Loading...
PC - Item 4A - Minutes of May 05, 2014Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 5, 2014 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 - Chair Herrera INVOCATION - Commissioner Lopez ROLL CALL - Commissioners Dinh, Lopez, Tang, Vice -Chair Eng, and Chair Herrera ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, 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 14 -01 AND ZONE VARIANCE 14-01 - Zosimo and Neila Pascasia submitted a Modification application requesting to expand their existing adult care facility and a Zone Variance application requesting to deviate from the required number of parking stalls. The subject property is located at 9025 Guess Street, in the R-1 (Single Family Residence) zone. PC RESOLUTION 14 -07 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING MODIFICATION 14.01 FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY AND ZONE VARIANCE 14 -01 REQUESTING TO DEVIATE FROM THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS LOCATED AT 9025 GUESS STREET, IN THE R -1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 14 -07 with findings and APPROVE Modification 14-01 and Zone Variance 14 -01, subject to twenty -two (22) conditions. Planning Technician Casillas presented the staff report. Chair Herrera asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Vice -Chair Eng stated she had the opportunity to visit the site and to learn about the facility with Mr. Zosimo, owner of the facility. She referred to Building "C" and the Conditions of Approval from "1996" that had been taken to the City Council under appeal. She explained she did not have the correct wording but the Condition of Approval stated that Building "C" can only be used for office. She asked staff since Building "C" was recently demolished is that Condition of Approval still relevant. Planning Technician Casillas replied as a correction for the appeal to the City Council the Planning Commission approved the project for twenty -two (22) beds subject to specific conditions and one of the conditions was to demolish Building "C" due to being deficient in numerous fire and building codes. The applicant submitted an appeal to the City Council because they were requesting to keep Building "C" but City Council up -held the Planning Commission's vote and also agreed that Building "C" needed to be removed. She stated that Building "C" has been demolished. Vice -Chair Eng asked when that structure was demolished. Planning Technician Casillas replied she did not have that information available. Vice -Chair Eng asked which state agency regulates this type of facility. Planning Technician Casillas replied it is the Department of Social Services. Vice -Chair Eng asked if this agency requires periodic audits of the operation of this facility. Planning Technician Casillas replied that inspections are made once a year. Vice -Chair Eng asked if the City has been able to review any of the audits. Planning Technician Casillas replied no. Community Development Director Ramirez clarified that Planning Technician Casillas did contact the agency and was told that information is not allowed to be given out. She added that inspections are not only conducted once a year but also when a complaint is received. Vice -Chair Eng asked if licenses are renewed annually or what is the process. Planning Technician Casillas replied the applicant is available to answer that question. Vice -Chair Eng asked if there is a regulation regarding the ratio of number of staff available to the residents of this facility. Planning Technician Casillas replied there is no set number for supervision and it is based on needs of the facility. Vice -Chair Eng clarified that the residents that are residing at this facility are not patients, they are individuals, and they are not receiving any medical care. Planning Technician Casillas stated that is correct. Vice -Chair Eng asked if staff knows the nature, types, or time, of the significant number of calls requested for service from law enforcement to this facility. Planning Technician Casillas replied the Chief of Police did not give her any specific information due to privacy rights. She added he explained most of the calls were due to medical responses, disturbances, and the majority of the calls were missing persons. Vice -Chair Eng asked if this facility has had any other citizen complaints prior to the past two years since it has been in operation since 1996. Planning Technician Casillas replied she only has documentation for the last two years but the applicant is present to answer that question. Vice -Chair Eng asked if there had been any recommendations by the Chief of Police or Public Safety to mitigate or provide solutions to address their concerns. Planning Technician Casillas replied nothing was specified. Vice -Chair Eng commented had there been recommendations in regards to their concerns it may have provided guidance forthe Planning Commission to ensure mitigation measures. She asked who is the City's Traffic Consultant. Planning Technician Casillas replied it is through the Consultant Company Willdan. Vice -Chair Eng asked if there is a specific staff that the City uses. Planning Technician Casillas replied Joanne Itagaki. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the City's Municipal Code and asked if there are currently parking standards for these type of adult care facilities. Planning Technician Casillas replied no. Vice -Chair Eng asked if there has been any research on neighboring cities in regards to their parking standards for this type of facility . Planning Technician Casillas replied she did not do a survey. Vice -Chair Eng recommended that it would be helpful to research what the surrounding cities parking requirements are for these types of facilities. She stated that the Staff Report, Conditions of Approval, and the Resolution, refer to the individuals in this facility as patients and clanfied that this is not a medical facility. She requested that since they do not receive medical care they should be referred to as residents and not patients. She stated she has a question in regards to Condition of Approval number twenty (20) but will defer it to the applicant. Commissioner Dinh stated currently there are twenty -two (22) beds in this facility and asked for clarification on how many beds will be in each bedroom and how many rooms are being added. Planning Technician Casillas explained that there are two (2) bedrooms that are being added to the new building and there will be two (2) beds per room. She added in the existing building the office is being converted into a bedroom. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that in the current building an existing office is being converted into a bedroom and two (2) beds will be going into this room which will add up to a total of six (6) beds. Commissioner Dinh asked in how many rooms. Community Development Director Ramirez replied in one room and explained they are converting an office into a bedroom. Commissioner Dinh referred to the site plan and stated she only sees the two new rooms. The Planning Commission referred to the proposed site plan and discussed the locations of the bedrooms and was then clarified that the office in in the existing main building "B" (bedroom number seven (7) on site plan is currently an office) will be converted into a bedroom. The construction of the new building will have two new bedrooms. There will be a total of three bedrooms, with six (6) beds, (two (2) beds will be in each room). Commissioner Dinh stated she is a nurse practitioner and familiar with this type of facility. She recommended if anyone would like to look around for compahsons on these types of facilities there are many of in the City of Pasadena and named "Villa Esperanza" as one of them. She also asked if the residents of this facility go to outside workshops from the hours of 8:00 am to 3.00 pm. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that question will need to be deferred to the applicant, Commissioner Dinh stated she is concerned with the use of the dining room and that's assuming if all twenty six (26) residents dine at the same time. She asked if it is an adequate size to seat all of the residents. Planning Technician Casillas slated that question can be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Tang asked if there is an existing code that requires a certain amount of restrooms for each bed or each room. Planning Technician Casillas replied under the City Zoning Code there is no code. She added this is governed under State Regulations. Commissioner Tang asked if there is a State Regulation that would determine that Planning Technician Casillas replied she does not have that information available at this time but she can research that question. Commissioner Tang stated he is concerned because in Building "A" there is one (1) restroom for potentially five (5) rooms and up to ten (10) beds whereas in the other buildings they have one (1) restroom for (4) four beds. He is also concerned that there is only one kitchen for one building and there is not a kitchen in the other building. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that question can be deferred to the applicant since this facility needs to be inspected by the State and meet the State's regulations to be approved. Commissioner Tang asked if there is a size requirement to allow a certain amount of beds in a room. Planning Technician Casillas replied this is not in the City's Zoning Code, so this would be referred back to State Regulations. Commissioner Tang referred to the number of service calls made and asked if the calls were made from the site or where they outside calls from neighbors. Planning Technician Casillas replied the calls for service would be from the facility and the Code Enforcement calls were from outside complaints. Commissioner Tang asked what the nature of the outside complaint calls were. Planning Technician Casillas replied the two complaints from Code Enforcement within the two year period were; 1) noise disturbance (coughing) and 2) lack of supervision on the site. Commissioner Tang asked if the size of the parking stalls meet the Municipal Code and expressed concern that they looked small in terms of width. Planning Technician Casillas replied that the site plan states the parking stalls are 18' X 9 wide and there is a handicap stall. Commissioner Tang asked if a car is parked in the handicap stall does it block the driveway. Planning Technician Casillas replied it is 18 feet wide so it can pull entirely on site. Commissioner Tang stated that the location of the stall is in front of a gate that looks like it leads to a long driveway. Planning Technician Casillas clarified that is a walkway and not a driveway. Commissioner Tang recommended that the handicap stall needs to be marked more clearly because it Is confusing. Commissioner Lopez referred to the deficiency in parking and asked if the residents of the facility drive or have cars. Planning Technician Casillas replied that according to the owner and parking study none of the residents staying at the facility have a driver's license. Commissioner Lopez asked if the parking stalls are for staff only. Planning Technician Casillas replied they are for staff and guest. Commissioner Lopez commented there are six (6) stalls for twenty -eight (28) residents and expressed concern that the public street may have an overflow of parking. Community Development Director Ramirez addressed Commissioner Tang's comment in regards to the handicap parking stall and stated Condition of Approval number sixteen (16) addresses that all spaces including the handicap has to be paved and re -sMped as required. Commissioner Tang thanked Community Development Director Ramirez. Commissioner Lopez asked how many staff work at night and if the service calls were made by staff or the residents. Planning Technician Casillas replied she does not have information or reports on who made the service calls. She explained the facility is supervised 2417 and during the day they have three (3) employees and in the evening they have one (1) employee. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that when staff spoke with the Chief of Police it was made very clear that information regarding calls for services cannot be given out due to the Privacy and HIPAA Act. Chair Herrera opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to the podium, Owner, Neila Pascasia stated she and her husband are here to represent "Rosemead Villa" and to address any questions the Planning Commission may have. Vice -Chair Eng thanked the applicant and asked why they want to expand their business. Owner Neila Pascasia replied because this is a basic need for disabled persons and the community. Vice -Chair Eng asked if the residents at this facility are both male and females. Owner Neils Pascasia replied yes, there are twenty-two (22) clients of which eighteen (18) are males and four (4) are females. She explained the females are housed separately. The males are housed in Building "A and B ". Vice -Chair Eng asked if there are twelve (12) currently residing at the facility. Owner Neila Pascasia replied the facility is currently full and the census is twenty -two (22) clients. Vice -Chair Eng asked what the age range is of the residents. Owner Neila Pascasia replied their license states they can care for ages 18 through 59 years of age. She added currently the youngest client residing at the facility is 29 years old and the oldest is 55 or 57 years old. She explained after they turn 59 they leave to reside at an elderly facility and there is a new ruling that if the client has been there for a long time and does not want to leave, then they cannot be turned away. Vice -Chair Eng asked if most of the residents have been long term residents. Owner Neila Pascasia replied their clients have been there a long time. She stated she has one client that has been there since 1994. Vice -Chair Eng asked if they operate more than one adult care hac'.lity. Owner Neila Pascasia replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng asked if they are about the same size. Owner Neila Pascasia replied the previous facility had about fifteen (15) clients. She explained that facility has been closed and it was re- licensed to an adult developmentally disabled facility. She stated they have both facilities and they deal with people developmentally delayed, challenged, and people that are mentally challenged. Vice -Chair Eng asked how long she has been operating this type of facility. Owner Neila Pascasia replied 18 going on 19 years. Vice -Chair Eng asked what type of tasks the staff provides for the clients. Owner Neila Pascasia clarified that they are asking about the "Rosemead Villa ". Vice -Chair Eng replied yes. Owner Neils Pascasia explained that staff provides: 1) coffee first thing in the morning, and then they are served breakfast; 2) they are given their medications and confirm that they are being taken as prescribed (if not a psychiatrist is called); 3) day programs are provided off -site and staff preps the clients to participate; 4) activities are provided at the facility if the clients do not want to participate in the off -site day programs; 5) clients must complete task such as cleaning their rooms and laundry; 6) dinner is prepared around 3:00 pm and medications are given at 3:45 pm; 7) at 4:30 on dinner is served; and 8) a recreation area is provided where they can watch television, She explained they can leave the facility provided they say where they are going and when they expect to be back. She added if they do not come back by a certain time then a missing person report may be filed. She explained that most of the service calls to the Sheriff Department is to file a missing person report and very few calls are for causing a disturbance. Vice -Chair Eng asked when the residents participate in the day programs located off site how are they transported and if the off -site programs are located in Rosemead. Owner Neila Pascasia replied yes they are in Rosemead and they are picked up in the morning around 9:00 am and brought back to the facility around 3'.00 pm. Vice -Chair Eng asked if the State requires that their staff have any special training or certification. Owner Neila Pascasia replied when staff is first hired they are given "Title 22" training beginning with food preparation and giving medications. She stated Consultants also train staff on site in what is called "Positive Reinforcement ". She explained there are various trainings needed for their careers, including training by pharmacists, and LA County provides a DSP1 Training (Regional Occupational Program). Vice -Chair Eng asked if the main focus of task for staff is to help support the daily living of the residents. Owner Neila Pascasia replied yes, but first staff encourages the clients to do everything themselves. She added if they cant or doesn't, then staff will have to do it. Vice -Chair Eng asked when meals are served does everyone dine together at the same time. Owner Neila Pascasia replied no, everyone eats at different times. She explained that some go out to eat if they have money, but food is kept in case they came home and want to eat. Vice -Chair Eng asked if a client does not return on time is a