Loading...
CC - Minutes - 08-13-13 - JointMinutes 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 Armenta, Clark, and Ly PRESENT: Commission Chair Diana Herrera, Commission Vice -Chair Nancy Eng, Commissioner Tam Dinh, and Commissioner John Tang STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Allred, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager Hawkesworth, Director of Community Development Ramirez, Director of Parks and Recreation Montgomery-Scott, Director of Public Works Marcarello, and City Clerk Molleda 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 2. MATTERS FROM CITY MANAGER & STAFF A. Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Workshop Since October 2012, the Community Development Department has accelerated its efforts to complete the City's Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. The draft documents are nearly complete. This joint workshop will be conducted to review the proposed Zoning Code and Map changes with the City Council and Planning Commission to gain important feedback on key issues that are proposed in the project. Following the completion of this workshop, a public hearing process will be scheduled for upcoming regular meetings of the Planning Commission and City 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 of August 13, 2013 Page 1 of 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 these shelters are sometimes used by domestic violence victims as well. She explained that even though they might have a home, they have a reason to be temporarily outside of their own homes. Vice -Chair Nancy Eng— inquired if the City is proposing to place the emergency shelters in M1, and asked where these sections are located. City Planner Bermejo — stated that they are located on Garvey, east of Walnut Grove, and on the southside of Garvey. Vice -Chair Eng — inquired if the City is able to meet the requirement of locations needing to be a quarter of a mile from a transit area. City Planner Bermejo — stated that the housing element tells the City to implement the zoning code, and it said to put shelters in the M1 zone. Director of Community Development Ramirez — stated that it is approved by the State of California. Vice -Chair Eng — inquired if they have a provision in terms of accessibility to services. City Attorney Rachel Richman — stated that these shelters are able to provide those services at their actual locations. Vice -Chair Eng — stated that she wanted to be sure that these places were a quarter of a mile within public transit. City Attorney Richman — explained that this could be a bus stop; therefore, she was certain that they were. Vice -Chair Eng — inquired if 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 - ChairEng— 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 home occupation. Council Member Sandra Armenta — inquired about transitional housing, which many times are halfway homes. She stated that she was fearful about sex offenders moving in, and inquired how the City can keep residents safe. City Attorney Richman — stated that sex offenders are required to register when they move to new cities, and they cannot cohabitate. She then said that it is up to Code Enforcement to be aware of these instances and visit these places to make sure that illegal activities are not occurring. Council MemberArrnenta — inquired how the chain -link fences would be grandfathered in, and how it would apply to utility companies like Edison. City Planner Bermejo — stated that in certain circumstances, there are requirements for mechanical equipments or a company like Edison, where they are not allowed to put anything that can be combustible, and there is a provision in fencing that would allow for that to occur. Director of Community Development Ramirez — added that this applies to cell towers as well since they require chain -link fencing around them, therefore they would be allowed. Council Member Steven Ly— inquired about the restriction of automobile repair shops, and inquired if they would be prohibited based on their CUP. He then inquired if all automobile repair shops among commercial corridors would not be able to come in from right. City Planner Bermejo — explained that currently they are not allowed to come in by right. She further explained that if they want to come in after this code is adopted, they would need to look for a new business in the manufacturing zone, and not the commercial zone. Council Member Ly— inquired how an auto dealership with an auto repair component would be able to come in by right. 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 of August 13, 2013 Page 3 of 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. Council Member Clark— inquired if businesses who are in the City now would be able to improve their properties. City Planner Bermejo — stated that they added a standard in the legal non - conforming section which states that any use with the conditional use permit would not be considered non - conforming, and the business would have to come back to the planning commission for their review and public hearing. Director of Community Development Ramirez — stated these businesses can stay where they are and improve but would have to go to the planning commission first. Council Member Clark— inquired if any of these businesses had been notified of these proposed changes. City Planner Bermejo — stated the public hearing process has not begun yet, so the only notification has been through public meetings. Director of Community Development Ramirez — explained that businesses would not be individually notified because it does not affect them, since they can stay where they are and do improvements. She then explained that the only change would occur if they left the area, because then that use would not be able to come back. Council Member Clark— inquired if the several different uses in the CIMU zone would be grandfathered in. City Planner Bermejo — answered yes, they would be protected. Council Member Clark— inquired if the same provision about chain -link fences applied to security bars as well. City Planner Bermejo — answered 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, 2013 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, then: 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 handled 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 use permits can be appealed. City Planner Bermejo — answered they could. Council Member Clark — stated she attended the workshop held on July 11 th, and that there were residents who were against the City prohibiting flag lots. She explained the reason the City had them was because it had a lot of deep lots and wanted to encourage home ownership with three homes 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 suggested that code enforcement get involved with the current issues, such as driveways not being maintained because of three different owners not taking ownership of it. She suggested touring the properties that are not maintained to see what isn't working and see if there's a way to keep it as an option. Director of Community Development Ramirez — stated the people who