PC - Minutes - 12-19-11Minutes of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 19, 2011
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Eng at 7:00 p.m., in the
Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Hunter
INVOCATION - Commissioner Herrera
ROLL CALL - Commissioners Herrera, Hunter, Saccaro, Vice -Chair Ruiz, and Chair Eng
ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: Acting Community Development Director Ramirez, Consultant
Wong, City Planner Bermejo, and Commission Secretary Lockwood
1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS
Acting Community Development Director Ramirez stated there are no Public Hearing items on the agenda
so this will not be applicable for tonight's meeting.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
None
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes - November 7, 2011
Commissioner Herrera made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, to approve Minutes of
November 7, 2011 as presented.
Vote resulted in:
Yes:
Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz, Saccaro
No:
None
Abstain:
None
Absent:
None
4. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN &
Commissioner Hunter and Chair Eng both wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a very safe and Happy
New Year.
5. MATTERS FROM STAFF
1
A. Zoning Code Update - The modifications to the Residential Zoning Districts and a proposed
Home Occupation Ordinance will be reviewed and discussed.
City Planner Bermejo presented Chapter 17.12 Residential Districts of staff report.
Chair Eng stated that there is one speaker on this item and invited the speaker to the podium
Brian Lewin, resident of Rosemead, thanked staff and stated he would like to present a few
recommendations to the Planning Commission. Brian Lewin suggested that the wording in Section
17.12.030, Letter B, number one (1) Item E, regarding Merged Lots be changed to state, "Upon merger of
two lots, the allowed space shall be no more than one hundred fifty (150) percent greater than that allowed
by one hundred fifty (150) percent of the FAR of the largest etc." He stated this would make clear that they
are not getting a FAR bonus due to the merging of two lots. Brian Lewin suggested in Section B, Letter F,
number one (1) regarding Landscaping that the wording be supplemented to say, "...any public roadway
and sidewalk" to help with traffic visibility. Brian Lewin suggested under Section B, number two (2), Item C,
regarding Landscaping that the same modified language be added as in Section B, Letter F, number one
(1) for visibility concerns. Brian Lewin referred to Section B, Letter F, number three (3) regarding Trash
Collection Facilities and suggested that the wording to require solid roof over trash enclosures for
commercial structures also be added to the R -3 Zoning District for storm water purposes. Brian Lewin also
suggested to the Planning Commission that they add some type of restriction on bathroom attachments
to bedrooms which may have access to the outside. He stated this may help with the prevention
of structures being built for sublet use and parking concerns. He also wished everyone a Merry Christmas
and Happy New Year.
Chair Eng asked if there is anyone else wishing to speak on this item
None
Chair Eng opened the item for discussion and questions for staff and the Planning Commission.
Consultant Wong stated that he understands Brian Lewin's concern in regards to the Merged Lots, but staff
feels that the language is clear and that it remains as is. He also stated in regards to Letter F, number one
(1), Landscaping, staff agrees with Brian Lewin's recommendation but suggest that the language
state "public right- away." Consultant Wong stated in regards to adding bathrooms to bedrooms which may
have access to outside, which may lead to parking concerns, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission increase the parking requirement based on number of bedrooms rather than design
aspects.
City Planner Bermejo explained that staff did not include coverage for trash enclosures in the staff report
because the height requirements between residential and commercial properties are not the same.
Chair Eng asked staff to clarify the requirements for installing a solid roof over the trash enclosure including
height restrictions.
City Planner Bermejo replied that for trash enclosures there are standard dimensions but if you do a top to
it, such as an elevated trellis system, it must be built high enough so that the person accessing the trash
enclosure can lift the bin lid up. She also explained they have seen a few that have been built on
commercial properties against residential neighborhoods and they have become eyesores to the residential
families. She also stated that it has not been required in the multi - family residential project unless it
is located in a housing project that has a garage and they can put it underneath.
Commissioner Hunter stated that concern has been brought up before.
City Planner Bermejo stated there are pros and cons for tops on trash enclosures and her recommendation
for residential areas is that they are not appropriate.
Commissioner Hunter commented that the previous project had been approved.
Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that there are differences with commercial waste and pointed out that residential
waste is usually bagged while commercial waste is usually just dumped and not bagged. He also pointed
out that residential waste containers have the availability of separate containers for landscaping and
recycling. He also stated that he is in agreement with Consultant Wong in regards to Letter F, number one
(1), that the language state "public right- away."
Commissioner Saccaro referred to a code section in reference to second units allowed by state law and
asked staff if it should be added to allow second units to be used by family members.
City Planner Bermejo explained that the section for second unit will be a separate ordinance that will
correspond to that issue. She also stated that there is reference to second residential units in Table
17.12.1, Uses in Residential Districts, on page 2 of staff report and asked if this was satisfactory.
Commissioner Saccaro replied yes. He also referred to code and asked staff why there was no reference
to PD and if there should be.
City Planner Bermejo replied that there should not be a reference to PD because this is a separate zone
with separate development standards and gave examples of standards.
Commissioner Saccaro confirmed with staff that there is definitely a separate zone for PD.
City Planner Bermejo replied yes and stated that section will come to the Planning Commission for review
as well.
Commissioner Saccaro confirmed with staff that item references to duplexes will cover two homes on a lot.
City Planner Bermejo replied that you can do two different separate detached dwellings or duplexes in the
R -2 zone.
Commissioner Saccaro pointed out that it does not mention that when you refer to duplexes.
City Planner Bermejo replied that if you refer to the table 17.12.1, Uses in Residential Districts, on page 2
of staff report it shows that they are permitted in the R -2 or R -3 zone.
Commissioner Saccaro asked staff if the definition of a duplex is two units attached together and also two
separate units.
City Planner Bermejo replied yes.
Consultant Wong stated he would like to add a comment to table 17.12.1 in regards to Mobile Home Parks
limiting them to an ALP, which was the recommendation from the City's legal counsel. Consultant
Wong also stated he would like to defer this matter until he consults with Legal Counsel.
Chair Eng stated if Mobile Homes are a permitted use by right because of state law does the Planning
Commission have any control over the Design Review of it.
Consultant Wong replied that if Mobile Home Parks are allowed they are controlled by the State.
Chair Eng asked staff how this is different from a wireless telecommunications facility. She stated that the
City does not have control over the wireless facility entering the City but the City has say over the
aesthetics of it.
Consultant Wong replied that there is limited control over the zoning of it.
Acting Community Development Director Ramirez stated that State Law is very specific when it comes to
Mobile Home Parks and it clearly states, the City has no say in regards to Mobile Home Parks at all (unless
the City has taken that jurisdiction from the State)
Chair Eng asked staff if a Mobile Home Park comes into the City, does the City have a say on how it is
designed or the impact of it.
Acting Community Development Director Ramirez replied unfortunately not. She also added that the City
cannot do inspections, code enforcement, or anything else related to Mobile Home Parks.
Chair Eng agrees that staff should follow up with legal counsel on this matter because she is concerned
with the impact of the neighborhood.
Acting Development Director Ramirez stated that is why the Mobile Home Parks in the City now are in the
condition that they are because the City cannot regulate them.
Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that the only thing to do in regards to aesthetics for Mobile Home Parks, is if a new
one is to come into the City, would be to put a block wall around them like other cities do.
Chair Eng asked staff if that can be stipulated.
Consultant Wong explained to the Planning Commission that Mobile Home Park may not be the correct
term to use. He stated in some cities for example, Glendora, mobile home units are not allowed but they
allow factory built housing, which are prefab stick like housing, in lieu of mobile home unit. He also stated
instead of calling it a Mobile Home Park but perhaps a site that permits factory built housing with the same
density.
Acting Community Development Director Ramirez stated that factory built housing do not look anything like
a mobile home. She stated that you cannot even tell they are factory built now -a -days.
Commissioner Hunter asked staff how many mobile home parks Rosemead has currently
Acting Community Development Director Ramirez replied she would have to be guessing but thinks there
are ten (10).
Commissioner Hunter commented that it sounds to her like a mobile home park is a permitted land use on
all land zones. She asked staff if they can be placed in a residential area.
Acting Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes that is correct. She stated that is why
Consultant Wong would like to consult with counsel to make sure we are interpreting the law correctly.
Commissioner Hunter asked staff what homeless shelters and transitional housing were.
Acting Community Development Director Ramirez replied that homeless shelters and transitional housing is
included in state law and permitted by right. She also stated the City needs to choose an area where they
can go within our community by right without the City putting any stipulations on them. She stated most
cities allocate an area like manufacturing or industrial and you only have to provide enough area to cover
the homeless in your community. She gave an example of how our City participated in a homeless count in
the year of 2010 and the final count for the City of Rosemead was twenty -six (26), so therefore the City
would only have to provide an area for twenty-six (26) homeless people.
Commissioner Hunter stated that it sounds like a commune can be started.
