Loading...
PC - Minutes 04-05-10Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 5, 2010 The regular meeting of the 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 - Commissioner Hunter INVOCATION - Chairwoman Herrera ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: Commissioners Eng, Hunter, Ruiz, Vice-Chairman Alarcon, Chairwoman Herrera. OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development 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 - March 15, 2010 Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eng, to approve minutes as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter No: None Abstain: Ruiz Absent: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DESIGN REVIEW 09.07 - Bach Tran has submitted a Design Review application proposing a fagade renovation and an addition of 1,350 square feet to an existing commercial building, located at 8338 Valley Boulevard in the C-31) (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. PC RESOLUTION 10.08- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 09.07, FOR A FACADE RENOVATION AND AN ADDITION OF 1,350 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING, LOCATED AT 8338 VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE C3D-D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN: 5371-005.012). Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Design Review 09.07 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.08 with findings, and subject to the thirty-seven (37) conditions outlined in Exhibit "B". Assistant Planner Trinh presented the staff report and power point presentation. Chairwoman Herrera asked the Commissioners if they had questions for staff. Commissioner Hunter stated that she would like to propose that two additional handicap spaces be installed since this is a medical building. Commissioner Ruiz stated that he would like to recommend that parking space number 16 be a van accessible handicap parking space to allow ingress and egress from Valley and Delta. He also stated that the compact parking spaces 1, 2, and 3 are not lined up like parking spaces 4, 5, and 6 and if they were to line up evenly it would allow room to put a planter in front of those parking spaces and it would eliminate the wheel stops. He also stated it will allow removing the decorative wall on Valley and allowing more space for planters and it would also eliminate the possibilities of litter and graffiti on that wall. He also requested a 6 inch roll curb along the side of the north planter. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that that they are good recommendations and we do need a 6 inch roll curb. Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that this location was an animal hospital before and now it is a medical building. He questioned staff if there is a condition of approval for bio-hazardous waste to be picked up on a regular basis. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that staff did not write a condition of approval for this but it can be added. Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that he recommends that perhaps the Traffic Commission should do a traffic study for the Delta Avenue exit when making a left turn. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that Joanne Itagaki, our Traffic Consultant did do an initial traffic review when it was required, and she basically reviewed it for circulation patterns and she has added some conditions not so much on Delta but she will require some red striping along Valley Boulevard and she is going to require a no left turn sign on Valley. Commissioner Hunter needed clarification on the square footage numbers. 2 Principal Planner Bermejo stated that the total square footage of the building is 4,320 square feet and they are adding 1,350 square feet to the existing building. Commissioner Eng stated on condition of approval number 14 she would like to add that a courtesy notice should be sent to nearby residents to let them know when construction will begin. She also recommended that maybe this should be a standard condition of approval from now on. Principal Planner Bermejo stated this is a good idea and to protect the city maybe the applicant should provide that notice and submit proof that the notice has been sent prior to issuance of building permits. Chairwoman Herrera opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come up and speak. Simon Chang stated he is the designer and is available to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Eng questioned Mr. Chang if the requested items are achievable. Simon Chang replied yes they are. Vice-Chairman Alarcon addressed Mr. Chang and stated that his design was very nice and the corner will look very nice. Chairwoman Herrera asked if there is anyone in favor of project. None Chairwoman Herrera asked if there was anyone against the project. None Chairwoman Herrera closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz to APPROVE Design Review 09-07 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.08 with findings, and subject to the additional conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Motion was approved with the following additional conditions; 1. Add another handicap stall identified as stall number 16 on site plan, basically converting a regular stall to a handicap stall. 2. Add a six inch concrete curb separating landscape area from the parking lot. 3. Remove the wheel stop adjacent to Valley Boulevard and extend the landscape planter up to what was the wheel stop and provide a six inch high concrete curb acting as the new wheel stop and extend the compact parking stall in alignment with the regular parking stall along Valley Boulevard. 4. Provide a courtesy notification from the developer prior to issuance of building permits to adjacent properties. 5. To have traffic and safety committees review ingress and egress driveway to Delta Avenue prior to issuance of building permits. 