Loading...
PC - Minutes - 09-16-13Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 16, 2013 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by Chair Herrera in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Lopez INVOCATION - Commissioner Tang ROLL CALL - Commissioners Dinh, Lopez, Tang, Vice -Chair Eng, and Chair Herrera ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT — City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, City Planner Bermejo, Associate Planner Trinh, Planning Technician Casillas, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MODIFICATION 12 -08, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12.11, AND PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY 13 -01 - Myung Chung has submitted a modification application (MOD 12 -08) requesting to expand the existing convenience store and construct a new storage building and a conditional use permit application (CUP 12.11) requesting approval for an off -sale beer and wine (Type 20) ABC license for Rosemead Oil Company dba Chevron, located at 3363 Del Mar Avenue, in the C -3 (Medium Commercial) zone. The applicant is also requesting that the City determine that the issuance of this off -sale beer and wine license will serve the Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN 13.01) as required by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage (ABC) when a project site is located within a census tract with undue concentration of alcohol licenses or located in a high crime reporting district with an undue concentration of crime. PC RESOLUTION 13 -15 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING MODIFICATION 12.08 FOR THE EXPANSION TO THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STORAGE BUILDING; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12.11 FOR AN OFF -SALE BEER AND WINE (TYPE 20) ABC LICENSE AND A PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY (PCN 13 -01) DETERMINATION. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3363 DEL MAR AVENUE IN THE C -3 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 13.15 and APPROVE Modification 12.08, Conditional Use Permit 12.11, and PCN 13.01 with findings subject to the thirty -three (33) conditions. Planning Technician Casillas presented the staff report. Chair Herrera asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for staff. Commissioner Lopez asked what type of crime has taken place on the Chevron premise. Planning Technician Casillas replied it was Credit Card fraud. Commissioner Lopez asked if a robbery or attempt of robbery had taken place at the Chevron. Planning Technician Casillas replied not for the past year. Vice -Chair Eng asked if an assault occurred at the subject property. Planning Technician Casillas replied no and explained it took place in the surrounding neighborhood. Vice -Chair Eng asked if the Chief of Police Conditions had been reviewed by the applicant. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng asked for clarification on names of the operator of the gas station and property owner. Planning Technician Casillas explained that Myung Chung is the architect and the proprietor is the same as the property owner, which is Rosemead Oil Company LP dba Chevron. Vice -Chair Eng asked how long this proprietor has been operating this service station. Planning Technician Casillas replied since 1997. Commissioner Tang referred to the staff report and stated that it mentioned a court ordered incident that happened in the past year. He asked if staff knew what that incident was. Planning Technician Casillas replied no and explained that all she is that it did not take place on the subject site. Commissioner Tang asked if the sale of individual cans and bottles of alcohol are prohibited 24 hours or during after - hours. Planning Technician Casillas replied they are prohibited entirely. Commissioner Tang asked if a Condition of Approval be added to review this site in a year Community Development Director Ramirez explained that typically the Planning Commission would not include that that type of condition. She referred the question to Greg Murphy, City Attorney. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, explained that those types of conditions are generally disfavored in conditional use permits because it tends to create unnecessary paperwork. He added a conditional use permit by the Municipal Code can be modified or revoked if circumstances warrant it and if the applicant is not complying with the Conditions of Approval. He explained to have an on -going review process is not favored for the smaller conditional use permits but for larger projects such as Wal -Mart you will see an annual report for about 2 -3 years to see how things are going. He added if the lack of compliance is an issue it will be brought to the attention of the Code Enforcement officers and staff and will not have to be brought back on a regular basis to the Planning Commission to review. Commissioner Tang explained that he requested an annual review because the Planning Commission has been asked to look into this due to this being in a high crime area and unique situation. He asked staff if there is any other census tract in the city that is in a high crime area where a PCN has been approved in the past. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes, and mentioned Walgreens and Fresh & Easy as examples. Chair Herrera opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Myung Chung stated he is the architect for this project. He thanked Planning Technician Casillas for her time and help. He stated he has read the conditions of approval and can comply with all of them. He added the owner is not present but he also accepts all the conditions of approval. He stated if there are any questions he is available to answer them. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the identity theft incidents and asked what measures has the owner taken to address identity theft concerns at this site. Myung Chung replied he is not the owner and is not aware of these incidents. He added the owner is out of town and cannot answer this question, but he is sure the owner has looked into preventative measures. Vice -Chair Eng expressed concern due to the site expanding sales activity and would like to have this concern addressed. She added that there are schools nearby and there will also be a lot of foot traffic nearby. She asked why is the sale of beer and wine at this convenience store is necessary because the staff report indicates that it will only be five (5 %) percent of the gross sales. Myung Chung replied the store is not very big and there is other merchandise such as oil, snacks, and beverages that are available. He added that the area for the sale of beer & wine is a small section of the store and the main source of sales is the gas, so this is provided as a convenience for the neighborhood. Commissioner Lopez asked what time will beer & wine stop being sold. Myung Chung replied beer and wine will stop being sold at 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Dinh referred to the plans and asked if the storage addition is located under the canopy. Myung Chung replied yes. Commissioner Dinh asked if it is being extended in the north /south direction. Myung Chung clarified that it will be extended in the east/west direction. Commissioner Dinh referred to the gas station pump request for 24 hours and asked if four (4) on the east side would be a sufficient amount after 11:00 p.m. instead of extending the hours on the two (2) gas station pumps on the western side. She explained that if the two (2) gas station pumps on the western side (adjacent to single family residential homes) are not necessary, then it would help in regards to traffic, noise, and emissions. Myung Chung replied that after 11:00 p.m. not very many people would use the gas station. He explained that after 11:00 p.m., there should not be too much noise for the neighbors. He added the owner requested all the gas station pumps as a convenience for the neighborhood. Commissioner Dinh commented that she understands, but she is concerned with the resident's welfare and that four (4) gas station pumps are sufficient. Commissioner Tang asked for clarification if beer and wine will be sold after 11:00 p.m. Myung Chung replied that there will not be any beer and wine sold after 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Tang asked if there will be an employee operating the convenience store until 2:00 a.m. or will they be there 24 hours. Myung Chung replied someone will be there 24 hours. Commissioner Tang asked if the employees have been trained with reporting problems such as on -site consumption of alcohol or loitering. Myung Chung replied yes. Juan Nunez, resident, expressed concern with beer and wine being sold in this area. He added that there is currently enough establishments selling beer and wine in this area and stated he is not in favor of this project getting approved. Brian Lewin, resident, commented that he was unable to seek information on the website because the website was not working and asked if the applicant will be updating the trash enclosure to current standards. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes. Commissioner Lopez asked how many ABC licenses are within a two block radius from this site. Planning Technician Casillas replied there is a one liquor store across the street located on Del Mar Avenue. Commissioner Lopez asked what the operating hours of the liquor store are and when alcohol is allowed to be sold. Planning Technician Casillas replied the liquor store is permitted to sell alcohol until 9:00 p.m. on Saturday's and until to 8:00 p.m., the rest of the week. She added the store closes at 8:00 p.m. every day. Commissioner Lopez clarified that there is not much alcohol sold after 8:00 p.m. in that area. Planning Technician Casillas explained there are only two locations that sell alcohol after 11:00 p.m. (7- Eleven and Circle K, which operate 24 hours). Commissioner Dinh asked if the Planning Commission can make an amendment to all the fuel pumps being open 24 hours. Community Development Director Ramirez explained if the Planning Commission would like to add an additional condition to the Conditional Use Permit, then they can make that request but the applicant would have to accept the condition. 0 Vice -Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number twenty -six (26) and asked if ABC requires that I.D. is requested when purchasing alcohol. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, replied that checking I.D.'s is part of ABC licensing procedures and the conditions that are put within the ABC license regulatory power. He explained that ABC leaves it to the single agencies to regulate the sales of alcohol so the Planning Commission does have some authority over this concern. Vice -Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number twenty -nine (29) and stated it is not clear that alcohol is prohibited from being sold after 11:00 p.m. and recommended that it be clearly written. Planning Technician Casillas explained that the pass through drawers is not large enough to fit a six -pack of beer, which is something someone would purchase because they cannot buy a single can. She added if the Planning Commission would like to request the condition of approval to specify that alcohol sales cease at 11:00 p.m., it can be added. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated Condition of Approval number twenty -nine (29) be amended to state, "The convenience store doors shall remain open (unlocked) between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., daily. The convenience store doors shall remain locked between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily. Alcohol sales shall only be permitted during those hours when the convenience store doors are open and unlocked. The hours of operation shall be posted in the front window or door." Community Development Director Ramirez asked the applicant if he understands and is agreeable to the change regarding this condition of approval. Myung Chung replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the solid roof cover for the trash enclosure and pointed out that it is indicated on the site plan but it is not included in the conditions of approval. She stated she is fine with that but wanted to bring it to the Planning Commission's attention in case they would like to add it to the Condition of Approval number twenty (20). Commissioner Tang referred to the floor plan expansion of the convenience store to the east and west and asked if the Municipal Code has minimal requirements in regards to the width of space between the pumps and convenience store. Planning Technician Casillas replied that question can be referred to the applicant and added that the Zoning Code does not call that out. She added typically that would refer to having access for vehicles to get in and out and stated that would have to be at least nine (9) feet wide. Commissioner Tang asked staff if it has been checked that there is enough room. Planning Technician Casillas replied yes. Chair Herrera asked the Planning Commission if there were any other questions /comments, and referred to the changes in Condition of Approval number twenty -nine (29). She asked for a motion. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tang, to APPROVE Modification 12.08, Conditional Use Permit 12.11, and PCN 13.01 with findings subject to the thirty -three (33) conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez explained the ten (10) appeal process. B. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE UPDATE (MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 10.07, ZONE CHANGE 13- 01, AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES) - Municipal Code Amendment 10.07 and Zone Change 13.01 consist of City of Rosemead initiated amendments to the City's Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code) that are pursued to implement General Plan policy and to add provisions mandated by State and Federal law. Revisions to the City's existing Zoning Map and Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines are proposed to ensure that these documents are internally consistent with the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update project. Amendments to the City's existing Home Occupation business license regulations (Title 5 of the Municipal Code, Chapter 5.41- Home Occupations) are included in the project for the purpose of allowing Cottage Food Operations (CFOs) as home occupations in residential zoning districts in accordance with State law. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 13 -10, a resolution recommending that the City Council make findings of adequacy with the environmental assessment and adopt the Negative Declaration that was prepared for the project; and 2. ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 13.11, a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Municipal Code Amendment 10.07 amending the City's Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code) and Chapter 5.41 - Home Occupations (Title 5 of the Municipal Code) to implement General Plan policy and to add provisions mandated by State and Federal law as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update; and 3. ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 13.12, a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Zone Change 13 -01 amending the City's Zoning Map to implement General Plan policy as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update; and 4. ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 13.13, a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an amendment to the Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. Sheri Bermejo, City Planner, presented the staff report and slide presentation. Chair Herrera asked the Planning Commission if there are any questions or comments. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the Single Family Residential Design Guidelines, page eleven (11), Standards & Incentives, and asked staff to clarify the meaning of "largest adjoining home" or is there some distance. City Planner Bermejo replied adjoining is immediately touching the home /property. Vice -Chair Eng asked so that means to the left or right. City Planner Bermejo replied yes. 0 Vice -Chair Eng referred to the Staff Report, on page four (4), under Motel Development and asked if motels are going to be required to have fifty (50) rooms like a hotel. City Planner Bermejo replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng asked if they have the same or similar lot size requirements as well. City Planner Bermejo replied the lot requirements are the same, but their definitions are a little different. She explained, as for an example, a hotel has to have enclosed corridors, but a motel can have the corridors open. Vice -Chair Eng asked if someone wanted to develop a motel and it had less than fifty (50) rooms they would not be able to do it. City Planner Bermejo replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng asked staff to explain how it was determined to make the minimum of fifty (50) rooms and asked if there was an economical or fiscal reason for this. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that is one reason and the other is that the City would like to make sure they are getting good quality developments. Vice -Chair Eng asked for clarification on what is being considered as good development. Community Development Director Ramirez gave an example of a franchised motel. Vice -Chair Eng confirmed that this is geared more to bring in franchise motel developments. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it does not necessarily mean franchise motels type but the City is looking for better development of motels. Vice -Chair Eng asked so if someone wanted to build a motel with twenty -five (25) rooms, then they would not be able to in this city. Community Development Director Ramirez replied correct. Vice -Chair Eng referred to Staff Report, page five (5) regarding the elimination of Condominium square footage development standard and asked what the minimum standard that the Uniform Building Code requires. City Planner Bermejo replied it is one hundred sixty (160) square feet and there is also a distance requirement of twelve (12) feet in any direction. Vice -Chair Eng referred to Title 17, Appendix A, on page three (3), table 1 -1, Nonresidential General Plan Land Use Categories and Maximum Floor Area Ratios (FAR) and asked if there are any proposed changes to the FAR and if this is the same FAR that is in the existing General Plan. City Planner Bermejo replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng referred to Table 17.30.110.2, Hotel Amenity Standards, Article three (3) on page nineteen (19) and asked if the amenities are the same for motels as they are for hotels. City Planner Bermejo explained that when this was adopted back in 2010, this was an existing table in the zoning code but it was listed as hotel and motel amenity standards. However, only hotel developments can benefit from the extra FAR. She explained when you look at this table a motel can provide these amenities but are not able to gain that FAR, and that is in accordance with the General Plan. Vice -Chair Eng clarified that these hotel amenities are for additional hotel FAR purposes only and recommended it needs to be clearer. Vice -Chair Eng referred to going forward with prohibiting flag lots and asked if staff knew how many properties this would impact. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no. Vice -Chair Eng asked staff if there is a way to get that information. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it is a difficult process. She explained staff has taken it upon themselves to try to do a survey, which is a very laborious and intense survey. She added staff has not been able to complete it due to other projects that are a priority. Vice -Chair Eng referred to Commercial Land -Use Changes and asked for clarification on why a recurring basis Open Air Market would require a Conditional Use Permit and asked if an AUP would be more efficient. City Planner Bermejo explained that a Farmers Market occurring on private property on a recurring basis would require standards for the operation and you would want it to be a conditional use permit process. She added most cities have that type of land use as a commercial use permit process. She stated if it is a 3 -day event, then it would go through the Special Events Permit process. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the outdoor dining (up to 800 square feet) exempt parking requirement and stated that some of the comparisons to other cities do provide public parking facilities. She explained that Rosemead has parking challenges and stated 800 square feet is too generous of a numberfor the City of Rosemead and recommends that it be discussed. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, explained to the Planning Commission that questions be kept on clarifications only and not on the wisdom of policy considerations until after the public has the opportunity to speak. Vice -Chair Eng asked if the parking standards under this Zoning Code Update are more restrictive, comparable, or generous compared to the other cities for outdoor dining. City Planner Bermejo replied they are as flexible and explained how staff researched other city standards and reasoning's for parking. Vice -Chair Eng confirmed that these parking standards under this Zoning Code Update are comparable and similar to other cities for different type of uses. City Planner Bermejo replied yes and explained staff surveyed surrounding cities. Vice -Chair Eng referred to Chapter 17.16, Commercial- Development Standards, division of leasable spaces with a minimum of 800 square feet, and asked how it will be enforced. City Planner Bermejo replied that during the business license process an address is obtained. She explained the Planning Division will research the address /unit to determine if more than one business is applying for a business license. She explained how subdivisions, if needed, are processed. Vice -Chair Eng asked in order for someone to divide the leasable space the gross area has to be a minimum of 800 square feet and anything less than that cannot be divided. City Planner Bermejo replied yes. Commissioner Tang referred to the slide presentation in regards to the increase from 50 feet to 75 feet in height and asked if this is consistent with the general city's development and General Plan already. City Planner Bermejo replied yes. Commissioner Tang referred to the Residential Condominium FAR minimum requirements and asked if there have been any changes to the Single Family FAR. City Planner Bermejo replied no. Commissioner Tang asked in terms of the condominium how are they being treated. City Planner Bermejo explained there are no bedroom size limitations or standards in the residential zones, except for condominiums. She explained staff is recommending eliminating that standard because it is very restrictive for development projects and it relieves the standards in the building code. Chair Herrera opened the Public Hearing. Brian Lewin, resident, thanked staff, especially City Planner Bermejo, for doing a great job. He expressed concern in regards to a few items in the Zoning Code Update and made recommendations and or comments on the following: (1) Outdoor dining parking exemption (recommended this be eliminated or revised to require a "Dedicated Municipal Parking Facility") and explained other Cities provide Public Parking Facilities, (2) Lack of parking (as new projects come lack of parking availability is spilling into residential areas and needs to be addressed), (3) Keep Outdoor Dining as a CUP instead of AUP (due to aesthetic impacts around the area), (4) Automotive Repair Facilities (recommended that strict Design Elements be put into place to address storm water and aesthetic concerns), (5) He stated he opposes the Termination of Flag Lots (Recommends Design Requirements to address this concern), and (6) Chain Link Fences /Rod Iron Fences (He expressed concern in regards to affordability and safety). Juan Nunez, resident, asked if an inspector was going to be hired for Cottage Food Operations or will it coordinate with the county. City Planner Bermejo replied the County of Los Angeles does require that any type of Cottage Food Operation obtain a permit from them. She added they will be reviewed and approved by the Public Health Environment Division. Chair Herrera asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak or comment on this item. None Chair Herrera closed the Public Hearing. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented an overview of what will be done. He stated to the extent there is a Planning Commission consensus to recommend something that is other than what is in the draft that is before you today. Staff will be collecting that consensus and forwarding along with the draft, a list of commission recommended changes or W modifications. He explained staff will do this in one or two ways: if one can be seen as a consensus, then one will write that down; if it appears it is a bit more contentious among the five Planning Commissioners, then staff may ask for a vote to make sure there is at least three members that would like to recommend a change to the draft that has been prepared. He explained that once they get to the point of the Resolutions there will have to be four (4) votes, one on each of the four (4) Resolutions'. Chair Herrera asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments. Vice -Chair Eng requested clarification from staff in regards to the Outdoor Dining that is being proposed. She asked if existing businesses that currently are not allowed outdoor dining will be able to apply for it. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it is possible but they would have to meet all the other conditions that go along with whatever their business entails. She explained if the business was already built to their maximum FAR they would not be able to add an additional 800 feet for outdoor dining. Vice -Chair Eng stated the applicant may come in and asked that through the Administrative Review process, staff look to see if the existing use can accommodate outdoor dining if they desire to do it. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng gave an example of the restaurant in town that may have areas that may accommodate outdoor dining and asked staff what would be the required criteria to evaluate that. Community Development Director Ramirez explained the overall site itself still would have to meet all the other zoning code requirements. Vice -Chair Eng asked so there are still buffers in place. City Planner Bermejo explained that just like Community Development Director Ramirez stated, there is a lot of different criteria that is built into these already established shopping centers that would not make every restaurant able to put in outdoor dining. She added most of that is due to the location of the parking lot and ADA that they would have to meet. She explained if there is a legal non - conformity that has to be dealt with, then they would not have automatic right to put that there. Vice -Chair Eng stated right now the way she reads the Zoning Code is that she can have up to 800 square feet of outdoor dining and be exempt from parking requirements. She asked staff to explain. City Planner Bermejo explained that in most cases when people come in for applications for outdoor dining it's very difficult for existing businesses to actually put out 800 square feet if they can actually fit it. She added much of the remaining portions of the site are parking lot and walkways. She explained that all applications have to pass through the Building Department and a lot of them never make it through the approval process because there is not enough room for the ADA access around them. She explained the types of businesses that would be able to take advantage of this perk would be new developments with nothing planned around them. Vice -Chair Eng asked what can be done to help the existing businesses that want to acquire outdoor dining benefit. City Planner Bermejo replied they have to meet ADA requirements. She stated if the storefront on Valley faces the street then the applicant would go through the City Engineer to get access to the public right -a -way and not Planning. She explained staff would look through every application that is submitted to help them to make sure they would meet the safety concerns. 10 Vice -Chair Eng confirmed that there will be buffers in place to evaluate and if they submit for outdoor dining there will be some give and take for the interior. City Planner Bermejo and Community Development Director replied yes, and then it would be up to the applicant on how they would like to proceed. Commissioner Tang responded to resident Brian Lewin's issue in regards to chain link fences and stated he respects the fact that communities that can't afford it or can afford it; they should have the opportunity to. He added it is also the Planning Commission's responsibility and intent to help beautify this community as well. He stated in his justification for supporting staffs recommendation for the banning of chain link fencing the Planning Commission has the responsibility and the intent for the policy to help beautify this city. Commissioner Lopez asked if existing chain link fencing is being required to be eliminated. City Planner Bermejo replied only chain link fencing that is visible from the public right -a -way and explained you can still install it where it is not visible. Commissioner Tang stated for clarification for example if that chain link fence is damaged it can, be replaced up to fifty percent (50 %). City Planner Bermejo replied if it is damaged by a catastrophic event, they can replace the entirety of it, one - hundred percent (100 %). She explained if it is losing its vitality and it becomes of disrepair, then they can do up to fifty percent (50 %) of any side. Commissioner Tang stated that homeowners that make the investment to beautify their community helps fight and decrease crime in their community as well. Commissioner Lopez asked if the allowance of fifty percent (50 %) is a one -time only or can they come back in a year and do the other fifty percent (50 %). City Planner Bermejo replied records are kept for fence permits so it is a one -time replacement. Chair Herrera