spoke out for the flag lots were not Rosemead residents, but developers who want to make money. She stated that from a planning perspective, flag lots have a lot of issues since a lot are built over parcel lines. Council Member Clark— inquired if that was the fault of our City inspectors. Director of Community Development Ramirez — answered it was not since most were done before the City was incorporated. She then explained 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 are a 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 Attomey 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 Attomey Richman — answered that she didn't know if the City would be able to draft language to not allow variances in flag lots, and she would look into it. Council Member Clark— inquired what made Temple City so restrictive. City Planner Bermejo — stated they only do one flag lot and the unit has to be a single story. Chair Diana Herrera — inquired if easement properties fall under the same category as flag lots. City Planner Bermejo — answered yes, and stated that there's usually easement involved with flag lots because there's multiple users using the same access way. Chair Herrera — stated her understanding of easement property is that many people use the same driveway to get into a number of houses, and flag lots can have a corner entrance that is independent from the driveway. Director of Community Development Ramirez — stated it can be either way, and it would depend on how the flag lot is developed, which is an agreement they come to among themselves, not involving the City. Vice -Chair Eng — inquired about the driveway width for flag lots versus conventional lots. City Planner Bermejo — answered it was 12 feet for conventional and 15 feet for flag lots, and this number increases as the number of flag lots increase. Vice -Chair Eng — inquired what would happen to existing flag lots if the City were to prohibit them. City Planner Bermejo - answered 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 would 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 bylaw, 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 are not affordable housing as they go for market rates. She explained that a developer builds flag lots in order to make money, not to provide affordability. Council Member Armenta — stated she also attended the workshop, and she witnessed that the people complaining were indeed developers that do not live in the City. She explained they buy properties with deep lots and they do what they want in order to make their investment the most it can be. She agreed that this type of housing is not the most affordable and that the City is usually faced with cleaning up their indiscretions. Mayor Pro Tern William Alarcon — agreed with Council Member Armenta and stated that the City does not want to cut them out completely since you can still own two houses. Council Member Ly— thanked City Planner Bermejo and the entire Planning and Community Development Department for all their hard work. He stated he understood that subdivision was still allowed but prohibited in the form of a flag lot, and this would not eliminate the public's right to subdivide the lot. He explained he was concerned about flag lots, especially their issues with parking. He explained that overbuilding in suburban areas creates density, which in turn creates traffic jams and parking concerns. He then concluded by stating that home ownership rates are currently very high in Rosemead, per a Los Angeles County Economic Development study. Commissioner John Tang— inquired if existing flag lots would be able to do renovations as long as they meet the standards. City Planner Bermejo — responded that they would be able to. Commissioner Tang — stated he agreed with Council Members in regards to subdivisions. Council Member Clark— stated 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 7 of 9 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 be located in the R3 zone, and the update would allow single housing units in R3 zones as well. Vice -Chair Eng — inquired if they would become PUD housing at that point. City Planner Bermejo — stated the number of units allowed in a lot is regulated by density and how much land area you need per unit. She then explained that the density requirement in R3 zones is the lowest, and you can put the most housing in there when compared to other residential districts. Mayor Low— inquired if tutoring facilities with over five students can still apply for a CUP. City Planner Bermejo — answered that they could. Mayor Low— stated she agreed with Council Member Ly and Council Member Armenta in regards to flag lots based on their experiences walking the neighborhood during their respective campaigns. She stated that many were ill maintained and nobody was taking ownership of maintaining the driveway. She explained that this type of behavior actually hurts the City visually. She agreed that it would be a good idea not to allow them anymore, and allowing two houses with one owner would be beneficial because they would maintain it. She stated that the City should care more for the residents than it does developers. She then explained she is pro development but in the commercial order rather than residential, which should be less dense so that residents have their space. Council Member Clark— requested that staff look into how many deep lots the City has. Director of Community Development Ramirez — answered that this would take a lot of work since they would have to go through every permit. Mayor Low— inquired how this information would help. Council Member Clark — explained 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 existing auto business. Director of Community Development Ramirez — stated staff can look into it if Council would like them to. Mayor Low— stated it seemed like a business that sells cars should strictly stick to just that, and auctions are different. She then stated that she can not see how the City would benefit from this in any way. 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 with developers, 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 COUNSEL — Significant Exposure to Litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2); 1 potential case 4. ADJOURNMENT The City Council meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. The next regular City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on August 13, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber. ATTEST: - Gloria Molleda City Clerk C :1 Polly Lo , Ma cr Rosemead City Council and Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting Minutes of August 13, 2013 Page 9 of 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Gloria Molleda, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the minutes from August 16, 2013 of the City Council and Planning Commission joint meeting were duly and regularly approved and adopted by the Rosemead City Council on the le of September 2013, by the following vote to wit: Yes: Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly No: None Abstain: None Absent: Alarcon 1 is U AL Gloria Molleda City Clerk