CC - 09-29-81 - Adjourned MeetingAPPROVED
CIT~ x/I: E
DATE
RY
MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED MEETING
OF THE ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL &
ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSSION
SEPTEMBER 29, 1981 AT 7:00 P. M.
The adjourned meeting of the Rosemead City Council and the
Planning Commission was called to order by Mayor Imperial at 7:06
p. m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Blvd.,
Rosemead, California.
The Pledge to the Flag was led by Councilman Tury.
The Invocation was delivered by Commissioner Mattern.
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS:
Present: Mayor Pro Tem Hunter, Councilmen Tury, Taylor and
Mayor Imperial
Absent: Councilman Cichy
Present: Commissioners Ritchie, DeCocker, Mattern, Schymos,
and Chairman Lowrey
I. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF
AN AMENDED HOUSING ELEMENT BY PLANNING COMMISSION
AND CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Imperial turned the meeting over to the Chairman of
the Planning Commission, Marvin Lowrey.
Chairman Lowrey introduced the members of the Planning
Commission to the audience.
Chairman Lowrey opened the Public Hearing and inquired if
there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak regarding
this matter.
Marshall Krupp, Consultant of Willdan & Associates, stated
that their firm was responsible for the redraft of the existing
Housing Element and this present form should satisfy the "minimum"
requirements of content under the 1977 Housing Element Guidelines.
October the lst is the deadline to adopt this Element under the
1977 guidelines.
Juan Nunez, 2702 Del Mar, inquired how the Housing Element
would effect a home if it were burned with about 50% damage and
inquired if this element would require complete rehabilitation.
Marshall Krupp stated'.that the Housing Element is a policy
document with broad goals and objectives aimed at improving the
supply and quality of housing in the community. There are no
specific actions contained within the program that would be man-
dated on existing housing stock. If the house was partially
burned there is no program in this document that would dictate
that the house would be torn down or rehabilitated. The attempt
of the Housing Element is to identify options and alternatives
for future development of the Community or future rehabilitation
and growth in the Community. It is not intended to be a mandatory
code enforcement or a mandatory housing replacement program or
any type of program that would be inconsistent with what the
Council has done in the past.
Chairman Lowrey inquired if there was anyone else in the
audience who would care to speak regarding the Housing Element.
No one came forward. Chairman Lowrey closed the Public Hearing.
Each of the Commissioners complimented the consultant on the
preparation of the redrafted Housing Element. CM 9-29-81
Page #1
• •
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DECOCKER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
MATTERN that the Negative Declaration be filed with the findings
that the Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with
the State and local guidelines and the preparations of the en-
vironmental documents, and will not have a significant adverse
effect on the environment. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
A-1 The following Resolution No. 81-32 was presented for adoption:
P/C RESOLUTION NO. 81-32
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDING THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD'S GENERAL PLAN WITH THE
ADOPTION OF AN AMENDED HOUSING ELEMENT AND RECOMMENDING
ITS ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL
MOTION BY COMMISSION RITCHIE, SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN LOWREY
that P/C Resolution No. 81732 be adopted. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Chairman declared said motion,!duly carried and so ordered.
Chairman Lowrey turned the chair back to Mayor Imperial.
A-2 The following Resolution No. 81-55 was presented for adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 81-55
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING
A 1981 HOUSING ELEMENT AND ACCOMPANYING NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION AS PART OF THE CITYS GENERAL PLAN AND REPEALING ITS
FORMER HOUSING ELEMENT OF 1972
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HUNTER
that Resolution No. 81-55 be adopted. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
Marshall Krupp stated that he could not take credit for the
writing of the Housing Element although he did review it and was
involved in it. Gary Werner is the Director of Planning Services
with Willdan and he and his staff were the ones that prepared the
Element. He expressed appreciation for all the praise, but he
felt it should be directed to Gary Werner.
Mayor Imperial thanked Mr. Werner for the excellent job.
Mayor Imperial excused the Planning Commission from the
remainder of the Meeting.
Mayor Imperial recessed the Council Meeting.
II. Mayor Imperial reconvened the Council Meeting, and recessed
for an Executive:Session.
Glen Watson, Special Counsel, explained that the Executive
Session was regarding the litigation with Hedrick and Company
and possible settlement of that litigation. The discussion got
to the point of the terms of the P/D Zoning Ordinance at which
time the Council returned to public session to discuss the pro-
posed P/D Zoning Ordinance.
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ZONING
CODE PART XX, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
Mayor Imperial stated that the Public Hearing was open and
inquired if there was anyone who would care to speak regarding
this item.
Holly Knapp, 8367 E. Whitmore,St., requested that she be
allowed to reserve her right to speak regarding this matter or
any other thing on the Agenda. CM 9-29-81
Page #2
•
•
Mayor Imperial inquired if there was anyone else who would
care to speak regarding this matter.
No one came forward. Mayor Imperial closed the Public Hearing.
The following Ordinance No. 539U was presented for adoption:
Councilman Taylor suggested that in Section 9120.4 Item 11 be
added to state:
11. Precise grading plans showing existing contours and the
proposed finished elevations as may be required by the
Planning Department.
Councilman Taylor suggested that in Section 9120.4 Item 3 be
amended by the addition cf "garage door locations" between driving
lanes and parking areas.
Councilman Taylor stated that he would like to have placed
in this Ordinance a requirement which states that there should
be a separate egress and ingress if there are over 15 residential
units or two driveways for 15 or more residential units.
Councilman Tury inquired regarding the repealing of Ordinance
No. 533, and.inquired how.this,,would effect on Ordinance Nos. 521,
524, or 532.
Glen Watson, Special Counsel, stated that Ordinance No.:539U if
adopted would repeal the 4 month moratorium on building permits
that was imposed by the adoption of ordinance No. 533. It has no
effect whatever existing moratorium with respect to Condominiums
which this City Council adopted for a period of three months and
then extended for a period of one year. That moratorium would
remain in full force and effect if the Council adopts this Ordinance.
With respect to the Hedricks project this would not apply because
this is not a Condominium site.
Mr. Watson,stated that he would like to say a few words re-
garding this Ordinance. He stated that the City of Rosemead has
had a P/D Zoning in effect for several years.After the problem
arose with Hedricks, he came to the conclusion that the ordinance
required some clarification. After talking to the Planning Direc-
tor he discovered that some of the conditions which in the past
had been intended to be imposed were not documented anywhere and
that was because there was not an adequately spelled out procedure
for the adoption of a Resolution approving the Plan,of Development
and stating conditions. This clarifies that ordinance by in effect
giving the Council and the City two different stages of hearings.
The first one you consider the legislative question of whether or
not you want to a plan development in a certain location. At that
time all you do is pass on the concept of what is to be there with
sufficient information to enable the legislative body to see if
in your judgement that would be good zoning. If you then adopt
that then they come back later and spend there money later on their
plans and working drawings and then they present their precise plan
of development. At that time all those matters are dealt with in
detail under the zoning ordinance. This Ordinance allows a certain
period of time for the presentation of the plan of development
after you adopt the P-D Zone. On those P-D Zones which have been
established prior to the adoption of this ordinance,-this.-ordinance
recognizes them as still being effective and provides additional
time within which the plan of development can be submitted to the
City. He believes that to divide the legislative step off from
the.planned development approval is desirable and that the concept
is improved and does improve the Zoning Ordinance of the City. He
recommended that the Council favorably consider the P-D Zone Ordin-
ance as presented, Ordinance 539U.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TAYLOR, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY
that after review and consideration, concurs with the Planning
Commissions findings and approves the Negative Declaration. Vote
resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
CM 9-29-81
Page #3
C
III-A-1
ORDINANCE NO. 359U
•
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
AMENDING PART XX OF CHAPTER IX OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL
CODE PROVIDING FOR AND REGULATING LAND USES IN THE P-D
ZONE, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 533 AND DECLARING THE
URGENCY THEREOF
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN TURY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN HUNTER
that Ordinance No. 359U be adopted. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
III-B REVIEW OF MORATORIUM AFFECTING CONDOMINIUMS AND PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENTS ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE BY ORDINANCE
NO. 533 DATED JULY 16, 1981
Glen Watson, Special Counsel, stated that the four month
moratorium effecting P-D Zone is repealed by the adoption of
Ordinance No. 539U.- Since that Ordinance has been adopted by
the Council, the moratorium has been repealed, and has been
stated earlier the one year moratorium on condominiums remains
in full force and effect.
IV. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (PDR 81-1)
1100 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, A 49-UNIT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT PROPOSED BY J. H. HEDRICKS COMPANY
Councilman Tury inquired how many feet there was between
the garage door' and fheGdriuing lane?
John Carmona, Planning Director, stated that it was 18 feet.
Councilman Taylor inquired about the Cal Shake shingles that
had been recommended for use on the project for roofing.
Councilman Taylor stated that he had had experience with this
type of shingles and the roofers were breaking the shingles as
they were constructing.the roof. Anyone getting on the shingles
were damaging the shingles and did not feel that they should be
used on this project, although they do not burn, they do crumble.
Councilman Hunter stated that he was sure that there would
be fire retardent material used for the roof that does not crumble.
Glen Watson stated that Item 5. merely prohibits shake or -
shingle roofing materials, it leaves totally open any other build-
ing material which conforms with the building code.
Robert Gibbs, Counsel for the developer, 1900 Avenue of the
Stars, stated that the developer did not initiate the use of the
Cal Shake product. The concerns of some of the Planning Commis-
sioners generated the problem. The developer had proposed a
treated wood shingle or shake, and would be delighted to live
with a treated wood shake product.
Mayor Imperial asked the Chairman of the Planning Commission.
to come forward and explain the reason for their choice of roofing.
Marvin Lowrey, Chairman of the Planning Commission, stated
that the concern with the roofing was that it be fire proof..~_.
The Planning Commission was hesitant in going with the shingles
that had been treated because after a short period of time the
retardent would not last. He felt that this was a unique situation
as far as the confinement, the slope of the land, the trees and
neighborhood and he felt the need for additional fire protection.
Glen Watson inquired if the Council had enough information
to consider simply prohibiting untreated wooden shake or shingle
materials thereby permitting those which are fire retardent.
CM 9-29-81
Page #4
Mayor Imperial stated that he personally had no problem
with a wood shake roof as long as it is treated.
John Carmona, Planning Director, stated that there are classes
in the wood shake and Class B would be more efficient than Class C
treated material for wooden shake cedar type shingles.
Mr. Gibbs stated that they had planned on the use of Class B.
Both Councilman Tury and Hunter relunctantly stated that they
would go with the Class B type of roofing.
Mayor Imperial inquired of Mr. Gibbs if the developer would
consider tile shingles.
Mr. Gibbs, Counsel, stated that some of the materials are a
lot heavier than others and it would require different kinds of
support for the roof which then gets involved with a real redesign.
Also the aesthetics are affected, and that is not to.say. that tile
roofs cannot be aesthetically pleasing,but it would require consi-
derable redesign as well as different engineering problems. There-
fore as they presently stand with their financing it would be most
impractical.
Councilman Hunter inquired what the life expectancy of the
retardent on the treated shingles would-be?
Mr. Gibbs stated that it was approximately five years, and
then can be retreated.
Glen Watson,stated that this Resolution as presented approves
the open space in the project. The amount of open space which is
designed there not including balconies is approximately 47% and
when the Resolution is adopted that will be approving the planned
development as being in accordance with the P-D Ordinance, and in
the plan that is proposed the caution light will be deleted from
the plan and would also be approved. If there is some question
it should be raised now.
Councilman Tury stated that he had no objection to removing
the caution light.
Mayor Imperial stated that there were six parking spaces that
had been deleted and he would like 5 reinstated and just delete
no. 28.
Mayor Imperial recessed the',City Council Meeting.
Mayor Imperial reconvened the City Council Meeting.
Glen Watson, Special Counsel, stated that the items that were
in._the Resolution which had been discussed prior to the recess were
discussed with the developer and requested that there comments be
placed in the record.
Item 5.. Relating to the wooden shingle or shake. The developer
would"agree to a condition which reads as follows: Untreated wood
shake or shingle roofing materials are prohibited. Fire retardent treater
Class B materials are acceptable. Is that acceptable to the Council?
The concensus of the Council was that they did not have an alter-
native and it would be acceptable.
Glen Watson stated that with respect to Item 20 on the parking
spaces. Item 20. would now read: 20. The parking space identified
as number 28 on sheet 3 of the plans shall be deleted and said areas
shall be landscaped instead. That change-reinst"ates the parking
spaces numbers 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
There being no objection,it was considered acceptable.
Glen Watson requested that the record show that in computing
the 47% open space,it is his understanding, that that computation
included those areas 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12 as landscaped areas,
therefore when the Council reinstates those parking spaces,L CM 9-29-81
Page #5
(Glen Watson Continued)
•
they diminish to the extent of that space the amount of the open
area and when the Council makes a finding that there is a minor
deviation will be finding that the space left after you reinstate
space 6, 9, 10, it and 12 is adequate. Is that the understanding
of the Council.
The Council concurred with the Special Counsel.
Glen Watson stated that the only other two items in the Reso-
lution are 10. and 11. and 10. says that the developer shall pro-
vide open space within the project consistent with the City's P-D
Ordinance The Council is making a finding in the body of the
Resolution that the developer has done so...that is in Section 5..
of the new Resolution reads: The proposed Planned Development,
as modified by the conditions listed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto,
satisifies the requirements of the P-D Ordinance of the City of
Rosemead and is compatible with the surrounding area. So that is
the findings the Council will be making which"means you find the
open space requirement is met. The only other things are the dele-
tion of conditions 10. and 11. because they are not required. 11
is already satisfied as already reported, so conditions 10 and 11
would be out.
Glen Watson stated that in summary 5. would be amended, 10
and 11 deleted, and 20 amended.
Councilman Tury stated although we are deleting 11. which
states that contact has been made with adjacent property owners,
it should be made clear that this does not relieve the developer
of all obligations that they had agreed to in the first place.
Glen Watson stated that every condition in the sub-division
map, every condition in the P-D Zone, every condition left in
these conditions and every condition set forth on the face of the
Planned Development Plans must be complied with. They understand
that.
Glen Watson requested that before the Resolution is acted upon,
there are two other things that he would like to do.
First, the record is not clear in his opinion as to whether
the P-D Zoning Ordinance No. 539U that was adopted was adopted
with the insertions suggested by Councilman Taylor. He requested
that the record show that in Section 9120.4 sub-paragraph 3 the
words "points of access" after the words "All streets," and after
the words curb cuts, we have inserted "Garage door locations" so
that both of those are required to be shown on the plan, and then
condition 11. has been inserted which reads: Map or grading plan
showing the proposed grading and topography of the site. So those
three inserts suggested have been inserted in the Ordinance.to
clarify the record.
Glen Watson requested another motion ratifying the adoption
of Ordinance No. 539U as amended.
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN-TURY, SECONDED BY MAYOR.IMPERIAL that
Ordinance No. 539U be adopted as amended. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
Glen Watson read a letter which he had delivered to Mr. Gibbs
Attorney.for:Mr. Hedricks today.
Dear Mr. Gibbs:
This will confirm our understanding of today concerning the
issuance of building permits for units 1-6 of the proposed 49-
unite condominium project involved in the above matter. As you
know these six units must be redesigned to reflect a 18 foot first
floor set-back pursuant to conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission and be imposed by the City Council and its approval of
Development Plans on September 29, 1981. The Plans which Mr. Boggs
had submitted for plan check do not reflect the redesign of these
six units. Accordingly, building permits for only 43 units can be
issued on September 30, 1981 and building permits for the six units
CM 9-29-81 Page #6
(Continued Letter to Mr. Gibbs)
which have been redesigned can only be issued after Mr. Boggs
submits the plans for these units. This will further confirm
my understanding that upon issuance of the 43 units on September
30, 1981 the. request for dismissal in the above suit may be filed
and the release transmitted to the City. The building permits
for the 6 units will then be issued upon submission and approval
by the City Engineer of the revised plan for those six units in
accordance with the Building Code and the conditions imposed by
the City-Council in its approval of the Development Plan on Sep-
tember 29, 1981. If the above is.acceptable to you and comports
with your understanding please execute where indicated below on,
behalf of your client.
Mary Walker (signature)
Robert W. Gibbs(signature)
The.following,Resolution No. 81-56 was presented for adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 81-56
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 81-1
IN CONJUNCTION WITH A 49-UNIT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
LOCATED AT 1100 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA
MOTION BY MAYOR IMPERIAL, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN TURY that
Resolution No. 81-56 as amended be adopted. Vote resulted:
UPON ROLL CALL ALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT VOTED AYE.
The Mayor declared said motion duly carried and so ordered.
There being no further business the Council Meeting was
adjourned to the next regular meeting of October 13, 1981 at
8:00 p. m.
Respectfully submitted:
CITY LERK
APPROVED:
CM 9-29-81
Page #7