asked if there are any other questions or clarifications and asked if there was a motion. Vice -Chair Eng addressed the Chair and stated before a motion is taken she would like to comment on Flag Lots. She thanked City Planner Bermejo and Community Development Director Ramirez and staff for all of their hard work on an incredible project and she is supportive of most of the changes and updates. She expressed concern with the Flag Lot prohibition and stated as a Real Estate Agent her goal is to help people become homeowners and advocate homeownership especially for families to own true single family homes. She expressed that if flag lots are prohibited without knowing how many potential lots or how many homes this will impact it will reduce this opportunity. She added property ownership is an important investment tool and for many property owners that currently have small lots that can benefit from a flag lot subdivision this will devalue their properties. She addressed the comment that stated flag lots only benefit developers and she expressed without developers there would be no development in our cities. She expressed this city needs small and big developers and this change reduces the opportunity for families to own two single family homes it unfairly penalizes small developers and property owners. She stated she appreciates staffs concern flag lot maintenance and recommended that some of those concerns can be addressed by better design standards as well as tougher Code Enforcement. She expressed that to prohibit flag lots is too extreme and recommends that there is some sort of middle ground on this issue. Commissioner Tang stated he understands where Vice -Chair Eng is coming from and the very fabric of this community is that we do want to promote single - family housing and affordable housing. He expressed that flag lots 11 are not the answer to that concern and recommends that there be other options to promote affordable housing. He stated flag lots do not adhere or conform to the fabric, culture, or essence of this city. He added that the outright ban of flag lots is ok and expressed if they are allowed there will be a huge increase in density and used a street in Rosemead for an example. He expressed he is in support of staffs recommendation of banning flag lots. Commissioner Dinh asked for a clarification on what city staffs recommendation would be if someone is proposing to purchase a lot on a narrow and steep street and asked what would be the proposal to a developer instead of a flag lot. City Planner Bermejo explained that right now in the City Municipal Code if a lot meets the lot area to accommodate two dwelling units they could still build two units on their lot, as long as they have a lot that is 12,000 square feet. She added they would not be able to subdivide the lot if they do not have the minimum lot width to accommodate two lots of 100 feet, but they still would have the benefit of building two units on the lot. Commissioner Dinh asked if those two units can ever be sold separately. City Planner Bermejo replied no, because if they don't meet the subdivision standards to split them then they would be sold together on one piece of property. Commissioner Tang asked if they were to build two housing units on the same lot can the family using the front home use the back home as a rental unit. City Planner Bermejo replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng commented that one of the nice things that flag lots provide is undivided ownership of that property on that lot for family members. Commissioner Dinh asked if the City of El Monte allows flag lots. City Planner Bermejo replied that the City of El Monte was part of the survey and they do not allow flag lots. Commissioner Lopez commented you have to understand our City and we do have big lots. He added the problem with that is for some reason no one parks on their property, they park in the streets instead. He expressed that is a problem that there is not enough parking, you cannot find parking, and he is in favor of banning flag lots. Vice -Chair Eng addressed the Chair and asked Greg Murphy, City Attorney, if a vote can be taken separately on the flag lot. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, explained that if any member of the Planning Commission would like to vote on a recommendation to go forward to the City Council such as the keeping of the flag lots, there would need to be a consensus of three. He stated if you would like to make that motion, then certainly you can say I move as a commission adopt the policy that we will not recommend the removal of flag lots from the code and then when it gets to Resolution 13 -11 he can help with the crafting of how that Resolution would go. Vice -Chair Eng confirmed that what Greg Murphy, the City Attorney, would need is a motion from her to make a recommendation that the Planning Commission does not prohibit flag lots from the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated Vice -Chair Eng has just made a motion if she would like to go forward with it. 12 Vice -Chair Eng made a motion to recommend that the Planning Commission not prohibit flag lots from the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. Greg Murphy explained to the Planning Commission that there is a motion pending and that it would be your recommendation to not remove or prohibit flag lots as proposed. He explained if there is a second then the Secretary can hold a vote. Commissioner Tang asked for clarification if this is in regards to Resolution 13 -11. Greg Murphy, City Attorney replied no that is not a Resolution at all, it is that the Planning Commission is going to take a position on rather you want flag lots at all. He explained if Commissioner Eng's motion is seconded and approved by the Planning Commission then he will help with crafting the motion on Resolution 13 -11 so that you will include your second recommendation with that. Community Development Director Ramirez explained if there is not a second or if there is a second but there is not a vote by three of the Planning Commission, then the motion dies. Chair Herrera