1 '/2 Administrations with this issue. He also stated that this facility has outgrown itself. He also stated that other State and County agencies had been contacted for various violations. He stated that Cal Poultry has been told they cannot wash blood down the sewer lines by the Water Quality Agency and they still continue to do it. He stated that Cal Poultry does not have any regard for City ordinances, and he hopes the Planning Commission will make a fair recommendation. William Su stated that he respects the residents concerns with the owner, and he appreciates the displays and opinions of respecting religion. He also stated that this business has been allowed to operate for 20 years and feels that they should be allowed to continue to operate and make the improvements to the facility. He also stated that other cities no longer allow licensing for this type of business now, so where will this business go and how will they survive. He also requested that the city please work with business to allow them to provide this service to the community. Colin Lennard, the attorney representing Cal Poultry, stated that he would like to make the same recommendation that he made to the City Council. He said that there is only one issue, and that is odors, and no one has allowed his client to correct the odor problem. He also stated we have offered to install the appropriate equipment, at whatever the cost and what is recommended by an consultant, that we will find and pay for,, that is approved by the city, to the community and the City. He also stated we will agree to implement whatever those recommendations are and the City turned us down, as recently as one month ago. He also stated we firmly believe you don't deny a successful sales tax generating business in this City, you don't deny them the opportunity to correct the one issue that so far has gotten the attention of all the surrounding neighborhood. He also stated the he has driven around the manufacturing zone and if that is a striving residential neighborhood then he has never seen one like that before and it is a light manufacturing zone and what this city should do is let this Planning Commission let Cal Poultry have the opportunity to correct this odor issue. He also stated if they are not corrected then the City has the same opportunity available to them as you have tonight. He stated don't cut them off before they have the opportunity to do that. He stated there have been statements of previous violations in staff reports and we are talking about minor violations that have been corrected and there are no other issues outstanding. He also stated these violations occurred in 2003 and 2006 that was 4-7 years ago and another violation (that was not audible), there are no existing violations. All the existing violations have been corrected (the business license, signage issues, the so called opening between 8932 and 8942 Garvey) and the only outstanding violation is the odor issue. He also stated they deserve a chance to address that issue. He closed by stating that let his client have the opportunity to correct this situation. He also stated that documenting an ordinance and whatever you recommend to the City Council is not going to mitigate the odor situation, and if you think any successful business man is going to start investing capitol when they know they are going to be put out of business in one - three years is not going to happen. He also stated, so the main issue surrounding Cal Poultry will not be going away, and the ordinance will not do anybody any good, especially the people that are proposing it, and again suggested that that it makes logical sense to let them mitigate the odors and if they can't mitigate the odors, then consider adopting the ordinance. He thanked the Planning Commission. Rick Loya stated that he would like to speak on the item for zone change of the eight parks. Chairwoman Herrera stated this item is later in Agenda. Barbara Murphy stated in the late 80's the Planning Commission and City Council approved to change the number of square footage to have more than one unit on residential property and discussed how hundreds of residents of multiple units showed up at the Council Meeting protesting the change. She also stated that at that time the City Council explained that they are now legal non-conforming and don't worry you will be grandfathered in. She stated that she researched the meaning of'grandfathered" and said that she interpreted it to mean forever. She also stated she is concerned that if businesses can be closed for being legal non-conforming, what is to stop City Council or the Planning Commission from telling homeowners of multiple units the same thing. Chairwoman Herrera closed public hearing. Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that there are some good issues that have come up and he would like to say that odors are an on-going problem. He also stated that California has always been the State on the forefront; we were the first to pass the smoking laws, smog control. He also stated the plan is to beautify Garvey Avenue and we don't want to see businesses there that are not right for the City. Commissioner Ruiz stated that the issues that have been brought up tonight are about land use and he requested his colleagues to concentrate on that. He also stated that beautification has been brought up and that the City needs change and land use is important. He also stated we need to stay focused, but we also need to let the property owner have time to do what they need to do, but we need to allow the City to move forward too. Commissioner Eng stated that she agrees with Commissioner Ruiz. She stated that this is a land use issue, and it is not the appropriate land use for this site, but the decision to approve this business was 20 years ago. She also stated that this business had a right to be here and has worked hard to build a customer base. She said that in 1991 the City put a stop to it, but the City should have monitored the site better. She also stated that we have heard concerns from some members of the community, but we also need to be a better neighbor and work with the businesses so they can to address the concerns. She also stated we need to give them three years, as they have invested in the City and they will need the time for a smooth transition to a more appropriate location. 