Loading...
PC - Item 3A - Minutes 3-7-11Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 7, 2011 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Alarcon at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herrera INVOCATION - Vice - Chairwoman Eng ROLL CALL - Commissioners Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz, Vice- Chairwoman Eng, Chairman Alarcon ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney' Greg Murphy, Community Development Director Wong, Senior Planner Garry, Assistant Planner Trinh, 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- February 7 2011 Commissioner Herrera made a'motion, seconded by Vice - Chairwoman Eng, to APPROVE the Minutes of February 7 2011, as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None :29s311[+1:1001 e � A. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 11.01 - Evergreen Baptist Church of Los Angeles has submitted an application to construct a new Children's Village consisting of two new classroom buildings totaling approximately 5,650 square feet and a new 1,560 square foot multi - purpose children's chapel at an existing church located at 1255 San Gabriel Boulevard in the P -D (Planned Development) zone. PC RESOLUTION 11.03 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 11 -01 FOR BUILDING AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY, LOCATED AT 1255 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD IN THE P -D (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission APPROVE Planned Development Review 11 -01 and ADOPT Resolution No. 11.03 with findings and subject to thirty -two (32) conditions. Senior Planner Garry presented the staff report. Chairman Alarcon asked if the Planning Commissioners had any questions for staff. Commissioner Hunter asked staff if there will be any liability to Don Bosco for the church to have people park in there parking lot. Senior Planner Garry replied any liability issues would be between the two parties and the on -site agreement would address liability issues. Commissioner Ruiz asked staff if a formal agreement involving both parties in regards to the parking was submitted. Senior Planner Garry replied yes. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff if the Fire Department will determine the occupancy capacity for the children's chapel. Senior Planner Garry replied the Building Code establishes the occupancy limit and would be determined by the Building Official, Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked "staff if the parking agreement considered other major events like Christmas and events that did not fall on Sunday. Senior Planner Garry stated the applicant may address that question. Commissioner Ruiz asked staff if anything will be done with the chain link fence around the perimeter of the property. Senior Planner Garry replied that the current plans don't show any additional landscaping, but staff believes there is opportunity for additional landscaping improvements to be made in the planters located along the property perimeters if requested. Commissioner Ruiz stated that it would be a good idea and let's ask the applicant if they are agreeable. 2 Chairman Alarcon opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Pastor Jonathan Wu stated he is the Executive Pastor of Evergreen Church and gave a brief background of the church and services they offer. He also stated that in the past Don Bosco and the Church have had a friendly MOU in regards to parking, but in process of this project found out that a Parking Covenant would be required. He stated that part of the parking agreement is that the Church will also share their parking lot with Don Bosco and liability will also be shared by both parties. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked Mr. Wu if it would be feasible to expand the landscaping along the chain link fence. Pastor Jonathon Wu replied that they would be glad to do so. Pedro Cordova, representative of Choy Architect's for the Evergreen Baptist Church, asked if the Planning Commission is requesting for a visual screen between Don Bosco and the parking lot or just landscaping. Commissioner Ruiz replied landscaping would be better. Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of this project. None Chairman Alarcon asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against this project. None City Attorney: Murphy stated that he would like to amend the last sentence of Condition of Approval Number 27 to add, "and shall include plantings, hedges, or vines to mask the chain link fencing consistent with current landscaping on the site." Commissioner Ruiz made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to APPROVE Planned Development Review 11 -01 and ADOPT Resolution No. 11 -03 with findings and subject to thirty -two (32) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Alarcon, Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Chairman Alarcon excused himself from the Planning Commission meeting on Public Hearing Items 4B and 4C due to a Conflict of Interest, and requested that Vice - Chairwoman Eng continued to conduct the meeting. B. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10.04 - AMENDING THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF ADULT BUSINESSES IN THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD - Municipal Code Amendment 10.04 is a City initiated amendment to revise Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations) and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code. The purpose of the amendments are to revise the regulations for adult businesses in order to prevent their concentration or proximity to incompatible uses, and avoid negative secondary effects associated with adult business uses. The proposed adult business ordinance addresses licensing /permitting provisions, operating standards, and zoning limitations for these adult businesses. PC RESOLUTION 11.02 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10.04 CONSISTING OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVISING ADULT BUSINESS REGULATIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 11 -02, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 903, amending Title 5 and Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to revise adult business standards. Vice - Chairwoman Eng moved to Item 413 and directed staff to present the staff report. Senior Planner Garry presented the staff report. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked if the Planning Commissioners had any questions for staff. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff in the Resolution on page 38, under locational standards, if it is 500 or 1,000 feet from any property. Senior Planner Garry replied it is 500 feet, unlike the existing ordinance of 1,000 feet. Commissioner Herrera asked staff if it is also 500 feet from a school. Senior Planner Garry replied "yes." Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked if those uses are the standards. Senior Planner Garry replied "yes." Commissioner Hunter asked staff if this means the City would never allow this type of business. City Attorney Murphy replied from a legal point of view you cannot prohibit them. He explained that staff has provided a fair opportunity for them in the City if the property owners are willing to lease land for such use. He also stated by doing this in the Manufacturing Zone, rather than the Commercial Zone, it's less likely that type of lease would come about, but it is possible that as many as two Adult Businesses could come into the City under this ordinance. Vice - Chairwoman Eng stated she would like to commend staff for their work in setting fourth a perimeter for prohibiting this type of business. She asked staff if the process of approval would be the Chief of Police first and, if appealed, then the City Manager. Senior Planner Garry replied "yes." Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked staff what options the community has if this type of business is approved for a site and they are opposed to it. City Attorney Murphy replied that the appeal would be to the City Manager. He continued to explain that case law tells us, it is best to set up these ordinances so that they stay out of the political process. Subjecting these uses to the political process brings a greater threat of liability to the City. He also stated that the ordinance is as immune to liability as one can be given under the circumstances. Vice - Chairwoman Eng opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone in favor or against this proposed Ordinance. None Vice - Chairwoman Eng closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Commission had any further questions for staff. Commissioner Herrera asked staff to clarify the locational standards and asked why the distance is now shorter. Senior Planner Garry explained that there are new locational standard criteria being added that does not exist under the current ordinance. City Attorney Murphy replied that maintaining the 1,000 feet radius shrinks down the universe of potential sites to such a small number that the ordinance would not be as legally defensible. He also stated that ultimately it is ?a policy decision for the Planning Commission and City Council to decide. He continued to explain that if you keep the 1,000 feet requirement for schools you eliminate of a number of sites which reduce the already limited number of allowable sites and potentially create a less legally defensible ordinance which could create a bigger problem. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked City Attorney Murphy of the other cities that have adopted these types of ordinances is their locational criteria 500 or 1,000 feet; and have they been challenged on it. City Attorney Murphy replied there have been many challenges as the criteria differ from City to City. He also stated it is based on what zone they wish to put the use and what other uses you are keeping the adult uses away from. He also continued to explain that in terms of a dispersal requirement what needs to be done is to give these businesses a fair chance to site in the City, E while upholding health and public safety concern for the residents and business owners by keeping them far enough away from incapable uses. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked City Attorney Murphy what is the location criteria for Megan's Law. City Attorney Murphy replied given the court cases of last month he is not sure right now. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked Greg Murphy if the distance criteria will be a policy for City Council to make. City Attorney Murphy replied "yes." Commissioner Ruiz made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, to ADOPT Resolution No. 11.02, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 903, amending Title 5 and Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to revise adult business standards. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: Alarcon Absent: None C. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 11.01 - ORDINANCE PROHIBITING MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES At the City Council meeting of June 30, 2009, and after hearing and considering public testimony, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 877 establishing an interim urgency ordinance prohibiting Medical Marijuana Dispensaries for a period of forty -five days. As the Government Code allows the City to extend Ordinance 877 for a period of 10 months and 15 days, the City Council did so at its meeting of August 11, 2009 by adopting Ordinance No. 879 after hearing and considering further public testimony. Thus, Ordinance No. 879 was made valid until June 25, 2010. The Government code allowed the City Council one final extension to the interim urgency ordinance prohibiting Medical Marijuana Dispensaries for the period of one year. On May 11, 2010 the City Council adopted its last and final extension of; the < urgency ordinance prohibiting Medical Marijuana Dispensaries by adopting Ordinance No. 895. This final extension is set to expire on May 10, 2011. Therefore, staff'is coming forward with a permanent Medical Marijuana Dispensary ban ordinance for the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed ordinance. PC RESOLUTION 11.04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 910, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 17 "ZONING" OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING CHAPTER 17.106 PROHIBITING MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES CITYWIDE. M STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 11 -04, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 910, amending Title 17 "Zoning" of the City's Municipal Code adding Chapter 17.106 prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries citywide. Assistant Planner Trinh presented staff report. Vice - Chairwoman asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions for staff. None Vice - Chairwoman Eng opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone in favor or against this Ordinance. None Vice - Chairwoman Eng closed the Public Hearing Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked City Attorney Murphy why this ordinance is best for this City. She stated based under existing case law, that the City's General Plan does not have anything zoned for this use. City Attorney Murphy replied: that the City's Moratorium went into place when the law was very unsettled. He stated there were two cases, one dealing with the City of Corona and the other with the City of Claremont, in which they both had a permissive zoning statue. He stated because dispensaries were not listed (within the statue they were barred as a matter of law. He continued to explain the courts could not specifically rule on whether dispensaries could be barred but because they were bared you could enforce the ordinance against them. He stated the Qualified Maintenance Patients Association vs. the City of Anaheim case remains pending and until it's decided we will not have a solid answer. He stated that all indications are that the proposed ordinance is the best way to deal with the Medical Marijuana Dispensary issue, while waiting for the Qualified Maintenance Patients decision, if it is the will of the City that storefront dispensaries not be opened in the City at this time. Vice - Chairwoman Eng asked City Attorney Murphy to clarify if the two cases that allowed the ban are based on because they were a nuisance. City Attorney Murphy replied the two dispensaries were considered a nuisance because they were not allowed by the code. They were being abated by Code Enforcement officers and the question before each court was whether that City could abate them. He stated in the Anaheim case, the pending question before the court is can the City refuse to allow storefront dispensaries at all. He continued to explain that its staff's position, as well as the Cit Attorneys, to adopt an ordinance similar to the City of Corona and Claremont while we wait for case law to be established. This would set up the City to at least defeat some kind of liability brought on the same terms that were brought in Corona and Claremont. 7 Commissioner Ruiz made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 11.04, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance No. 910, amending Title 17 "Zoning" of the City's Municipal Code adding Chapter 17.106 prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries citywide. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: Alarcon Absent: None City Attorney Murphy requested that staff ask Chairman Alarcon to return to the meeting. 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS None 6. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. Withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit 10.07 Community Development Director Wong presented a Memo from staff and letter from Clearwire dated February 23, 2011, regarding the Withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit 10 -07. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, March 21, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. William Alarcon Chairman Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary I