CC - Item 3A - Minutes 8-13-13Minutes of the
City Council
and
Planning Commission
Joint Meeting
August 13, 2013
The joint meeting of the Rosemead City Council and the Planning Commission was called to order by
President/Mayor Low at 5:06 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley
Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
PRESENT: Mayor Low, Mayor Pro Tern Alarcon, Council Members
PRESENT: Commission Chair Diana Herrera, Commission
and Commissioner John Tang
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attomey Ri
Director of Community Development Ramirez, Director of
of Public Works Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda
1. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE
►IRS 7
and Ly
City Manager
Tam Dinh,
Director
2. MATTERS FROM CI: TY MANAGER& STAFF
A. Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Workshop
Since Octo er 2012, he Community Development Department has accelerated its efforts to
complete t e, �, i,ty Com . rehensive Zoning Code Update. The draft documents are nearly
complete. ThTts pint wodcshop will be conducted to review the proposed Zoning Code and
Map changes vn(h the City Council and Planning Commission to gain important feedback on
ke issues that a5proposed in the project. Following the completion of this workshop, a
public hearing process will be scheduled for upcoming regular meetings of the Planning
Commi sion anrCity Council in September and October.
Recommendation: That the City Council and the Planning Commission review and
comment on the proposed modifications to the Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Rosemead
Municipal Code).
City Planner Sheri Bermejo reviewed the Staff Report.
Council Member Margaret Clark— inquired about the seven beds listed on the slide in regards to group
homes. She explained that she thought group homes were to have a maximum of six beds.
Rosemead City Council and Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting ��
Minutes or August 13, 2013 a g. H SiM N®•
Page 1 or 9
City Planner Sheri Bermejo — stated that the slide is referring to emergency shelters, and the City does a
review looking at the need for the City. She then stated that cities with a higher homeless count have higher
bed counts at their shelters, and that our City has a maximum of seven.
Council Member Clark— inquired if shelters are defined as being for the homeless.
City Planner Bermejo — stated that emergency shelters are used to get the homeless immediately off the
streets on a temporary basis. She then explained that the maximum stay for anyone is six months within the
year.
Director of Community Development Michelle Ramirez — stated that
domestic violence victims as well. She explained that even though t
reason to be temporarily outside of their own homes.
Vice -Chair Nancy Eng — inquired if the City is proposing to
where these sections are located. A
City Planner Bermejo — stated that they are located on
Garvey.
Vice -Chair Eng — inquired if the City is able to;meet the requirement
mile from a transit area.
City Planner Bermejo — stated that the housing
said to put shelters in the M1 zoned
are sometimes used by
a home, they have a
M1. and asked
Grove, and onIthe southside of
needing to be a quarter of a
the zoning code, and it
Director of Community D elopment R mirez — stated that it is approved by the State of California.
Vice Chair Eng — inquired if the havea ptovision in terms of accessibility to services.
City Attomey4ac reI Ric i 8 —state that these shelters are able to provide those services at their actual
Vfce- ChaZrEng— stated that shNwanted.to be sure that these places were a quarter of a mile within public
transit.
City Attorney Richm n — explaine that this could be a bus stop; therefore, she was certain that they were.
Vice -Chair Eng — inquiredif the City was reducing the number of available parcels on the PO Zone from 12
acres to 2.
City Planner Bermejo — answered that the Professional Office Zone would be reduced, and would be 2 acres
and 5 parcels, located on Rosemead Boulevard, south of Valley Boulevard and north of Marshall.
Vice -Chair Eng— inquired if there would be no PO Zone on Garvey, in the southside of the City.
City Planner Bermejo — stated that there would not be.
Rosemead City Council and Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting
Minutes of August 13, 2013
Page 2 of 9
Vice -Chair Eng — inquired if the Edison and Panda Express headquarters were considered commercial.
City Planner Bermejo — answered that they were.
Vice -Chair Eng — inquired if a large family care facility could be available in the PO Zone as well, if people
working in the area wanted to have their daycare in their professional offices.
City Planner Bermejo — stated that this would be a separate use and would be classified as a commercial use
for a daycare. She then explained that the ones discussed were for a daycare that is within a home.
Director of Community Development Ramirez — explained that it is like a
Council Member Sandra Armenta — inquired about transitional
homes. She stated that she was fearful about sex offenders mov
residents safe. ,0
City Attorney Richman — stated that sex offenders are requ
they cannot cohabitate. She then said that it is up to Code I
visit these places to make sure that illegal activities are not
Council Member Armenta —inquired how
apply to utility companies like Edison.
City Planner Bermejo — stated that in certain circur
equipments or a company like Edison where they
and there is a provision in fencing thatwould allow
Director of Community D&61 pm F
require chain -link fencing around'them
Council Member Se Ly— inquire
be prohibited based on their CU
corridors would not be able to come in
City Planner Berihejo — expla
explained that if t , want to
in the manufacturing zone, ai
Council Member Ly —
come in.
occupation.
times are halfway
;w the City can keep
they move'O dew cities, and
ware of these #instances and
fences would grandfathered in, and how it would
to occur.
is for mechanical
that can be combustible,
— added thaghis applies to cell towers as well since they
ire thev would be allowed.
the restriction of automobile repair shops, and inquired if they
ien inquired if all automobile repair shops among commercial
currently they are not allowed to come in by right. She further
after this code is adopted, they would need to look for a new business
the commercial zone.
how an auto dealership with an auto repair component would be able to
City Planner Bermejo — explained that if it is auto repair, they would not be able to get a CUP. She further
explained that they can do a Lube and Tube facility, but the dealership can not have an accessory use.
Council Member Ly— inquired if the City would allow businesses with health and safety issues to fix that
issue.
Rosemead City Council and Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting
Minutes or August 13, 2013
Page 3 or 9
Director of Community Development Ramirez — answered yes, as long as there is a building code violation.
Council Member Clark— inquired if there were any auto repair shops in the commercial zone now and how
many.
City Planner Bermejo — answered that historically there have been a lot of these shops on Garvey, mainly
because of the auto auction. She stated that many of them left when it went away, and that the majority of
these businesses are in the manufacturing zone. She explained the idea of not allowing them in certain areas
is because the City wants to make sure that businesses in the regional commercial parcel can work off of
each other and make a commercial center. 1
Council Member Clark— inquired if businesses who are in the City now wo"Whe able to improve their
properties.
City Planner Bermejo — stated that they added a standard in the le�ga non- conformingasec on which states
that any use with the conditional use permit would not be corns dered non - conforming, and t he business
would have to come back to the planning commission for h' it,�review and public hearing.
Director of Community Development Ramirez — stated these business s can stay where they are and
improve but would have to go to the planning !emission first.
Council Member Clark— inquired if any of
City Planner Bermejo — stated the public hearing procr
through public meetings. I
Director of Community Development Ramirez — explai
because it does not affect t since they can stay w
explained that the only change would o ut if they left
come back.
Clark =
City
Council MembeFcC /ark—
well. NL
had been riotif,of these proposed changes.
so the only notification has been
businesses would not be individually notified
y are and do improvements. She then
, because then that use would not be able to
uses in the CIMU zone would be grandfathered in.
Id be protected.
the same provision about chain -link fences applied to security bars as
City Planner Bermejo — anTwered it did, and that staffs intent is not to prohibit any type of safety measure
that would protect a business. She explained that they do not want extra fixtures to be created on the exterior
of buildings. She then explained the proposed changes would eliminate the standard that prohibits security
guards on windows, but not doors. She stated it would be prohibited on windows if it is visible from the public
right of way, but only on the exterior. She explained that these businesses can still install safety measures
from within the building.
Council Member Clark— inquired if businesses that had them now would have to take them down.
Rosemead City Council and Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting
Minutes of August 13, 1013
Page 4 of 9
City Planner Bermejo — answered they would not have to take them down.
Council Member Clark— inquired if this applied to residential spaces as well.
City Planner Bermejo — replied it did.
Council Member Clark— inquired about tutoring businesses and if they would not need a CUP.
City Planner Bermejo — explained that over the last several years, there have been many small businesses
that have approached the City wanting to propose a tutoring facility. She then stated:the City has accepted
them because the current zoning code states that any school requires a CUP. She then explained that
proposing a small scale tutoring facility, with five or less students, can be hand(bd using the administrative
use process instead of a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission, and there would still be public
notice. ,>
Council Member Clark— inquired if those administrative
be
City Planner Bermejo — answered they could. IF
Council Member Clark— stated she attended the workshop held on CWhe 11th, and that there were residents
who were against the City prohibiting flag lots lie•explained the reCity had them was because it
had a lot of deep lots and wanted to encourage h` o ownership with three'home "s and three different
owners. She suggested the City look into Temple•City s requirements and see how they make it work since
she does not want to prevent home ownership. She'then sugg est�edthaG enforcement get involved with
the current issues, such as driveways not being maintained becauseipFthree different owners not taking
ownership of it. She suggesoT fo ring the properties At are not maintained to see what isn't working and
see if there's a way to keep as an option.
Director of community Development Ramffez — stated the "people who spoke out for the flag lots were not
Rosemead residents, but develo rs who want t ,aloe money. She stated that from a planning perspective,
flag lots have a ott 6f'rssu�es since a of are built over parcel lines.
Clark — ingw ed, if that was tfie fault of our City inspectors.
Director of Community Development Ramirez — answered it was not since most were done before the City
was incorporated he then expl n d that there are many residents who build first and then ask for an
inspection, which results in the City having to tell them to knock it down or move the property line. She also
explained that there area lot of complaints about the shared driveways because a lot of people get stuck
when a car is blocking it. She stated since this is a private property matter, the City cannot get involved in
order to make others move cars but residents think that code enforcement should get involved. She then
stated that there are also issues regarding maintenance of blocked walls, and since nobody takes any
responsibility it ends up being a safety hazard. She explained the City has looked into Temple City, and that
they're very restrictive but residents apply for variances in order to get what they want.
Council Member Clark— inquired if it would be up to the Planning Commission to allow or disallow the
variances.
Rosemead City Council and Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting
Minutes of August 13, 2013
Page 5 of 9
Director of Community Development Ramirez — stated if a variance is supported, the Planning Commission
has to come up with reasons why it shouldn't be.
City Attorney Richman — stated that as a general rule for variances, there has to be something unique about
the property, and flag lots have unique circumstances because they're not configured in the typical manner in
which a house is. She explained that there are strict requirements when variances have to be provided or not.
Council Member Clark— inquired if they can just be written into the code, so that flag lots would not be able
to have these variances.
City Attorney Richman — answered that she didn't know if the City would
allow variances in flag lots, and she would look into it. ,A
to draft language to not
Council Member Clark— inquired what made Temple City so
City Planner Bermejo — stated they only do one flag lot
Chair Diana Herrera — inquired if easement properties fall un
City Planner Bermejo — answered yes, and stated that there's
because there's multiple users using the sameaccess way.
unit has to be a single s *11s.
ff the sarn category as
suallyeasement involved with flag lots
Chair Herrera — stated her understanding of easftenl
to get into a number of houses, and flag lots can have
driveway.
Director of Community Development Ramirez — stated
flag lot is developed, hick IS an agree r�ient they come
Vice -Chair
that many people use the same driveway
Dan t hat is independent from the
be either way, and it would depend on how the
i6hg themselves, not involving the City.
lots versus conventional lots.
City Planner Bermejo — ans it was�l,for conventional and 15 feet for flag lots, and this number
increas'se N ' umber of fla lots increas
Vice -Chnquired what ould happen to existing flag lots if the City were to prohibit them.
City Planner Bermal answereci'that they would be legal non - conforming subdivisions but that there is
provisions in the code which protect lot configuration; therefore, these properties would still be able to
develop and their residents ould continue to use their homes.
City Manager Allred — stated they can still have two houses in a lot if it is the same owner.
Mayor Polly Low— explained there can still be multiple properties if they all had the same owner, and it
would become a flag lot only if the owners were different.
City Manager Allred — explained an owner can expand and have more than one housing unit on his own
property.
Rosemead City Council and Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting
Minutes of August 13, 2013
Page 6 of 9
City Attorney Richman - stated that by law, the City would have to permit a second unit ordinance.
Director of Community Development Ramirez- explained that if you live on a flag lot now, you can continue
residing there, remodeling, and expanding as long as it meets code. She then added that because a lot of
these flag lots take up most of their parcel, they cannot add on since they have no room.
Vice -Chair Eng - stated she shared Council Member Clark's concerns, and that she thinks the City does not
have enough affordable single family homes. She explained that she understood staffs concern about
maintenance but that the City should look into alternatives options.
Director of Community Development Ramirez - stressed that flag lots
for market rates. She explained that a developer builds flag lots in ord
affordability.
Council Member Armenta - stated she also attended the workstiop,
complaining were indeed developers that do not live in the C y. She
lots and they do what they want in order to make their ipvtment the
type of housing is not the most affordable and that the City is usually
indiscretions.
Mayor Pro Tem William Alarcon -agreed wiffi%�,otwo h uncil Member
want to cut them out completely since you can still own ous(
Council Member Ly -thanked City Planner Bermejo a
Department for all their hard work Me stated he undee
the form of a flag lot, and this ooeliminate the pi,
concerned about flag lotsespecially their issues with p
areas creates density,, wwhieh ih turn creates traffic jams
u
that home ownership rates are•c, enndy verghigh in Rc
iot affordable housing as they go
make money, not to provide
she witnessetlthatthe eo le
P P
ined they buy properties with deep
it can be. She agreed this
f with cleaning up jheir
stated that the City does not
ee nti�e�Pgl nifig and Community Development
that subdivision was still allowed but prohibited in
s right to subdivide the lot. He explained he was
g. He explained that overbuilding in suburban
parking concerns. He then concluded by stating
=ad, per a Los Angeles County Economic
John Tang mguired if e� xistin g.flag lots would be able to do renovations as long as they
City Planner Y4Rmqjo - responde - 84hat they would be able to.
Commissioner Tang fated b agreed with Council Members in regards to subdivisions.
Council Member Clark -- `fated the problem with subdivisions is that one needs to have a large frontage lot,
and cannot subdivide a deep lot. She stated there are probably developers taking advantage, but not all are.
She then explained that maybe the high ownership rate in the City is due to flag lots, and that Code
Enforcement could solve the problems being raised.
Vice -Chair Eng - inquired where these flag lots are located.
City Planner Bermejo - answered that they are scattered throughout the area, but there are a lot of them
along south Garvey.
Rosemead City Council and Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting
Minutes of August 13, 2013
Page 7of9
Vice -Chair Eng — stated she was happy to hear that the City is supporting subdivisions. She then inquired
where small units would be allowed.
City Planner Bermejo — replied that small units would be allowed in mixed use zones with a commercial
component but R3 zones would be the only other zone that would allow a residential unit.
Vice -Chair Eng — inquired if they would be in R3 zones right now.
City Planner Bermejo — answered at the moment, only multi- housing units can
the update would allow single housing units in R3 zones as well. -A
Vice -Chair Eng— inquired if they would become PUD housing at that
City Planner Bermejo — stated the number of units allowed in a
area you need per unit. She then explained that the density r
can put the most housing in there when compared to otherresi
Mayor Low— inquired if tutoring facilities with over five
R3
in the R3 zone, and
and how much land
e lowest, and you
for a CUP.
City Planner Bermejo — answered that they
Mayor Low— stated she agreed with Council Mi mbei
based on their experiences walking the neighbo&ood
many were ill maintained and nobody was taking ovmi
this type of behavior actually hurts the. City visually. SI
anymore, and allowing two houses with one owner we
stated that the City should care more for a residents
development but in the co mercial ord t rather than r
residents have their space.
A Council Member Aimenta in regards to flag lots
g their re spectiv� campaigns. She stated that
, Lei
Mali the driveway. She explained that
eed tha it would be a good idea not to allow them
beneficial because they would maintain it. She
it does developers. She then explained she is pro
ntial. which should be less dense so that
Council Mem'` Ciar�requestedat staff look into how many deep lots the City has.
answered that this would take a lot of work since they would
have to go't%ugh every
Mayor Low— inquir how this information would help.
Council Member Clarexined that she would like to see which ones are maintained and which ones
are not, since she does not�believe that all are not being maintained. She then stated that it should be easy to
see how many vacant deep lots there are by looking at overlays using GPS.
Council Member Ly — stated it would not be the best use of staff time.
Mayor Low— agreed with Council Member Ly.
Vice -Chair Eng — inquired if the planning department can make the process of outdoor sales simpler. She
then inquired if auto commercial businesses are prohibited from conducting auctions.
Rosemead City Council and Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting
Minutes of August 13, 2013
Page 8 of 9
Director of Community Development Ramirez — stated that their CUP would dictate what they could do, and
that there are no auto auctions right now.
Vice -Chair Eng — inquired if a car sales lot is prohibited from doing an auction.
City Planner Bermejo — stated they are now permitted, but the zoning code update is proposing to eliminate
auto auction type sites from being a use.
Vice -Chair Eng — inquired if it can be an accessory type business in an existingauto business.
Director of Community Development Ramirez — stated staff can look into it-rf Council would like them to.
Mayor Low— stated it seemed like a business that sells cars should rictly stick o just that, and auctions are
different. She then stated that she can't see how the City would benefit this in a' ay.
Council Member Ly— stated if auto auctions were allowed back in, the City would be repeating past
problems. He then stated that the City does not have any problems witNevelopers, especially if %they meet
code restrictions.
The City Council recessed into closed session�at 6:36 p.m.
3. CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL
to GovernmentiCode Section
case
re to Litigation pursuant
4. ADJOURNMENT
The City Council meeting
m e
ATT
gular City Council meeting is scheduled to take
Hall Council Chamber.
Polly Low, Mayor
Gloria Molleda
City Clerk
Rosemead City Council and Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting
Minutes of August 13, 2013
Page 9 of 9