4 Commissioner Hunter stated that she would like to make three recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider. She said her first suggestion is to let Cal Poultry stay in the same location and have the chickens slaughtered at another location and have them brought in daily for freshness and not have chickens on the premises. She said her second recommendation is a one year amortization with a 180 day extension. She also stated her third recommendation is two years with no extensions. Commissioner Ruiz stated he agrees with Commissioner Eng. He said we should give Cal Poultry the three year and at the end of three years, verify if they still need more time to relocate. Commissioner Ruiz made a motion and the motion was clarified by City Attorney Murphy as follows; Commissioner Ruiz motioned that Cal Poultry be given three years and adopt the resolution with staffs recommended extension language as in section D of the staff report. Vice-Chairman Alarcon asked Commissioner Ruiz to repeat the motion. He stated that the amortization period needs to be a fixed period of time, such as 18 month or two years. Commissioner Ruiz stated that the motion was for three years. City Attorney Murphy clarified that Commissioner Ruiz would like the request that the amortization ordinance include an extension option by applicant to reviewed by the Planning Commission instead of City Council. (This portion not audible) Chairwoman Herrera asked City Attorney Murphy what the benefit would be to the City. City Attorney Murphy stated that staff would have to present the extension application to the City Council, but if it goes to the Planning Commission, the applicant has the right to appeal to appeal it to the City Council. Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated he was confused on what the motion is. Chairwoman Herrera stated that Commissioner Ruiz is making a motion for three years and applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval of the extension. Commissioner Ruiz stated his motion is for three years, with the Planning Commission approving the extension instead of City Council, and with the extension not having a set date. City Attorney Murphy stated that Commissioner Ruiz's pending motion is to adopt the Resolution as recommended with the extension language, but that the review of the extension would go to the Planning Commission for first. . Commissioner Hunter questioned Chairwoman Herrera what exactly is the motion. Chairwoman Herrera stated what the motion was but was not audible. City Attorney Murphy stated the recommendation is the three year amortization period and the inclusion of the opportunity to come back for a potential extension, and that extension would be stated as it says in the staff report of Section D and read numbers 1 through 8. He also stated that the extension request would have to be presented to the Planning Commission for review. (the last sentence not audible). Chairwoman Herrera asked why staff that would approve the extension. City Attorney Murphy stated staff would review and make recommendations to the Commission, but that ultimately it would be approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ruiz made the motion, seconded amortization period and to adopt the Resolution instead of going directly to City Council that tf approval of extension. Vote Results were: Yes: Herrera, Ruiz No: Alarcon, Eng, Hunter Abstain: None Absent: None by Chairwoman Herrera, to recommend the three year s recommended with the language in the staff report be s applicant goes to the Planning Commission first for Chairwoman Herrera stated the motion was not passed and asked Commissioners for a new motion. Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hunter for a fixed 2 year amortization period with no extension. Vote Results were: Yes: Alarcon, Hunter No: Eng, Herrera, Ruiz Abstain: None Absent: None Chairwoman Herrera stated the motion was not passed and asked Commissioners for a new motion. Commissioner Eng made a motion recommending that the City work with Cal Poultry to determine an amortization period acceptable to both the City and the business that would provide a reasonable timeframe for the business to relocate to a more appropriate location so that the business can continue to serve their customers. City Attorney Murphy stated that this was not a proper motion and explained why. (Not Audible) Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz to recommend three years with no extension and to adopt the Resolution as recommended. Vote Resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Herrera, Ruiz No: Eng Abstain: Hunter Absent: None B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09.01 - The City of Rosemead proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to designate four key areas (nodes) in the City for mixed-use development with limitations on both residential density and building height. The current General Plan allows for mixed-use development along all major commercial corridors in the City. General Plan Amendment 09-01 also proposes the creation of a new commercial Specific Plan land use designation over two commercial areas of the City. The Specific Plan land use designation would affect the following properties, 3900 and 3910 Walnut Grove Avenue, 8614 Valley Boulevard, 7867, 7907, 7913, 7919, 7931, 7951, and 8001 Garvey Avenue, 3011 and 3033 Denton Avenue, and 7938 Virginia Street. Lastly, General Plan Amendment 09-01 also includes amending the Circulation Element, the Resource Management Element, and the Public Safety Element to address the proposed land use changes and to comply with Assembly Bill 162 (AB 162) PC RESOLUTION 10.03 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY Or ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING PLANNING DIVISION STAFF TO PREPARE AN ADDENDUM TO THE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT _(PROGRAM EIR)_.WHICH-WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER- 14, 2008, PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15164 AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 09-01. Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10-03 (Exhibit C), a resolution directing staff to prepare an Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) which was certified by the City Council on October 14, 2008, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission RECOMMEND that the City Council consider the environmental determination and APPROVE General Plan Amendment 09- 01. Principal Planner Bermejo presented the staff report and gave a power point presentation. She also stated Lisa Brownfield, Land Use Consultant from Hogle-Ireland, and the Traffic Consultant from KOA are present to answer any questions. Lisa Brownfield, Land Use Consultant presented the Circulation Element. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that she received two letters from property owners in the mail and provided an overview of each letter. She stated one is from the owner of the Auto Auction site, requesting that this item be postponed due to the fact they are out of the country. She stated that because this item will be going to the City Council for approval, the property owner will have the opportunity to discuss their issues at the Council meeting. She also stated the second letter was from property owners Mr.& Mrs. Ann Lieu of 7951 Garvey, who were concerned about the new Specific Plan land use designation on their property. Principal Planner Bermejo presented staff recommendations to Planning Commission, which included revising the draft specific plan land use designation to a High Intensity Commercial land use designation, and omitting the property located at 7951 Garvey Avenue from that designation. City Attorney Murphy clarified staffs recommendation to Planning Commission. Chairwoman Herrera asked Commissioners if there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked staff to elaborate on how the new designations for mix-use were selected. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that the Subcommittee looked at different scenarios, lot size, density, entrance to the city, and provided and overview of reasons why the node development pattern was better than the corridor land use pattern. Lisa Brownfield stated we not only looked at surrounding uses but where public services where and explained the benefits of having mixed use where public services are located. Commissioner Eng asked if the four-story height limitation included the first floor being commercial use. Lisa Brownfield replied yes, the maximum will be four stories with the first one being commercial use. Commissioner Eng asked what the maximum height of the four-story limitation would be. Principal Planner Bermejo stated there will be a numerical height limit proposed in the development standards which are currently being drafted. Commissioner Eng stated that was her next question; do we have development standards on height requirements. Chairwoman Herrera asked if Mayor Margaret Clark and Councilwoman Polly Low were on the Subcommittee who submitted these recommendations. Principal Planner replied yes that is correct. Chairwoman Herrera opened the public hearing. Josephine Yang stated she is speaking for the property owners, being affected by the mixed-use land use designation change, who are out of the country at the moment. She expressed her concern that the property owner will suffer a substantial financial loss if this is approved. She also stated that this is a new Planning Commission and the Planning Commission that approved the General Plan in 2007 is not present to answer any questions. She also stated that the City needs to have some compassion for the present business owners. Warren Lieu stated that he is speaking in behalf of his parents. He stated that the amendment will financially affect his family's income and property. Lisa Brownfield stated Principal Planner Bermejo recommended that their property (7951 Garvey) not be included in the High Intensity Commercial land use designation, and asked it that would be acceptable to him. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that is correct is will stay as is. Warren Lieu stated he feels that is alright but needs to talk to his parents. Simon Lee stated that he would like to request that the mixed-use designation be included on the properties at Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue, and on the Auto Auction site. Robert Stacket, stated he owns a piece of property next to the auto auction which is a mobile home park. He also stated he is concerned how this General Plan Amendment will affect this parcel. He also stated that seniors occupy this mobile home park, and that they will have no where to go. Principal Planner Bermejo stated tonight's General Plan Amendment is to keep that parcel designation commercial as it was in the 80's. She clarified that it will not be included in the High Intensity Commercial designation. Brian Lewin stated that he understands from staffs comments that the ultimate goal is to build the nodes and to spread out from those nodes to fill in the corridors. He asked staff if is understanding is correct. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that this General Plan, which is a twenty year vision, only included the development in the four node areas and not the corridors. Brian Lewin asked what the longer term goal is proposed to be. Principal Planner Bermejo stated in future, 15 to 20 year from now, the future of mixed use could be readdressed. Lisa Brownfield also stated that would be twenty years from now. Brian Lewin stated he would like to request that flung in the corridors be mentioned in the General Plan because he has concerns that future developers and retailers may be concerned with projects becoming legal-nonconforming. His second concern is that we may reach the population of 61,000 by the year of 2015. He would also like to requesi that the language of Policy 1.7 on page 2-20 of the General Plan be re-instated because he feels it is important to stay there. Chairwoman Herrera asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak. None Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to ADOPT Resolution No. 10.03 (Exhibit C), a resolution directing staff to prepare an Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) which was certified by the City Council on October 14, 2008, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and RECOMMEND that the City Council consider the environmental determination and APPROVE General Plan Amendment 09.01. Vote Resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Wong confirmed the vote and stated that this item will be presented at the City Council Meeting of April 13, 2010. He also stated this is a tentative date. C. ZONE CHANGE 10.01 - The City of Rosemead proposes to change the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the 0-S (Open Space) zoning designation. The proposed zone change will bring the zoning designation of these parks into consistency with the City's existing General Plan goals and policies, as required by State law. The following parks will be affected by this zone change: Angelus Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5283-032-903), Garvey Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5287-020-900, 5287-020-903, and 5287-020-904), Guess Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5389-004-800), Klingerman Park (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 5282022-270 and 5282-022-271), Rosemead Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 8592-018-902), Sally Tanner Park (Assessor Parcel Number: 5389-001-903), Triangle Park (Assessor Parcel Number 5281-032-900), and Zapopan Park (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 5288-005-800, 5288-005-801, 5288-005- 802,5288-005-804,5288-005-805, and 5288-005-806). PC RESOLUTION 10.04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 10-01 AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 887, CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF EIGHT (8) CITY PARKS TO THE O-S (OPEN SPACE) ZONING DESIGNATION. THE FOLLOWING PARKS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ZONE CHANGE: ANGELUS PARK (APN: 5283-032-903), GARVEY PARK (APNs: 5287-020-900, 5287-020-903, and 5287-020-904), GUESS PARK (APN: 5389-004-800), KLINGERMAN PARK (APNs: 5282022-270 and 5282-022-271), ROSEMEAD PARK (APN: 8592-018-902), SALLY TANNER PARK (APN: 5389-001-903), TRIANGLE PARK (APN: 5281-032-900), and ZAPOPAN PARK (APNs: 5288-005-800, 5288-005-801, 5288-005-802, 5288-005-804,5288-005-805, and 5288-005-806). RECOMMENDATION - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10- 04, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 887, changing the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the 0-S (Open Space) zoning designation. Assistant Planner Trinh presented the staff report. Chairwoman Herrera asked the Commissioners if there were any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if this was strictly a housekeeping matter. Staff replied this is correct. Commissioner Ruiz asked if the open space zone allow the City to request federal grants. Staff replied yes it will. Chairwoman Herrera opened public hearing. Rick Loya stated that he has been a resident of Rosemead for fifty years. He also stated that he does not understand exactly what a zone change means. He asked for clarification of exactly what will be happening to the City parks. He also gave a brief history of when the parks were built, and he expressed how important the parks are to the community. He said please save our parks. Commissioner Ruiz stated he understands his concerns, and that this will allow the City to get federal funding to improve our parks. He also stated we will continue to provide recreation for our community. Commissioner Eng questioned if we are making changes to the park or if we are just reclassifying the zone to be able to get federal funding. Principal Planner Bermejo replied it is strictly reclassifying the land as open space. Todd (last name not audible), resident of Rosemead, expressed concern with the zone change and stated that he and his wife use the park for exercising. He said he wanted to make sure that this change will not affect them using the park. Nancy Eng stated we are not selling the park. We are just reclassifying it to apply for grants to improve the park. Chairwoman Herrera closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded my Commissioner Hunter to ADOPT Resolution No. 10.04, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 887, changing the zoning classification of eight (8) City parks to the O-S (Open Space) zoning designation. Vote Resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 10 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRWOMAN & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Eno stated she attended a Gold Line Metro Meeting last Saturday with Traffic Commissioner Brian Lewin and told the Planning Commission it was regarding the initial review of environmental impacts of the project. Chairwoman Herrera stated she had attended a Gold Line Metro Meeting also. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER & STAFF Parking Concern at 3365 Walnut Grove Avenue Principal Planner Bermejo stated she wanted to give update on the parking concern at 3365 Walnut Grove Avenue. She said that Lt, Tim Murakami (Chief of Police) and Ray Rodriquez (Public Safety Supervisor) have been monitoring the location. She reported that at this time they have seen any parking violations. She also stated Code Enforcement is still monitoring this site. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 15, 2010. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary Diana Herrera Chairwoman 11