call made to the Sheriffs Department. Owner Neila Pascasia replied that licensing regulation states a missing person police report may be filed within 24 to 48 hours, but she does not wait that long. Vice -Chair Eng asked if law enforcement is responsive if it is fled earlier than the time frame allowed. Owner Neila Pascasia replied yes. She added they will take the basic information over the phone and send a deputy to the facility. She explained once they arrive they take the full report and a picture of the client is always available. Vice -Chair Eng asked if there is a mental health emergency situation, what is the procedure they follow. Owner Neils Pascasia replied staff needs to understand their client's illnesses and make sure medications are being taken properly. She explained if there are circumstances of violence or a sign that medication is not being taken correctly, and then the psychiatrist is contacted. She continued that there Is a "Mental Health Crisis Team" that is also available and is contacted if the need arses. Vice -Chair Eng asked if the facility is in contact with the resident's doctor. Owner Neila Pascasia replied yes. She explained the psychiatrist conducts a once a month visit and Is called for emergencies or if she has a problem with her clients. Vice -Chair Eng asked how many employees are there currently. Owner Neils Pascasia replied she currently has four (4) employees, her husband is the fifth (5th) as the Administrator of the facility, and one (1) maintenance employee that maintains and repairs all of their facilities. Vice -Chair Eng commented she was impressed with the maintenance of the grounds. Owner Neila Pascasia stated that they also own a boarding care located on Ralph Street that is a "Developmentally Disable Facility" and only has four (4) clients. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the residents that do not want to participate in the off -site day programs and asked what type of activities they do. Owner Neila Pascasia replied that some may want to walk to Target, Starbucks, or go to Carl's Jr. She explained for the troublesome ones that cannot go alone, her husband will drive and assist them. Vice -Chair Eng asked if the residents are allowed to have visitors. Owner Neila Pascasia replied yes and the visiting hours are from 9:00 am to 8.00 pm. Commissioner Dinh referred to the dining room dimensions and asked if this will be an adequate area for everyone in the facility to dine if needed. Owner Neila Pascasia replied it is adequate and re- iterated that the residents do not dine at the same time in the dining room. She added the facility has been approved by the Department of Social Services. Commissioner Dinh asked if the facility provides a vanpool in case they have to transport the residents. Owner Neils Pascasia replied yes and explained it is a 15 passenger van and it is parked in the Pasadena facility. She added none of the employee's drive except for one (1). Commissioner Dinh referred that majority of residents belong to the Category i and 2 on the DSM diagnosis and asked if they had any Category 3 or 4. Owner Neila Pascasia stated that Commissioner Dinh had referred to "Villa Esperani and explained it is a different type of facility. She explained that it is a facility for the developmentally disabled individuals and there are levels 1, 2, 3, & 4. She added "Rosemead Villa's" clients are levels 1 & 2. She also explained there is not a client to staff ratio and they follow "Title 22° and the Department of Social Services regulations. Commissioner Dinh asked how often do family members visit and if street parking is a concern during the weekends or holidays such as Christmas. Owner Neila Pascasia replied that 70% of the facilities clients do not have any family support. She explained some have families that visit but they do not visit often. Commissioner Tang asked other than administrating medications and transporting clients to their day programs, what other services do they provide on -site. Owner Neila Pascasia replied services provided to the clients are taking them to their doctor appointments and holiday celebrations (such as a barbecue for Memorial Day or Thanksgiving buffet dinners this is the only time the parking lot is crowded). She added that recreational activities (such as basketball, playing cards, and bingo) are also provided. Commissioner Tang asked if the State requires a certain size for a bedroom to accommodate two (2) beds Owner Nate Pascasia replied yes but she does not recall the size requirement. She explained that before a license Is issued they have to meet all of the State's "Title 22" regulations. Commissioner Tang asked if the clients with mental disabilities are allowed the freedom to leave the facility unsupervised. Owner Neila Pascasia replied yes and that licensing states the clients have their rights and they cannot be restricted. She explained they have to watch clients that may be getting sick and provide supervision especially in the evening. She commented that if anyone were to drive pass "Rosemead Villa" at night you would never know this was a facility because the clients are not loitering in the parking lot, they are inside, and they have a smoking area She requested that she have the opportunity to respond to neighbors complaints in regards to the clients coughing and expressed concern that she has no control over clients coughing in the facility. Chair Herrera asked if the clients are allowed to smoke in their rooms. Owner Neila Pascasia replied no, smoking is not allowed in the rooms and there is an open area available outdoors in the back yard, She stated they will smoke in the parking lot occasionally, Chair Herrera asked Brian Lewin to the podium. Resident Brian Lewin stated that an adult residential