Loading...
PC - 03-03-08CITY OF ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 3, 2008 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City of Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lopez at 7:02 p.m. in Room 8 of Rosemead Community Recreation Center at 3936 N. Muscatel Avenue, Rosemead. Commissioner Vuu led the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Bevington delivered the invocation. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioner Bevington, Vuu, Vice - Chairman Kunioka, and Chairman Lopez ABSENT: Commissioner Cam EX OFFICIO: Agaba, Everling, Gonzalez, and Plaza EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS: City Attorney Plaza explained the public hearing process and the right to appeal Planning Commission decisions to the City Council. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Lopez asked if anyone would like to speak on any items not on the agenda, to step forward. Mr. Jim Flournoy of 8655 Landis View, a resident, stated he would like to speak about staffing support for the Planning Division and Planning Commission. He stated that he attended a CEQA seminar this past weekend which was held by the Planning Conservation League, EQMD, and a list of others. He stated the seminar started with questionnaires, which he knows in the past have not been filled out correctly. If not filled out correctly, he stated, the mitigation measures and discussion of flow from the questionnaire are not there. He said a lot of times they have consultants and developers working for the City who can actually do their own questionnaire or Environmental Impact Report, but when bring it into the City, the City has to take it and make it into their own EIR. Mr. Flournoy stated that he did not know this information until now, but they actually can do it. He stated it's important to have adequate staff time to go over the questionnaire, go over the discussion, and go over the recommended mitigation measures, prior to it coming to the Planning Commission for their consideration. He stated we ask the Development Community to pay for staff time they take to go over these questions. He said he doesn't think they have the staff or the staff time to currently do this. Mr. Flournoy stated if there is a Scoping or Notice of Preparation in which we ask for public comment on, we need to have time to close the public comment, have a Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, March 3, 2008 Page 1 of 16 public hearing, and then have time for the staff to respond to public comment before it goes to the Planning Commission for a vote and definitely before it goes to City Council. He stated you can remember what happened when we did the Super- Center. He said people put in reams of public comment and they never got looked at because Planning Commission had the Public Hearing and voted on the issue that same night. He stated we've been doing that ourselves, and he doesn't think it's a good practice; we need to have enough time to respond to public comment, have time to get the documents to the Planning Commissioners with enough time for them to read these thick documents, so that they can make a reasoned analysis on what they're going to vote on. He said maybe we can put this on a future agenda and discuss what we need to do to implement some of these things. Chairman Lopez questioned City Planner Everling about the length of time people have after receiving Notice of Public Hearings to comment. City Planner Everling stated CEQA talks about the 45 day public comment period. He stated that's why under the EIR we had to have the Scoping meeting, at which time, we encouraged public participation to get those comments. He stated the Draft EIR is then revised to include those comments, which by law, they're supposed to include all written comments as an addendum. He then said each comment is supposed to be answered in the Final document itself. That is why, he said, there is the required 45 day public comment period at which time the EIR is then revised, and brought back for Public Hearing. If there are additional items or issues that come up at a Planning Commission or City Council meeting he said, it's within the City Council or Planning Commission's purview to not take a vote and continue the item pending review of the public concerns. Mr. Flournoy stated we need to bring this to the City Council, because otherwise they will not be able to recognize the problem. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR — These items are considered to be routine actions that may be considered in one motion by the Planning Commission. Any interested party may request an item from the consent calendar to be discussed separately. A. A pproval of Minutes — February 19, 2008 Vice - Chairman Kunioka discussed two items. He stated the pages were not numbered and also on page 12, paragraph 3 should say, "Vice- Chairman Kunioka stated on the project, the developers are aiming for a tropical theme." He stated he didn't want it to look like the Planning Commission was stating that, but that Panda, the developer was focusing on a tropical theme. Commissioner Bevington stated there are a number of changes in the wording of the conditions and questioned if the Planning Commission could see those changes or revise any of the conditions, or were they supposed to assume the changes were made? City Planner Everling stated the Planning Commission can see the revised conditions if they'd like to. He said the day after the Planning Commission meeting, staff goes back to revise the conditions so that they reflect the new changes. He questioned if that was something the Planning Commission would like to see the revisions of the conditions in the minutes, then we can do that. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, March 3, 2008 Page 2 of 16 Commissioner Bevington stated it would be a good idea and reflection on staff, since in many instances, it is not one hundred percent clear of the changes that the Planning Commission is asking for are in the staff report. City Planner Everling stated we can do that. Commissioner Bevington stated let's make them part of the minutes and if it gets too cumbersome, we'll try something else. City Planner Everling questioned if it was something they are okay with. The Planning Commissioners all expressed they were okay with the revisions of the conditions being placed in the minutes. Chairman Lopez asked for a motion for approval of the other items on the Consent Calendar. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, SECONDED BY VICE- CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, TO WAIVE FURTHER READING AND ADOPT CONSENT CALENDAR. Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, VUU, KUNIOKA, AND LOPEZ NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Conditional Use Permit 06 -1077 (Extension) — 2440 Pine Street Presentation: Senior Planner Agaba Staff Recommendation: Approve, subject to conditions, for an additional twelve (12) months and ADOPT Resolution 08 -07. Senior Planner Agaba made his presentation and then stated the applicant was present and asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. Victor Aguilar Jr., residing at 2440 Pine Street, a resident stated he came to ask for an additional 12 months to build their house. His father, sister, and brother thought 6 months would be a good amount of time to get over the loss of his mother, but it wasn't. He said with the extension for an additional twelve (12) months, hopefully they can build his mom's dream house. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, March 3, 2008 Page 3 of 16 None. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. Chairman Lopez closed the public hearing to the public and opened the public hearing to the Commissioners. Vice- Chairman Kunioka questioned that these were approved under the old single - family guidelines, but since we are under the current guidelines, the house would be a little over on the FAR? City Planner Everling stated the home would not be over the FAR but it would also not require a Conditional Use Permit at this point. Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned if it was under the FAR. Staff and the Planning Commissioners discussed the FAR requirements. Vice- Chairman Kunioka questioned if this were a new proposal, it would have to meet FAR requirements. He questioned if thirty -five percent is automatic, then over forty percent would have to be incorporated? City Planner Everling stated correct Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated not being a homebuilder, in terms of time, what are we aiming for and what must be completed within this year? City Planner Everling stated after one year, the applicant must have issuance of a building permit. He said once you get a building permit, an inspection must be done at least once every six months to move the project forward to completion. Vice - Chairman Kunioka clarified that the project doesn't have to be completed in one year, but has to have building permits issued within a year. Commissioner Bevington questioned what the purpose of a project having a set timeframe is, if the project is just going to be approved over and over. He questioned why they settle and if they should reexamine these projects to see if they meet the City Code. City Planner Everling stated under the City's Zoning Ordinance, there are time limits associated with each entitlement, for example with a CUP, the limit would be per six months. He continued stating if the project has not been completed by then, that is why a time extension is required or if the approval itself expires, the applicant has to start all over again. He said when a time extension comes forward, that is a time for the Planning Commission to reevaluate this project. Commissioner Bevington stated we do not do it. He questioned if staff has looked at this Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, March 3, 2008 Page 4 of 16 project and the requirements it was approved on one year ago. He stated what they're saying to us now is that none of the changes in our City Code would make this project invalid at this point.. City Planner Everling stated right, because the way it was approved, it's still under the old code as long as the approval is still valid. He said they then have dialogue with the applicant and they tell us there are no changes made to the project. Commissioner Bevington stated the approval is not valid in effect because the applicant has to come back and ask for a new extension. City Planner Everling stated that is why code says you have to apply for a time extension prior to the project expiring, which in this case is March 17, 2008. Commissioner Bevington questioned that if this was a new application that came to us tonight, it would still be valid because it was approved one year ago under old laws and regulations, it carries forward. City Planner Everling stated correct, it carries forward. Commissioner Bevington stated he really doesn't think that is the purpose of the time period. He said the real purpose of the time period is to say to them you can move under today's laws, but five years from now, you can't come back and think we're not going to change those laws. City Planner Everling stated that's if the approval has expired. He then questioned what if the Planning Commission denied the time extension. Commissioner Bevington stated he's not comfortable with that but he thinks we are caught on the laws that we are not moving on tonight. City Planner Everling stated typically unless there is something significantly changed with the project, and the overall scope of the project is not the same as it was six months ago, then it would be different. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated this project is for a six month extension, but the other project is for a twelve month extension. He questioned if there was a pattern for the time period extensions. City Planner Everling said the Zoning Code states for six months, and the law says the City can approve up to five, one year time extensions. Commissioner Bevington stated that is true on subdivisions, but he didn't realize it would affect something like this. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he would be reluctant to extend it again. Chairman Lopez stated he meets the requirements for an extension. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, March 3, 2008 Page 5 of 16 The Planning Commissioners discussed the issue of future extensions for this project. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, SECONDED BY VICE - CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06 -1077 (EXTENSION). Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ AND VUU NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. Tentative Tract Map 053715 (Extension) — 8646 Grand Avenue Presentation: City Planner Everling Staff Recommendation: Approve, subject to conditions, for an additional twelve (12) months and ADOPT Resolution 08 -08. City Planner Everling made his presentation and then stated the applicant was present and asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. Commissioner Bevington stated from their application, he understands they have submitted building plans to the Building Department. City Planner Everling stated they got behind with the finalization of their final map under the Conditions of Approval they are trying to meet. He said unfortunately they are getting close to their expiration and want to keep moving forward, which is why they are requesting an extension. Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned if this project was over the FAR under the new design standards. He stated that once again, he would be reluctant to extend this project for an additional 12 month extension after this extension. Commissioner Bevington stated through the Subdivision Map Act they are allowed up to five extensions. If you do not grant an extension, you are going up against the Subdivision Map Act. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he heard the words "making progress" towards this project and wanted to know what exact "progress" towards accomplishing this project they had made. He stated we do not want this approval just floating out there forever. He also questioned "Exhibit A ", Condition 3. He stated the expiration for this project is March 6, 2008, and the request was submitted February 14, 2008, which is less than 30 days which is required for an Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, March 3, 2008 Page 6 of 16 extension request. He said it's a technical problem and that will not determine his decision, but also he wanted to imply that it is not automatic either. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to the public. Chris Guo residing at 11819 Goldring Road #A, Arcadia, CA 91006, representing EGL stated the last revision of the final map was submitted January 8, 2008, and has submitted a total of four times. She stated she thinks with the cooperation and communication of the City Engineer, and the one year extension, the project should be done within a couple of months. Chris Cosper of 8650 Grand Avenue, a resident of Rosemead and one of the five houses in the complex, questioned what would happen if the project was denied. She asked if the applicant would have to start all over again and if so, what kind of time frame they would be looking at. City Planner Everling stated it would take approximately six months. Ms. Cosper replied that she is not objecting the project, she just wanted to know where she stands. She said for five years the applicant has been telling her that she was going to be tearing it down, so she said she wanted to know. Chairman Lopez stated the applicant has submitted the final plans and is waiting for the approval; once that approval comes, then permits can be issued. He stated once she gets the final map recorded, she can then submit for permits. Commissioner Bevington stated once the final Tract Map and building plans have been approved by the Building Department then she can start her project. The Planning Commissioners and staff discussed the status of the plans with Chris, the EGL representative. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: None. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application Louisa Rios residing at 4736 N. La Presa Avenue stated the applicant's back yard is on the side of her property. She stated from day one, she's been trying to find out who she talks to about the building. She didn't receive a notice and today as she was driving by, she saw there was a notice for tonight's meeting. She stated she opposes the building of not one house but two houses being built, facing each other, along the side of her property. She stated she's been living there for twenty -three years. She said her bedroom and bathroom are facing that wall and no one bothered to consider asking her how she felt or what she thought about the proposed project. She stated she had an issue with an unsafe fence, called the City and never got a response, so she paid for the replacement of the fence herself. She said she used to call the City all the time and someone she spoke to finally told her to do whatever she wants with the fence. She stated there are two homes they are Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, March 3, 2006 Page 7 of 16 building next to her house and she wants to know who decided building a million dollar home was more important than her privacy, because she is really upset. City Planner Everling questioned if Ms. Rios was the property owner. Ms. Rios stated she was the property owner. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated notices were sent out when the project was first brought to Planning Commission, but he doesn't think they were sent out again for this hearing. City Planner Everling stated notices were sent out. Louisa Rios stated she didn't receive anything, but did see the sign posted in front of the address. City Planner Everling asked Ms. Rios if she received a notice in 2006. Ms. Rios replied that a notice was received after the meeting was held. She stated she came to City Hall and someone told her she had to write the Planning Division a letter which should be on file, because she did submit one. She stated she had just paid $4000.00 to replace the fence. She stated when she was trying to replace the fence, no one ever called her back until finally a woman named Rosa told her to do whatever with the fence. Chris Cosper residing at 8650 Grand Avenue, a resident questioned how long the Notice of Public Hearing is legally supposed to be up before the public hearing. City Planner Everling stated ten days prior to the public hearing. Ms. Cosper stated it was posted last Tuesday which only makes that six days. Senior Planner Agaba stated the signs that were posted are done by an initiative from the Planning Division; they are something that we decided to do. City Planner Everling questioned if Ms. Cosper was the property owner. Ms. Cosper stated they are the renters. City Planner Everling then said State Law requires that the three hundred foot notices have to go to the property owner. Ms. Louisa Rios stated she lives right by the property and she did not receive a letter. Chris Cosper stated the sign has not been posted for ten days either. City Planner Everling stated the on -site signs are not required. As Senior Planner Agaba stated, they are just something extra that we do. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, March 3, 2008 Page 8 of 16 Ms. Rios stated she lives behind the back house and that property is just going to be sitting there for one more year covered in blue tarp because there is no roof. She stated it blew away, everything is dead, and it's a mess. City Planner Everling questioned if this was the property to the north Ms. Cosper stated yes. She said there are several complaints on this property. She stated the City was out with her going over the things that she needed to take care of that they were citing her for. City Planner Everling stated it looks to him like she is cleaning up the property. Ms. Rios stated she is looking at the back yard, and we are welcome to come so she can show us what she has to see. City Planner Everling stated that will be taken care of with the new development. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated that the new home will be fairly close to Ms. Rios' house City Planner Everling stated the home adjacent to your back yard would be almost twenty -five feet away. He stated the actual rear set back is only twenty feet so the home to the rear of you will have a greater set back than a typical back yard would be. He said she would actually be benefiting from that. City Planner Everling stated at that time though, the single - family design guidelines were not adopted so we didn't have set back requirements that we do now. Senior Planner Agaba stated if you look at the total square footage of the proposed home, the applicant would not be required to apply for a Conditional Use Permit and would not require a public hearing. The design guidelines do not apply to this project because it was submitted before adoption of the guidelines. He stated the total square footage did not exceed 3,000 square feet, which requires a Conditional Use Permit under new single family design guidelines. Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned for the FAR percent, can you get Building Department approval without going through a public hearing process. City Planner Everling stated actually we wouldn't move a project forward if it exceeded the FAR. Vice - Chairman Kunioka said he thought it would be a variance process if they wanted to exceed the FAR. City Planner Everling stated the use permit requirement applies to the overall square footage, not to the FAR. He stated we wouldn't move forward to a hearing for that. He questioned Senior Planner Agaba about the maximum square footage being 2,500 square feet; the houses for this project were all less than 2,500 square feet. He stated just the fact that it was a Tentative Tract Map is why we required a public hearing for the time extension. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, March 3, 2008 Page 9 of 16 The Planning Commissioners and staff discussed the issues at hand. Chairman Lopez addressed Ms. Rios. He stated since this project was approved a few years back, he knows he would have argued the point to make sure she had privacy. He stated that he would have asked for at least an additional five and a half foot set back on the second story, which is a ten and a half feet set back; further than some of the walls. He stated he's pretty positive that if they didn't, then they need to look into that. City Planner Everling stated we can add a condition of approval to Tentative Tract Map 053715 (Extension) asking staff to work with the applicant in verifying there wouldn't be windows as far as privacy intrusion along that elevation. Chairman Lopez stated they'll make sure the applicant works with staff to give Ms. Rios the best privacy possible. He stated it changes the size of the windows, what they had there, and still the back yard will have privacy. He stated that's one of our arguments which is to try to give privacy to the neighbors. He said he knows we can't stop it all, but they can try as best as they can to bring comfort and make it as easy as possible for residents. He stated he is for making the change in conditions of approval part of their motion. Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned if the footprint is in fact the new proposed development. He stated most of it appears to be in the front end which is the driveway. He said the second house has a different set back, almost twenty -five feet from the back yard. Chairman Lopez stated we will set that condition to make sure that the applicant works with staff to make it easy so there isn't that much invasion of privacy. City Planner Everling stated we can draft the condition and bring it back in next month's minutes per Commissioner Bevington's request and that way the Commission can review that condition and revise it as they see fit. Chairman Lopez stated we pushed to give privacy as much as we could to the neighbors, and we'll also add that condition so that the applicant can work with staff to make it as best it can be. Ms. Rios stated if anything changes, to please let the immediate neighbors know. She stated the only reason she is here is because she has been ignored for so long and is very upset. Victoria Vasquez residing at 8646 Grand Avenue, a resident questioned what rights homeowners have that live in small homes next to homes that are being sold, knocked down, and rebuilt into huge mansions. She questioned if anyone gives these people the right to be notified of meetings regarding these changes. She stated that it's sad for people to live that way having a home they love and work hard for next to mansions. She questioned if Planning Commissions really detail conditions to work in favor of privacy for neighbors. Chairman Lopez stated we force that issue because we can't stop a person from wanting to rebuild so we set it up so it matches the community and their block. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, March 3, 2008 Page 10 of 16 Ms. Vasquez stated she doesn't think it's fair to people who work so hard and have privacy for it to be taken away. Chairman Lopez stated in 1991, the City of Rosemead was desperate to get revenues so they opened up the guidelines, which went on for about ten years. He stated once he became a Planning Commissioner and started noticing that things didn't look right, they forced an issue making it so the guidelines meet the neighborhood again. He stated that was something that was done in the early 90's and what we are trying to do now is to modify it to make it better for our community. He stated we may not be able to stop the progress of homes being built, but we are trying to set up better guidelines for residents. Ms. Vasquez and Ms. Cosper discussed how old the properties they rent are. Chairman Lopez stated we are trying our best to bring our City to some conformance; our apologies. City Attorney Plaza stated there are new design guidelines. City Planner Everling stated they were adopted in September 2007. Chairman Lopez stated on some of the original permits, they are still under the old guidelines. He said they are trying to incorporate to make sure they get fanned out and that anything new coming in is under the new guidelines. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated the new guidelines will be a smaller proportion of square footage, building height will be limited to no more than thirty feet tall as opposed to thirty -five feet and the new houses will be less imposing. He stated they will be bigger than the current houses, but they're not going to be as big as other houses have been built. Ms. Vasquez questioned where the tenant's rights come in. City Planner Everling stated there are Advocates for Tenant's Rights Chairman Lopez stated he'll promise one thing which is to always fight to help the neighbors and work with the applicants. Mr. Jim Flournoy of 8655 Landis View, a resident stated the new design guidelines are on City Website. If you take a look at it you'll probably be impressed he stated. There are some good ideas, he stated, if you haven't got your plans done you might want to incorporate some of these features. Mr. Victor Aguilar stated they went totally different route on what is being built. We took our neighbors into consideration when we built the second -story room about 20 feet from their fence. He said they understand the privacy of their neighbors and unless they want to move and pay about $2,000.00 a month for rent, they are forced to build or move somewhere else. Chairman Lopez stated we are trying our best to make things better Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting.: Monday, March 3, 