6. The three foot high front wall to be removed and set back two to three feet to allow landscape to obscure the block wall and add a roll curb on the north planter. Community Development Director Wong stated to Chairwoman Herrera that for clarification the decision is final unless it is appealed within 10 days to the City Council. B. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10.01 - Municipal Code Amendment 10.01 is a City initiated amendment that proposes to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide a comprehensive set of development standards for the installation and operation of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs). PC RESOLUTION 10.09 - 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 10.01 ADDING CHAPTER 17.82 TO TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES. Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 10-09 (Attachment B), a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance 892 (Attachment C), amending title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to incorporate Chapter 17.82 "Wireless Telecommunications Facilities" zone regulations. Senior Planner Garry presented staff report and power point presentation. Chairwoman Herrera asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked staff if the distance of 1,000 feet would be for radius. 4 Senior Planner Garry replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked staff if it is in the 0-S or M-1 zone can it be less than 1,000 feet. Senior Planner Garry replied if it's a new wall mounted or roof mounted or ground mounted facility and only if it is a roof, wall, or mounted existing 1,000 feet Monopole facility already. Commissioner Eng asked staff if there is any type of guidelines for less than 1,000 feet or would the applicant have to show how much coverage is needed. Senior Planner Garry replied as part of the application requirements the applicant would have to provide us with coverage maps to justify where they want the facility. Commissioner Eng questioned staff on the co-location permits, what do we have in place in regards to designs. Senior Planner Garry stated the applicant for co-location permits would be required to submit and follow the same design guidelines as a new facility and explained how the process would be reviewed. City Attorney Murphy explained that the process is where the initial existing facility was approved after January 2007. He also explained if it is an older existing facility then it would still come before the Planning Commission. He also explained the state law requirements as of January 1, 2007. Commissioner Eng asked staff based on the existing 32 towers we have right now, there are 4 that was approved after 2007, so the prior ones would have to come back to the Planning Commission. City Attorney Murphy replied that is correct. Commissioner Eng stated that in regards to consolidating antenna's, technology changes so quickly, what does the city have in place to move forward and not hinder the city's requirements within the 24 month time limit. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that the idea was if a new cell site company comes to the city to establish a new service they may already know that they may need 3 - 5 sites in the city and show the Planning Commissioners that these are the five sites that would need in the city. She also stated staff could do a review of all those locations and perform a environmental review as one project and give insight to the city on whether it will be established. She also explained that technology could change and this is something the Planning Commission should consider. Commissioner Ruiz asked staff if by doing this ordinance it will help eliminate the necessary antenna's going up in the city. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that it will limit the locations. Commissioner Eng asked staff how long does it take for an applicant to build a cell tower site from the time it is approved and what is the construction time line usually. Principal Planner replied she has seen them done within one to two months but it really depends on the application and it depends on the company. Commissioner Eng asked staff in terms of the fee structure will there be corresponding changes. Principal Planner Bermejo replied this ordinance is not proposing any additional fees. Commissioner Hunter asked staff if we could put a maximum amount of how many antennas we can put in the city. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that we have to designate areas for this type of development. Chairwoman Herrera opened the public hearing. Andrew Massie representing Clearwire stated that the time line is typically 60 days, 30 days for building permit process and 30 days for construction. He asked the Planning Commission if there will be a pre-approved list of locations available in the next six months, as this will make it easier for all the carriers. Community Development Wong stated that list is something in progress Andrew Massie asked what the maximum height requirement is. He also stated there was some confusion and asked staff if it is 60 feet exactly or can you exceed an additional 30 feet. Senior Planner Garry explained how the height requirement was cross referenced. Commissioner Ruiz stated that the limit should be written to be 60 feet maximum and eliminate the 30 feet so that it is clear to everyone. Community Development Director Wong stated that would be more concise and clear for user and staff. He also stated that to exceed that height and if hardship is proven then staff will take that into consideration. Andrew Massie stated he looked through the ordinance and he did not see set- back height ratio requirements for pole, monopole or towers from the public right-a-away or residential. He also questioned if this was a building & safety issue or and addressed through the zoning ordinance. Senior Planner Garry stated there are set back requirements but specific ones for monopoles. He also stated they are not allowed on the front or side-yard set-backs but they are allowed anywhere else in the zone. Brian Lewin stated that he is glad that staff has put together this ordinance. He asked staff to