Acting Community Development Director Ramirez replied that is correct and that is why the City may want
to regulate where they can go. She continued to explain that the commission would want to choose an
areas that doesn't have an impact on our commercial properties or residential areas.
Chair Eng stated that staff has indicated that this will be revisited and moved this into an M -1 zone, and can
be discussed further at that point.
Acting Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes and suggested taking this out of the R -3
zone.
Commissioner Saccaro referred to the code and asked staff if condos will be included for land use.
City Planner Bermejo replied that for this chapter, although it is for a residential zone, condos will be a
separate chapter. She stated condos typically come with different regulations that are based by lot size
and different zones.
Chair Eng confirmed with staff if they are governed by subdivision laws and are considered Planned
Development.
Consultant Wong replied that is correct and condominiums require a subdivision map.
Vice -Chair Ruiz stated he has one request, on page 5, G -5 regarding Storage In Yards he asked staff if it is
possible to remove "any portion of the rear yard on the street side of a corner lot" because the way it reads
now he feels residents with corner lots are getting penalized by not getting to use a rear portion of their lot
especially if they are in a reverse lot status. He also stated if this is eliminated you are allowing the property
owner to use his property a little better.
Chair Eng asked staff if this is an existing code and should it be changed.
City Planner Bermejo replied this is an existing code and the idea behind this is if you are on a corner lot
and if you have storage anywhere in the side or rear, especially in the case of a reverse corner lot, there is
a possibility of creating an obstruction of view for the neighbor adjacent to you.
Chair Eng understands Vice -Chair Ruiz's view especially if you have a small lot.
Vice -Chair Ruiz stated there are quite a few reverse lots in the City. He stated in his neighborhood there is
a lot of them and they are being used properly. He stated that the language in the existing code penalizes
the property owner for having a corner lot, especially a reverse corner lot, and that is why he would like to
see that sentence removed.
City Planner Bermejo drew an example and explained what a reverse corner lot looks like to the Planning
Commission.
Vice -Chair Ruiz explained that there are a few major streets where traffic visibility may be difficult but for
some lots there is plenty of visibility. He also confirmed with staff if the four (4) ft. fencing requirement was
because of visibility and explained that on some lots you would not have a problem putting a six (6) ft.
fence. He also gave examples of a few locations where there would not be any obstructions.
Chair Eng asked staff if the existing code for side and rear fences are six (6) ft.
City Planner Bermejo replied on a reverse corner lot on the reverse section is four (4) ft. then can stagger
and can go up to six (6) ft.
Chair Eng asked staff if there will be any negative impact if the sentence is removed.
Consultant Wong replied that he would like the language to stay the same and historically it has been
working.
Chair Eng asked staff where the R -3 zones are located in the City.
City Planner Bermejo replied that there are not a lot of them and referred to the Zoning Map. She stated
there are a few located around the Edison Corporate offices with the majority on the south end of the City
and a few along Walnut Grove.
Chair Eng clarified that there are not a lot of R -3 zones and asked staff where the R -2 zones are located.
City Planner Bermejo referred to the Zoning Map and explained that R -2 is in the orange section area in the
Southwest corner of the City. She also added that the majority of the City is zoned as R -1.
Chair Eng asked staff what is the existing floor area ratio without the bonus program.
City Planner Bermejo replied it is thirty -five percent (35 %).
Chair Eng confirmed with staff that with the bonus it will be forty percent (40 %).
City Planner Bermejo replied that is correct.
Chair Eng asked staff then it is being proposed to be reduced from forty (40) to thirty-six point five (36.5)
City Planner Bermejo replied yes, that is what is being proposed to the Planning Commission tonight.
Chair Eng confirmed with staff that other cities had been surveyed in regards to the general FAR. She
asked staff if the lot sizes and configurations of the cities that had been surveyed are the same as
Rosemead.
City Planner Bermejo replied that the survey had been done and the City that most compares to the land
use pattern to Rosemead is Temple City. She stated the majority of our code resembles Temple City. She
also stated they have a floor ratio system that is thirty -five percent (35 %) if you are doing a two -story home
or a home that is over 18 feet and if it is a single story home they follow a lot coverage requirement.
Chair Eng asked staff if they knew how long Temple City has had that in effect.
City Planner Bermejo replied no but staff can look into it.
Chair Eng stated for the multi- housing in the R -3 zone it is being proposed that a Design Review will be
required and asked staff if it will be reviewed by the Planning Commission or by staff.
City Planner Bermejo replied that will be a discretionary approval made by the Planning Commission.
Chair Eng referred to Table 17.12.1 on page 2 and asked staff what a 'Telecommunication facility, not
including wireless telecommunication facilities" is.
City Planner Bermejo replied it would be something that would be required by a Public Utility
Commission that is not for private use like cell phones and are facilities that are exempt from the
telecommunication wireless use ordinance.
Chair Eng asked staff if there are facilities like this in the City of Rosemead currently.
City Planner Bermejo replied there are a few in the City right now. She stated she can check to see if there
is a definition in the definition sections.
Chair Eng stated maybe if it is more like a switchboard building.
City Planner Bermejo stated that it would be something that would require transmitting radio frequencies.
Consultant Wong added that it would be something that would require a dispatcher service.
7
City Planner Bermejo stated it would be a wireless facility not like the standard wireless telecommunication
facilities but something that would have antenna structure that would aide police, safety, a center that
would keep communication open.
Consultant Wong stated some cities use telecommunication towers due to weak area signals and police,
fire, and other public agencies can use it. He added they are referred to as repeaters.
Acting Community Development Director Ramirez stated the City does have a few of those because
she had applied for them for the Public Safety Department.
Chair Eng referred to page 4, item number two (2), of staff report and confirmed with staff that it will be
rephrased from manufactured housing to pre- fabricated homes.
City Planner Bermejo replied that is correct and explained why.
Consultant Wong explained to the Planning Commission you cannot control aesthetics if you have state
controlled guidelines.
Chair Eng asked staff if a pre- fabricated home were to come into the city the guidelines we have in place
cannot be enforced.
City Planner Bermejo replied we have enforced them and have approved a few of them in the Planning
Division. She stated we have had them follow the design guidelines.
Chair Eng asked staff if the language is new in regards to the maximum and minimum of floor area in
section B, item number 2, to the existing.
City Planner Bermejo replied yes, that is correct, and it is actually re- wording to what we have in today's
code.
Chair Eng asked staff, for lots that are not big enough to facilitate a detached garage and if they have an
attached garage would they have to take a square footage of the attached garage in addition.
City Planner Bermejo replied that is correct.
Chair Eng referred to page six 6), item I., and asked staff who is on the Design Review Committee and
asked if this is a staff committee.
City Planner Bermejo replied it is a staff committee that consists of the City Manager or the Assistant City
Manager, the Community Development Director, a member of Planning, City Engineer, and the Building
official. She also added that the applicant also attends the meeting.
Chair Eng referred to page seven (7), number six (6), and asked staff after having number one (1), under
item I, if it is really needed.
City Planner Bermejo replied item number one (1), under I, is a specific Development Review Committee
meeting. She explained if you are in a situation that has a lot that is currently developed as a single - family
home and you want to propose a brand new home on that lot the Design Review Committee will review
what will be going to occur on that existing single - family home and lot improvements. She stated item six
(6) gives the discretion of a second review and formal discussions with the applicant regarding
improvements.
Chair Eng asked staff if this means any or all additions will have to go through a Development Review
Committee meeting.
City Planner Bermejo replied the code is not intended to be set up in that way. She stated that if the
Planning Commission does not feel it is necessary it can be reconsidered, but staff recommends it.
Chair Eng stated that she would like to see processes streamlined as much as possible. She asked staff if
we have item number one (1) do we still need number six (6).
City Planner Bermejo replied that number six (6) will be the alternative and the intent is for the applicant to
be able to go to the Development Review Committee if the Planning Division feels the applicant's plans do
not meet the design criteria of the neighborhood.
Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that a few years ago on Temple City Boulevard there was a project that every home
in the neighborhood was a two -story, but one home was allowed to be a three -story home. He stated that if
this had been in place back then, it would have allowed for the City to have some control of the design.
Chair Eng stated that what is being proposed is that the site plan would be reviewed by the Development
Review Committee.
Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that this would give the City reinsurance that the project would be developed
properly.
City Planner Bermejo stated this is meant for a very sensitive design.
Chair Eng referred to Table 17.12.3, regarding the R -1 & R -2 Bonus Floor Area Design Incentives the
second item "A second story top plate that does not exceed twenty (20) feet in height ...," and asked staff if
that is from the ceiling from the first floor to the ceiling of the second floor.
City Planner Bermejo replied that the top plate is at the top of the roof eve.
Vice -Chair Ruiz explained that the top of the roof is at thirty -five (35) feet and cannot exceed the thirty-five
(35) feet from the bottom to the ridge.
City Planner Bermejo explained that the top plate is below the roof system and is not the highest point of
the home.
Vice -Chair Ruiz explained to the Planning Commission that the top plate is below the roof system
Chair Eng asked staff how high is the top plate placed.
City Planner Bermejo replied typically they are twenty (20) feet high and that is one more standard building
criterion that everyone accomplishes.
Chair Eng referred to page nine (9), in regards to landscaping and size /type of trees and asked staff if the
specifics are too defined or too restrictive for the R -3 zones.
City Planner Bermejo replied these are the current standards that we have in our code today and they are
proposed for revision. She recommends that the specimen sizes remain and explained why mature trees
be placed.
Chair Eng stated she would like the City to not be flexible and not to restrictive.
City Planner Bermejo suggested that it be based on lot size and suggested revising the number of trees.
She stated it can be reviewed as a landscape plan by the Planning Commission.
Vice -Chair Ruiz explained that a thirty inch box tree is very small and that tree can actually die if it is not
planted properly. He stated the more mature the tree, the better chances of it surviving.
Chair Eng confirmed with staff that the City just adopted forestry or tree program and she would like to
remind everyone we need to streamline the process. She would like staff to check to ensure there is not a
conflict with the forestry program and the code requirements. She also asked staff to check with the tree
ordinance to make sure there is not a conflict.
City Planner Bermejo replied staff will check the tree ordinance.
Chair Eng referred to page ten (10), number three (3), under Trash Collection Facilities, and asked staff to
clarify this requirement. She stated she is concerned that depending on the number of units there are they
may need more than one.
City Planner Bermejo replied that every time there is a multi - family development the plans are routed to
Consolidated Disposal for review to ensure there is enough trash capacity for the development.
Chair Eng stated she would prefer to see a central location where there are enough trash containers to
serve the units and not spaced out so that you affect open space.
City Planner Bermejo suggested that she is comfortable eliminating the one hundred fifty (150) ft.
requirement because Consolidated reviews the plans and will let the City know if there are adequate trash
containers.
Chair Eng stated she would like to see more room for open space for families.
Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that you do have to consider where you are going to locate the trash bins and this
is when the Design Review will review this concern. He also agrees that open space is needed but we do
need to make sure that the trash containers are located correctly.
i[I]
Chair Eng agreed that the requirement of one hundred fifty (150) ft. between dwellings be eliminated and
make sure to have enough trash collection facilities to provide for the units being developed.
City Planner Bermejo stated she is comfortable with that.
Chair Eng asked if there were anymore questions or comments.
None
Chair Eng opened the discussion for Chapter 17.100 Home Occupations.
City Planner Bermejo presented the staff report.
Chair Eng asked staff if this is a brand new ordinance that is being proposed.
City Planner Bermejo replied that is correct.
Brian Lewin, resident, stated that his concern is under Prohibited Uses and asked staff how the distinctions
would be made in regards to equipment or tools for home occupations and residential use and how it would
be enforced.
City Planner Bermejo replied that it would be obvious and she does not foresee a problem. She
stated Code Enforcement would probably be involved.
Acting Community Development Director Ramirez stated that if there is a recurrence going on then Code
Enforcement would be involved.
Brian Lewin, resident, stated that he is referring to the smaller potential and not just for the automotive,
which is higher impact potentially due to hazardous waste.
Consultant Wong explained that you can have equipment if it is not home occupational. However, when
you are applying for a home occupation and the equipment is for higher intensity of use, then this
equipment cannot be on the premise. He stated if you are doing this as a hobby, then staff is not
concerned with that. Staff is only concerned if it is used fora home occupation aspect and the use of the
equipment.
Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that he agrees with Mr. Wong and you will be able to tell who a hobbyist is. He
also used an example of how he has equipment in his garage due to his career and stated it will be easy to
determine whether it is a hobby or a home based business. He also stated Code Enforcement will be able
to tell and this code will help with the problem of having illegal businesses ran out of the home or garage.
Commissioner Hunter asked staff if home occupations are allowed will it be legal to have clients coming in
and out to take care of business in a residential area.
Acting Community Development Director Ramirez replied as long as it is permitted. She gave an
example of how other cities have home occupation such as a tax accounting business where clients come
in and out.
11
Commissioner Hunter asked if that is permitted.
Acting Community Development Director replied yes, if that City allows that use.
Consultant Wong explained to the Planning Commission that if that home occupation permit gets to be too
excessive and disrupts the neighborhood, this code will control it and Code Enforcement will step in. He
also stated this will give the City the ability to revoke the Home Occupation Business License if needed.
Chair Eng stated that the intent of this code will be to help control the foot traffic.
Commissioner Saccaro stated he is concerned with internet businesses and asked what happens if that
business has various things drop shipped rather than warehousing the property.
City Planner Bermejo replied that there is no significant storage that can be put onsite at all. She stated
they will have to find a warehouse and that there is no storage allowed at all in residential zones.
Consultant Wong stated that one major feature of this occupational ordinance is that you cannot convert
the required two car garage for warehousing, or convert the office for storage, or for storage of
automobiles.
Chair Eng referred to Page three (3), Item M, and read it out loud to the Audience. She stated that she felt
this item will be a little challenging due to some trades like Real Estate agents having information or their
signs on their vehicles. She then asked staff if those types of vehicles will be considered as commercial
vehicles.
Consultant Wong replied that with this statement it will probably be interpreted that way. He stated staff
suggests a tonnage limit be added and does not feel there should be any problem with Real Estate identity
on passenger cars. He stated the concern is for having heavy commercial vehicles being parked in a
residential neighborhood. He stated staff can talk to Public Safety and get some guidelines on how
to structure a commercial tonnage to be allowed in the neighborhood.
Chair Eng stated that would be helpful because on her street alone there are quite a few business vehicles
parked and her concern is how this language may impact them.
Consultant Wong stated that the purpose of the code is to control the impact of the neighborhood because
of home occupancy businesses and we do not want to see heavy ton vehicles parked in the neighborhood.
He stated staff will contact Public Safety and the DMV to get some guidelines and the correct tonnage
information.
Vice -Chair Ruiz stated that would fall under the commercial vehicle and most plumbing vans are one ton
vehicles. He also stated in his neighborhood there is a tow truck commercial vehicle that is parked and this
code may affect him parking his vehicle.
Commissioner Herrera asked would that resident be able to defend that he has been parking this tow truck
for ten years now, and would it be considered as grandfathered in. She asked what the city would do about
a situation like that.
12
Acting Community Development Director Ramirez replied he could defend himself but there is no
grandfathering in. She stated he will have to follow the ordinance just like right now he does not have to
have a business license but if he is operating out of his home, he will have to have one.
Commissioner Herrera asked staff if someone will knock on this person's door to let him know he is in
violation. She also asked if that will be the new procedure.
Acting Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, but it will probably begin with someone filing
a complaint to Code Enforcement first.
City Planner Bermejo stated another solution in regards to vehicle matter is that it could be revised to state
the vehicle could not be stored permanently on the property at any time and have a definition of what
permanently means. She stated currently in the R -1, R -2, and R -3 it is forty eight (48) hours.
Chair Eng recommended it should be seventy-two (72) hours. She stated just like the parking, you
can't park a vehicle without moving it for seventy -two (72) hours.
City Planner Bermejo stated another idea is that if you do allow the commercial vehicle and a home
occupation, then we should require another parking space in the garage.
Commissioner Herrera asked staff if these requirements will be enforced.
City Planner Bermejo replied right now most homes have a minimum of a double car garage. She stated if
a home occupation is permitted it may require more vehicles.
Commissioner Saccaro asked staff what would happen if someone worked for a pest control company for
example and he is permitted to take his vehicle home would this ordinance apply to that also. He stated
that this ordinance reads that if the commercial vehicle is in connection with the business.
City Planner Bermejo replied that Commissioner Saccaro is correct this ordinance would not regulate that.
She stated that Public Works would have jurisdiction over tonnage and staff can bring back some scenarios
for this subject.
Brian Lewin, resident, stated in regards to the vehicle issue, he believes that Public Safety is planning to
start a permitted commercial vehicle parking for residential areas and recommended that staff coordinate
with them to make sure regulations will match.
Chair Eng referred to page six (6), item C., and read it to the audience. She recommends that staff check
with legal council to make sure the language is clarified.
Consultant Wong replied that staff will follow up with the City Attorney.
Chair Eng asked if there were anymore comments or questions.
None Chair Eng thanked staff, especially City Planner Bermejo for all their hard work.
13
Consultant Wong stated the next section of discussing the Zoning Ordinance is attentively scheduled for
sometime in February 2012.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The next regular Planning Commission meetings that are scheduled for Monday, January 2 &
16, 2012, will be Cancelled due to City Hall being closed for the New Years Day Holiday and
the Martin Luther King Jr., Holiday.
The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be h Id on Tuesday, January 17, 2012, at
7:00 p.m.
A ST:
Rachel Lockwood
Commission Secretary
14