care facility is not strictly for mentally disabled non- drivers. He requested that the Planning Commission consider that if the expansion of this facility is approved with insufficient parking it may be a potential parking situation for that neighborhood. He expressed concern that the Chief of Police did not support the expansion of this facility and that they were concerned over the significant number of calls for service. He expressed concern with missing persons and stated there was an incident with a resident from a facility near his home trying to gel into his mother's property. He also expressed concern with mental patients disturbances. He asked the Planning Commission to please consider that if the expansion of this facility is allowed, is it a good Idea, will it be essential to the public being and welfare, will it be in harmony of the elements of the General Plan and City's Zoning Codes, and if allowing this facility with these current issues will be detrimental to the surrounding properties. Resident Wilson Chien stated he is the neighbor next to this facility. He stated he has spoken with the owner directly and has not complained to the City. He stated his concerns are with the residents from this facility sitting and smoking on the sidewalk in front of his home, throwing their cigarette butts on his property, their black cat urinating and leaving feces on his front yard bothering his dog in the back yard, and shopping carts being left by them in front of his home. He expressed he has approached the owner with these concerns and the owner does not seem to care and will not do anything to take care of it. He stated when he is outdoors washing his car, the residents will approach him and ask for cigarettes. He expressed all of these problems happen everyday and no one takes the responsibility to take care of them. He expressed that his wife is bothered by the resident's coughing very loud at night, which he has contacted the City to complain. Resident Judy Chien stated she lives next door and is the wife of Wilson Chien. She stated she agrees with the previous comments and expressed the owners need to take care of the current problems before this expansion is approved. She stated she has had to call the Sheriffs Department numerous times due to the residents screaming, coughing loudly at night, and playing music loudly. She added that she has called the night manager to complain while this is going on and is told there is nothing they can do. She stated she has teed to contact the owner numerous times and cannot get a hold of them. She stated she has to call the Sheriffs Department all the time and has tried to get the managers name but he will not tell her. She expressed concern with the cigarette butts and trash being left all over her property. She stated that they almost hit a resident backing out of their driveway and feels that this facility is very disturbing, should not be allowed to expand, and she has had to call the City and Sheriffs Department numerous times. She expressed the owner is rude and nothing gets taken care of. Owner Zosimo Pascasia stated he would like to respond to his neighbors' complaints and added he has been trying hard to address the problems. He stated that he admits there are some disturbances such as coughing. He added that he tells his residents that the neighbor works during the evening and sleeps during the day so he asks them to be quiet during the day. He stated they are trying their best to address the noise concerns. He referred to the insufficient parking and vehicles coming to the facility and explained they have been there for eighteen (18) years and there has never been a problem with parking. Chair Herrera asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Herrera closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if there any other questions or comments. Commissioner Lopez staled this should be investigated because these complaints are something that should not be Ignored (insufficient parking, and cigarette butts thrown in the neighbor's yard), and public safety needs to be called to confirm if there is loitering taking place. He would like to see what the sidewall height is to see if a sound wall barrier should be installed. He stated the community needs to be looked out for as well as the neighbor rights. He stated he does not recommend this be approved tonight. Commissioner Tang stated he concurs with Commissioner Lopez comments. He stated in addition to those concerns and the Chief of Police concerns, he also has concerns because this is a R -1 zone and the tenant use in an R -1 zone was not to accommodate twenty -eight (28) residents in a small facility of this size. He expressed that the neighbors' concerns are valid given you have twenty-eight (28) people in that small vicinity. He added those negativities are enough to impact the lives of their local neighbors. Vice -Chair Eng stated she is not ready to approve the project this evening. She requested that staff look into: 1) staff to resident ratio; and, 2) bedroom size regulation to make sure there is a level of comfort. She stated her sister had a mental illness and expressed they are members of the community and have the right to be here. She explained just because they have a mental illness does not mean they are violent and the most important thing to remember is that they are in treatment, She stated there is a major need for this type of housing and she appreciates that everyone should be comfortable and be good neighbors. She stated it is important and we all have to live together peacefully. She expressed "these people" are individuals and the concerns discussed tonight are valid and should be addressed. She requested that staffing regulations get clarified and asked Greg Murphy, City Attorney, if these types of facilities are regulated by state law. City Attorney Murphy replied there seems to be a consensus to delay this item and recommended that the Planning Commission motion to Continue this item to a date uncertain. He stated when this item is brought back the staff report will include a more thorough discussion of the state regulations for assisted living facilities in residential zones and how the state oversees them, so the public and commission may have a better detail of how the various roles intertwine. Vice -Chair Eng requested that staff check with the Chief of Police and Public Safety to determine the type of mitigations and what measures would be helpful to address some of their concerns. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff will request that the Chief of Police or someone from Public Safety Department attend the Planning Commission meeting for this item when it is brought back. She stated the 10 reason staff is requesting an unspecified dale is because they do not know how long it will take to get some of these answers and staff will also have to contact state agencies to get the requested information. Vice -Chair Eng stated since the City does not have a current parking standard for an Adult Residential facility she recommended that staff check with neighboring cities to see what standards that they have in place and see if those standards would be helpful for our City. City Attorney Murphy stated that is good idea and staff will conduct the survey and provide that information in the staff report for a future meeting. He stated that one of the things the Planning Commission was looking at was a Variance and no matter what our standard might be, the issue before the Commission was on the facts of this particular location, giving the nature of the residents of whom they serve, the interaction between those residents and their families, and what the traffic study showed on what happened on a daily basis. He stated the applicant is seeking a Variance and no matter what kind of standards that staff finds, it would be something we would want to put in the City Code for future use, but it would not be directly applicable for this instance because they are requesting no matter what the standards might be, they vary from It, due to facts of their case. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the Traffic Study and asked if it would be possible to update the study and have it reflect what other jurisdictions base their parking standard on for that type of use if it is applicable. City Attorney Murphy stated staff can request the applicant to do that. He explained that this Traffic Study showed what the actual demand for parking would be. He stated In terms of whether this parking study supported a Variance legally for this evening for approval he looked at the existing parking demand portion. He expressed it is important that staff look into other jurisdictions parking standards to see how they treat Assisted Living Facilities in R -1 zones and what they do, so we can see if our requirements need to be adjusted, or rather or not this Traffic Study would be applicable. Vice -Chair Eng stated the opportunity for individuals with a mental health condition or with a learning disability and to be able to be part of a community and society is a very empowering tool as part of their recovery. She explained that recovery does not mean they will be cured but the fact that they are able to function as part of the community has been found by research that it is very important for their recovery to be part of society. She stated that the owners of "Rosemead Villa" have stated their clients are at Level 1 & 2, which is a level of higher function. She expressed that education is important because there is a lot of stigma in regards to mental illness. She announced that this month considered Mental Health Month and hoped everyone would take the opportunity to educate themselves. Commissioner Dinh stated she is in agreement with the Planning Commissioners and is not comfortable with approving this project after listening to comments from the residents that live next door. She stated she is not in favor of institutional facilities for highly functional individuals. She expressed that the quality of life is important and feels it's important on both ends for the residents and for the clients living at "Rosemead Villa'. She recommended that Mr. Pascasia stay at his facility for a couple of nights to confirm what the residents next door may be experiencing. She expressed concern with the tight quarters of the facility and stated it appears to be a little small for what they are capable of doing. She expressed this is not about a having a business or expanding a business but it's about the quality of life, Chair Herrera asked if clients functioning at Levels 1 and 2 are able to drive. Owner Neila Pascasia replied they cannot drive due to the medication they are taking. She added if they are able to drive it must be with the psychiatrist approval. Commissioner Lopez asked how many of the clients residing at the facility have a California Drivers License. Owner Neila Pascasia replied none, 11 Chair Herrera thanked the applicant and asked the Planning Commission for a motion. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dinh to CONTINUE MODIFICATION 14-01 AND ZONE VARIANCE 14.01 TO A DATE UNCERTAIN, Vote results: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes - April 21, 2014 Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Eng, to approve the Minutes of April 21. 