asked if there is a second for Commissioner Eng's motion regarding flag lots. None Chair Herrera stated the motion dies on the floor and we will move forward. Commissioner Tang asked the Greg Murphy, City Attorney if they make motions on each Resolution items Greg Murphy, City Attorney, replied yes, and referred to page two (2) of Staff Report and requested the Planning Commission go in that order. Chair Herrera asked for a motion for Resolution 13 -10. Motion was made by Commissioner Tang and seconded by Commissioner Lopez to ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 13 -10, a resolution recommending that the City Council make findings of adequacy with the environmental assessment and adopt the Negative Declaration that was prepared for the project. Vote Results: YES: DINH, ENG, HERRERA, LOPEZ, TANG NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Chair Herrera asked for a motion for Resolution 13 -11. Motion was made by Commissioner Dinh and seconded by Vice -Chair Eng to ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 13 -11, a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Municipal Code Amendment 10 -07 amending the City's Zoning Code (Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code) and Chapter 5.41— Home Occupations (Title 5 of the Municipal Code) to implement General Plan policy and to add provisions mandated by State and Federal law as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. Vote Results: 13 YES: DINH, ENG, HERRERA, LOPEZ, TANG NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Chair Herrera asked for a motion for Resolution 13 -12. Motion was made by Commissioner Lopez and seconded by Vice -Chair Eng to ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 13 -12, a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Zone Change 13 -01 amending the City's Zoning Map to implement General Plan policy as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. Vote Results: YES: DINH, ENG, HERRERA, LOPEZ, TANG NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE Chair Herrera asked for a motion for Resolution 13 -13. Motion was made by Commissioner Lopez and seconded by Commissioner Dinh to ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 13 -13, a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an amendment to the Single - Family Residential Design Guidelines as part of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. Vote Results: YES: DINH, ENG, HERRERA, LOPEZ, TANG NO: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes - August 5, 2013 Vice -Chair Eng addressed the Chair and requested that Item B be pulled to discuss separately. Chair Herrera stated Item B. will be discussed separately and asked for a motion for Minutes of August 5, 2013. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to approve A. Minutes - August 5, 2013 as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 14 B. Procedures for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Local CEQA Guidelines) And Proposed Planning Fees for the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update Vice -Chair Eng expressed concern with proposed Planning Fees for the Comprehensive Zoning Code and stated she would like to ask staff a few questions and presented comments /recommendations. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that these fees are based on a survey and the fees will go to the City Council for approval. She stated the Planning Commission does not have any authority to approve or recommend these fees to the City Council. She added if anyone from the public or Planning Commission would like to request a different fee, then it would be recommended that they attend the Public Hearing at the City Council meeting to recommend those changes directly to the City Council. She explained staff is very comfortable with the proposed fees. She asked Greg Murphy, City Attorney, if that is the correct recommendation or if there is another option. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, explained that the fees themselves are not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission can discuss what they think of them individually. He added that there will not be a Planning Commission recommendation regarding the proposed fees to the City Council because the Planning Commission is only empowered to act on items within its jurisdiction. Chair Herrera asked for a motion for Consent Calendar - Item B. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dinh, to approve B. Procedures for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Local CEQA Guidelines) And Proposed Planning Fees for the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced the date, time, and location of the Fall Fiesta. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & Vice -Chair Eng stated she would like to thank staff for all their hard work on the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. She also announced that on Saturday, October 5, 2013, she will be leading a walk team for NAM[ WALKS, which stands for National Alliance for Mental Illness. She briefly explained what this this organization supports and invited anyone wishing to walk or support this organization is welcome to do so. Commissioner Tang thanked staff for their awesome work on the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update also. Commissioner Dinh addressed the audience and explained as representatives of the city and residents, the goal of the Planning Commission is to listen to comments /concerns from the residents. She added that commentsfissues are taken into consideration and the Planning Commission does try to make the decision for what is best for the majority of the city. 15 Chair Herrera referred to Delta Avenue and Valley Boulevard by the bus station. She reported there is trash everywhere and it is not the business. She added they are working on the street but there is trash everywhere. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, October 7, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. Diana Herrera Chair AT T: nn Q Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 16