look at page 22, of the Ordinance, 17.82.070, D.1, and questioned if the in section 17.82.060, CA is sufficient. Community Development Director Wong stated this question should be directed to legal council City Attorney Murphy replied that the answer is no and what they are looking for in subsection D.1, is the information documentation material that would not be if under section CA, or if the applicant showed good faith, then the information documentation material would be required. He also referred to subsection C.5, and if comparisons had been made then the city would have shown. If the applicant provided the material to show that they have made good faith then the applicant has provided information required then it is up to the Planning Commission to make a finding whether the information is sufficient, so as to make the findings for approval. He also stated you wouldn't make the findings for denial if you didn't think the efforts were sufficient. He also stated subsection D.1. states if no materials were turned in. Brian Lewin asked if that provision would be more applicable if for example the Commission felt the effort was not sufficient or not in good faith. He also asked if the Planning Commission as a body could make a finding that it was not done in good faith and is there a provision for making a finding of denial. Senior Planner Garry stated that we can add to CA, if the applicant did not make a good effort then the Planning Commission could make for a finding for denial. Chairwoman Herrera stated then that would be a recommended for denial for staff. Commissioner Eng referred to propagation and coverage reports and of the applicants application process it is one of the items they would have to provide to show you have exhausted all the availability that is here. She stated we already have 32 sites already and our city is 5.5 square miles and it seems feasible that they would be able to locate on one of these sites. Brian Lewin stated that is another one of his comments is that one of the goals that should be set is to minimize the amount of new monopole sites in this city. City Attorney Murphy stated that would be in D.3, in findings necessary for denial and read it this section to staff and audience. Brian Lewin questioned in looking on page 25, of 17.82.080, A to B would this directive make all existing towers located in C-1 R-1 and R-2 zones legal non-conforming. Community Development Director Wong stated this should be addressed to our legal council. City Attorney Murphy stated that he will look to be certain and to go ahead to the next item. Brian Lewin is requesting that perhaps the Commission should add a provision for a one time aesthetic impact fee for monopoles. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that the city is currently working on a master impact fee study and City Council has been given the directive to study impact fees across the board. City Attorney Murphy stated that he would propose that the Planning Commission make a change to Section 17.82.080, A.2, adding subsection C., that would state the following, "not withstanding the forgoing any existing wireless facility wireless transmission device support structure or accessory equipment shall not be deemed to be a legal non-conforming use if not located in the zones established by subsection A and B of this section". He also stated the reasons why this should be added. Chairwoman Herrera closed the Public Hearing. Community Development Director Wong stated that this vote is a recommendation to the City Council and the vote is not final. Commissioner Eng stated she would like to propose with the CAP with the consolidated antenna permit, that we reduce that to one year rather than having it for 24 months and one year should be sufficient. Chairwoman Herrera stated the motion is to reduce the consolidated antenna permit from 24 months to 12 months and add the other amendment that City Attorney Murphy read out. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chairman Alarcon, to approve Municipal Code Amendment 10.01 and ADOPT Resolution No. 10.09 (Attachment B), a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance 892 (Attachment C), amending title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to incorporate Chapter 17.82 "Wireless Telecommunications Facilities" zone regulations. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None C. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10.02, MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10-03, AND ZONE CHANGE 10-02 - Municipal Code Amendment 10-02 (MCA 10.02) and Municipal Code Amendment 10-03 (MCA 10-03) consist of City initiated amendments to the Rosemead Municipal Code for the purpose of establishing residentiallcommercial mixed-use development standards and regional commercial standards. The new development standards will reflect the new planning goals detailed in the City's 2010 General Plan Update (General Plan Amendment 09.01). MCA 10-02 will establish mixed-use development standards for a new Res identiallCommercial Mixed-Use Design Overlay (RCMUDO) zone, and MCA 10.03 will establish development standards for a new C-4 (Regional Commercial) zone. The proposal also includes an amendment to the existing Mixed-Use Development Guidelines to reflect the proposed mixed-use development standards. Lastly, Zone Change 10.02 is a proposed comprehensive zoning map update, which if adopted, will bring all zoning designations on the City of Rosemead Zoning Map into consistency with the land use designations outlined in the General Plan. For Reference, the proposed Res identiallCommercial Mixed-Use Development Overlay development standards and amended Mixed-Use Design Guidelines (Ordinance 889), C-4 (Regional Commercial) development standards (Ordinance 890), and zone change map and ordinance (Ordinance 891) have been attached as Exhibits A through C, respectively. PC RESOLUTION 10.10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10.02, ADDING THE RCMUDO "RESIDENTIAUCOMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY" ZONE AND CHAPTER 17.74 TO THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR THAT ZONE. PC RESOLUTION 10-11- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10.03, APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10.03, ADDING THE C-4 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONE AND CHAPTER 17.46 TO THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THAT ZONE. PC RESOLUTION 10.12 - 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 10.02, AMENDING A PORTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ZONING MAP TO ACHIEVE CONSISTENCY WITH THE CITY GENERAL PLAN. Principal Planner Bermejo presented staff report and power point presentation. Chairwoman Herrera asked Planning Commissioners if they had any questions for staff. Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated that staff has done a great job. Commissioner Eng also stated that staff has done a great job Commissioner Eng stated that in regards to the mixed-use standards, the residential units usually get occupied first and they will not feel the impact of commercial uses until afterwards. She also asked staff if there is a way to mitigate the noise and vibrations from the equipment that is built into the building. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that there is nothing in the ordinance to regulate that, but as each project comes forward on it's own merit it will be required to CEQA analysis and noise will be one of those. She also stated that in that process they will look into the exterior and interior noise of that property to the surrounding area that will be affecting the occupants of that building. Development Director Wong stated that as each of these projects come in before you, each one will be reviewed independently on its own merit. He also stated that will be the best time to look at the environmental considerations. 9 Commissioner Eng questioned if CEQA requirements consider the impacts for the future Community Development Director Wong stated yes it does look into the future development of environmental impacts to the surrounding area and for the future tenants of the building. Commissioner Eng asked staff in regards to the height limit requirements for mixed-use projects, can we require that the mixed-use project be a certain distance from the R-1 and R-2 zones. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that there are four mixed-use nodes and pointed out on the power point presentation where the nodes are that are near residential and explained to the Planning Commission that the density is a lot lower and height requirements will be a lot lower, and explained why that requirement would be difficult to add. Commissioner Ruiz stated that the height requirement in one of the residential nodes has the wash that goes right through it and part of that belongs to El Monte, and on the other side is the railroad tracks so it should not be that affected. He also asked staff if there will be balconies on these structures. Principal Planner Bermejo replied yes outdoor structure is allowed. Commissioner Ruiz asked staff if they will allow to be facing the street or will they be protruding the structure or be flush. Principal Planner Bermejo replied they can be either but there will be set-back requirements. Commissioner Ruiz questioned staff if they will still be required to follow the set-back requirements. Principal Planner Bermejo replied yes that is correct. Commissioner Eng asked staff for clarification in regards to the Regional Commercial zone will these uses still come to the Planning Commission for Design Reviews. Principal Planner Bermejo replied yes and explained the other items that would go to the Planning Division. Chairwoman Herrera opened the public hearing. Brian Lewin stated that he would like thank staff and is glad that the mixed-use guidelines are becoming an ordinance. He also stated he would like to make a few suggestions in the ordinance 17.74.050, on page 12, 4B, he would like that we ask for a minimum sight line requirement in either direction from all exits. Principal Planner Bermejo asked if he meant egress or ingress from all exits. Brian Lewin replied from all exits. 10 Principal Planner Bermejo stated some of the set-back requirements take care of that and referred to page 18, Building Form, Section C. Brian Lewin asked staff if that also included placement of bushes to. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that she will check and make sure there is something in the ordinance and reassured Brian Lewin that each project will have a traffic analysis done and visibility will be addressed. Brian Lewin stated that his biggest concern is visibility for pedestrian safety. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that our Public Realm setback will help the visibility issue also. Brian Lewin asked staff if that includes the monument signs. Principal Planner replied that the monument signs has its own separate provisions and has set- back requirements as well. Brian Lewin asked on B. 5, regarding the parking issue, on mixed-use can we consider having two guest parking spaces for every three dwelling units or consider increasing the parking requirements for commercial uses in mixed-use facilities to prevent street overflow. Chairwoman Herrera asked staff if there are any exemptions for parking. Principal Planner Bermejo replied what is being proposed in this ordinance is that the residential parking is separated from the commercial parking and read the requirement for residential. Commissioner Ruiz stated that he feels the more parking spaces you provide the more people you will have living in those structures. He also stated he opposes Brian Lewin's suggestion. Vice-Chairman Alarcon stated our design is and other cities designs are putting an emphasis on walking. Brian Lewin stated he disagrees and feels people will park on the street. Commissioner Hunter asked staff what the residential requirement were for the mixed-use on Mission near Rosemead Boulevard. Principal Planner Bermejo replied that one is now apartments and the ratio was two per unit plus one for every two. She also stated that the commercial was also built as restaurant one per every one hundred. Chairwoman Herrera asked staff if there were concessions. Principal Planner replied no there were no concessions Brian Lewin stated there were two approved projects that did claim that concession. He stated the five-story structure on Garvey did and he believes the one on Rosemead Boulevard and Guess did. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that she believes he is referring to is about the SB-1818 affordable housing law and if they produce a project with a percentage of affordable units, they do get a parking concession and that can be tied to the residential. Chairwoman Herrera asked staff if they were coming to the Planning Commission. Principal Planner Bermejo replied those two projects that are not currently in building plan check now. Brian Lewin stated looking at page 13, 73, is requesting that a requirement be added requesting a solid overhead covering for trash enclosures to prevent storm water intrusion. He also requests changing the language in the guidelines to, "the trash enclosures should have a solid roof'. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that is something that is required through NPDS. She also stated most trash bins from Consolidated Disposal have lids and sometimes they create odor issues. Brian Lewin stated he is requesting a solid top cover as illustrated above bike rack picture. Commissioner Ruiz stated we already have something like that in place, for example the China Bistro and it has a roof on top. He also stated that is already in place and the building department is working with that for new developments. Principal Planner Bermejo stated we also have a standard trash enclosure that we hand out at the counter with dimensions and the type of coverage that they would need. Commissioner Eng asked staff if in the trash enclosure itself in a mixed-use building, are there requirements and standards to have separate trash depository for commercial and residential uses. Principal Planner Bermejo replied a lot of that will be decided where they have the trash facility location and that will be decided during the Design Review. Brian Lewin stated that he would suggest on page 21, looking at Subsection D., 2A, he would like to suggest changing the wording to "not exposed to offensive noise, light, or odor." Principal Planner Bermejo stated this section basically works with noise abatement only and if this Commission would it to look into odor's it may need another section. She also stated it may be difficult to regulate odors in this ordinance and each project will be different. Commissioner Ruiz stated that there are building codes and the licensing requirements call for a filtering system. Community Development Director Wong stated that each project should be looked upon its own merit and Commissioner Ruiz is correct there are filtration regulations addressing odor concerns. 12 Brian Lewin stated that on page 28, B-1.C, it talks about reflective roofing and exterior wall material and is concerned if it is too reflective it may cause problems for the neighbors. Principal Planner Bermejo stated that is something that will be addressed as each project is submitted. Brian Lewin stated on the map it looked like the southern portion of the Savannah Cemetery has a Design Overlay. Principal Planner Bermejo stated it currently does have a Design Overlay and all the parcels along Valley Boulevard were approved several years ago with a Design Overlay in the front. City Attorney Murphy stated that before the Public Hearing is closed there are two administrable changes to the Planning Commission Resolutions that didn't get put in, we changed the Ordinance's 889 which is reprinted in almost whole in P. C. Resolution 10-10 and also includes an amendment to section 17.08.010 to actually include the Residential/Commercial Mixed- Use Development overlay zone into that section. He also stated you want to amend P.C. Resolution 10-10 to recommend the amendment of section 17.08.010 to include the RCMUDO development overlay. He also stated similarly P. C. Resolution 10-11 we need to include the Planning Commission recommendation that section 17.08.010 be amended to include the C-4 Regional Commercial zone. Chairwoman Herrera asked if anyone was in favor or against None Chairwoman Herrera closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Community Development Director Wong recommended that each action be voted on separately. Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to approve Municipal Code Amendment 10-02 (MCA 10.02) and ADOPT Resolution 10.10 with findings. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Commissioner Ruiz made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, to approve Municipal Code Amendment 10-03 (MCA 10.03) and ADOPT Resolution 10-11. Vote resulted in: 13 Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Vice-Chairman Alarcon made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, to APPROVE Zone Change 10.02 and ADOPT Resolution 10.12 with findings. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRWOMAN& COMMISSIONERS Vice-Chairman Alarcon would like to thank Code Enforcement for responding so quickly regarding shopping carts and dog issues. Commissioner Ruiz and his wife would like to thank everyone including City Council for the beautiful flowers and well wishes. He also stated staff has worked hard and has done a great job and the city is going in the right direction. Commissioner Eng would also like to thank staff for all their hard work. Chairwoman Herrera also thanked staff. Community Development Director Wong stated he would like to also commend Sheri Bermejo for all her hard work on these two ordinances and would like to congratulate her. MATTERS FROM STAFF 6. None 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 19, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. ATT T: CQVi'~~ Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 4"" /1n 9A10 Diana Herrera Chairwoman 14