2008 Page 11 of 16 Mr. Flournoy questioned if the City is requiring sprinklers in some of these houses. He stated there is a problem with water capacity; the four inch pipe should be replaced with eight inch pipes and if they look into it, they might even save enough on their insurance to pay for the sprinkler system itself. City Planner Everling stated that the home has to be built up to Fire Code Commissioner Bevington stated they can only do some much to protect resident's privacy. He said the law requires that the house be built in a certain amount of time, in which they have to respect the rights of the applicant, but we tread a very fine line between the applicant's rights and the rights of the neighbors. Ms. Guo representing EGL questioned when she could receive a copy of draft minutes. City Planner Everling stated we can give a Ms. Guo a copy of the draft minutes, which are not an official copy of the minutes until the Planning Commission adopts them, within ten days following tonight's public hearing. Commissioner Bevington questioned if staff is to look at building plans for the houses being built to make sure their set backs are correct and if not, to fix the issues. Chairman Lopez stated he does not think they can change that City Planner Everling stated the Planning Commission can change whatever they want to the conditions of approval. He said this is the risk the applicant faces when asking for a time extension, because it's a public hearing, they open up a whole can of worms. The Commission, he said, can add or eliminate any condition, change set backs and height, and approve or deny it. Chairman Lopez stated he thinks it would be a good idea for staff to look at the set backs of the second stories, especially along side the property line to see what we have and what will affect the neighbors. He stated any help for them would be good and that way the applicant will still have a good home. City Planner Everling stated he'll make sure staff works with the applicant regarding the window issue to verify setbacks are correct. Mr. Flournoy stated they have an extra five feet to work with. Chairman Lopez stated the angle of view is not so drastic, it's looking straight into it from down below. He stated that's the big part that is important. He stated they are trying to avoid invasion of privacy. Commissioner Bevington stated we are getting building plans approved by the Building Department so if we are going to do something, then we better do it soon. Chairman Lopez asked if anyone else would like to speak? Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, March 3, 2008 Page 12 of 16 None. Chairman Lopez closed the public hearing to the public and opened the public hearing to the Commissioners. City Planner Everling stated we will come back March 17, 2008 which is the next public hearing to revise these conditions. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated for the record, he would be reluctant to approve the extension of this project again. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VUU TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 053715 (EXTENSION), WITH MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITION 6 BEING THE APPLICANT SHALL ALSO WORK WITH PLANNING STAFF TO ADDRESS ALL PRIVACY ISSUES ON LOTS 3 AND 4 BY USING ONLY CLERESTORY WINDOWS ON EACH OF THE UNITS' SECOND -FLOOR SOUTH - FACING ELEVATIONS., Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ AND VUU NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. C. Tentative Conditional Use Permit 07 -1111 — 7839 Emerson Place Presentation: City Planner Everling Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission TABLE Conditional Use Permit 07 -1111 to a future Public Hearing. City Planner Everling made his presentation and asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. Commissioner Bevington questioned if staff really looking at these towers because there are many areas in the city where these towers shouldn't go. City Planner Everling stated that is the main reason this item was continued the first time, because the information that the applicant provided to us with their photo simulations were very misleading and they did not present the information as it should have been to the Commission. He stated it was his call to require the applicant to provide better photo simulations of the actual proposal. He continued stating they asked the applicant to show photographs of what the poles would look like on the sites directly adjacent to the site that is being proposed. He stated they basically requested that the applicant provide a new photo simulation package. He was originally going to recommend denial for this project, he said, Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, March 3, 2006 Page 13 of 16 but the applicant has agreed to provide us with photo simulations which are realistic, and also they are looking to reduce the overall height of the tower from 50 feet to 45 feet. He stated based on that information, the applicant went back the client and is trying to get the information so that staff is comfortable recommending approval, rather than for denial. He said to answer Commissioner Bevington's question, staff does take these applications seriously as far as their aesthetic impact to the community, because the proposed project is directly adjacent to a park and an elementary school. He stated they were worried about this, which is why they are working with the applicant to reduce the overall height as well as to provide photo simulations that reflect what is actually going on so the commission could make a better decision. Commissioner Bevington stated he was associated with two towers where he used to live. He stated they were very well hidden and people didn't even know these things were there. He said he could see where this project could stick out like a sore thumb though. City Planner Everling stated they are pretty well designed, but on this particular application, the reason it's a MonoCypress is because there are existing mature cypress trees in a windrow adjacent to the properties so they're looking to integrate that. MOTION BY VICE - CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VUU TO TABLE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07 -1111 TO A FUTURE PUBLIC HEARING. Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ AND VUU NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS Chairman Lopez stated he hasn't seen any changes on Ramona Avenue on the south side of the 10 freeway. City Planner Everling stated because he wasn't getting response from CalTrans, he got a hold of our maintenance division to see who's responsible for that area. Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned if the height of an antenna is lowered, would the wattage need to be increased and if there would be any radiation problems. City Planner Everling stated under FCC guidelines, the tower would be exempt from the electromatic magnetic field as far as harming humans. He stated the problem these carriers have is when you lower the height, it lowers the signal strength. Chairman Lopez stated before the new Planning Commissioners were appointed, one of the issues they had with staff was they wanted to know what the state regulations were. He said Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, March 3, 2008 Page 14 of 16 they came back with a great report and really there is no harm unless you are standing on top of it or within five feet. He stated it was brought up on several occasions; it was just a matter that community wanted to know about and by law we can't stop it unless it's that ugly. 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF City Planner Everling stated he wanted to communicate to the Planning Commission as well as the public that on Wednesday March 5, 2008 we are having a meeting regarding our Valley Vision Plan at RCRC from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The Commissioners discussed their interest in the Valley Vision Plan. City Planner Everling stated that the Valley Vision Plan study session would now be held Tuesday, March 25, 2008 as opposed to the originally scheduled date. He stated although he had originally scheduled a joint study session of the Valley Vision Plan with City Council for March 17, 2008, the City Manager just advised him today that City Council would prefer that this study session be held at a City Council meeting rather than a Planning Commission meeting. The City Manager also asked that he advise the Planning Commissioners and see if they would be able to make this joint study session on that day. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he might be able to make it, but he may be late. City Planner Everling stated this meeting will not be on the City Council's agenda but will be held from 4:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Mr. Brian Lewin stated he'd like to make a request that the City staff consider sending out some sort of notice to the general public, because he thinks one of the problems they've had, especially at the last City Council meeting, was many people were more angry that the only way they found out about it was through Maggie's letter, than the General Plan itself. City Planner Everling stated he has already contacted a few bulk - mailing companies to figure out how much it would cost to send out mailings to all property owners. Mr. Lewin stated however the City sends Rosemead resources out, these mailings should be sent out the same way. He stated the problem is this creates instant distrust and hostility within residents who think this it is deliberately being withheld from. City Planner Everling stated after the second community meeting was held, he contacted the same bulk - mailing companies. He said because the meetings were so close together, they would not be able to get the mailings done in time. Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned what time frame was required for mailings like this to go out. City Planner Everling answered a minimum of two weeks. The Planning Commissioners and staff further discussed the issue of the bulk - mailings. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, March 3, 2008 Page 15 of 16 i Mr. Victor Aguilar stated his property is adjacent with the Southern California Edison Company and questioned what the plan for this would be. City Planner Everling stated they are looking at making pocket parks, but there would be no structures. Mr. Aguilar stated there are weeds and grass that need to be maintained and although he's called to report this, no one calls him back. City Planner Everling stated that he would give Michael Orduno of SCE Mr. Aguilar's contact information regarding this issue. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated that Edison will not allow permanent structures on the property. 7. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Lopez adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:24 p.m. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN LOPEZ TO ADJOURN UNTIL THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. M E /AG Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, March 3, 2008 Page 16 of 16