2014 as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, and Tang No: None Abstain: Lopez Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF None 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR &COMMISSIONERS A. STATUS OF MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS - At the Planning Commission Meeting of April 21, 2014, Commission Member Nancy Eng requested that the status of massage establishments within Rosemead be brought before the Planning Commission for discussion. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission receive and file this report. Commissioner Lopez thanked everyone for their condolences on his brothers passing. Community Development Director Ramirez stated there is one item on Agenda from Matters of Chair & Commissioners which relates to Massage Establishments, She added this item was requested at the last Planning Commission meeting by Commissioner Nancy Eng. This report has been provided as requested. She stated if any member of the Planning Commission has questions she would be happy to answer them. Vice -Chair Eng thanked staff for taking the time to prepare this informative and eye- opening report. She stated hopefully Sacramento will provide cities a better tool to help monitor this concern. 12 Community Development Director Ramirez gave a brief explanation of the proposed "Massage Therapy Act of 2014 which is in line with what the City supports and includes giving back the local control to the cities over the zoning of these establishments making owners responsible and accountable for the actions done in their establishments, and doing away with the CMATC Committee, and organizing a professional board. The League of California Cities is holding a meeting on May 20, 2014 regarding this issue and she will be attending. Commissioner Lopez asked if there is a current standard on how many Massage Establishments may be on a block. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no. Commissioner Lopez asked if they want to have multiple establishments' right next door to each other up and down the block they can. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, and explained this business must be treated like any other professional office in the City. She stated if the City allows any other professional office to do this, then we have to allow them to do it too. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the window coverings of Massage Establishments and asked if curtains are a practice of these types of businesses. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, they are allowed window coverings such as drapes, blinds, and so forth. She added if you are talking about window coverage and what they can put on the windows themselves then they are only allowed fifteen (15 %) percent of the window to be covered with signage and so forth. She stated window drapes can be used, are used, and they are allowed to be closed. Vice -Chair Eng asked if there is anything being proposed in the "Massage Therapy Act 2014" to address window coverings. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no but that is a question she can ask when she attends the League of California Cities workshop. She will also find out if these types of businesses will have to be treated like any professional office and if this is something that will be allowed to be incorporated into our AUP process. She explained when that time comes, staff will have to consult with our City Attorney to see what can or can't be done legally, based on what has been passed. Vice -Chair Eng requested that she find out what the definition of a professional office is and stated a doctors office is considered a professional office. Community Development Director stated as far as land use goes it is considered a professional office. Commissioner Lopez asked who and how often massage establishment are inspected and what the procedures are when they are inspected. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the Public Safety Department conduct's quarterly inspections. She explained they can do it sooner and more often, if they receive a complaint or the City has an ongoing issue. She stated if it is found they are not in compliance with the City Ordinance, then they could go out there everyday. Commissioner Dinh expressed concern with the rise of electronic cigarette (Vape) businesses that are being established in the San Gabriel Valley, She asked if there have been any problems or applications for those types of businesses in Rosemead. 13 Community Development Director Ramirez replied there are two (2) facilities In Rosemead, there Is not a dse of this type of business yet and has not posed an issue at this time. City Attorney Murphy stated this is something that the Planning Commission may see in the future. He explained that many of the cities his fin works with are dealing with this and that some cities have put moratoriums on this while they figure out what to do. He stated other cities have classified e- cigarettes as a tobacco product and are regulating them as other tobacco products. He explained there are a lot of ways to deal with this and how City Staff chooses to deal with it depends largely on how prevalent those store fronts are becoming in the city. The Community Development Director stated the City is not experiencing too many yet, so the City has some time to prepare, and the Planning Commission may not see them soon as of yet. Community Development Director Ramirez assured the Planning Commission that is something staff is aware of and is watching. Chair Herrera stated there is a speakers request for this item and invited Brian Lewin to the podium. Resident Brian Lewin stated one of his concerns is the signage coverage verses window coverings. He recommended that the existing City Ordinance in regards to window coverage be modified and added to state, "no window be covered by curtains, blinds, or any other window coverage during operating hours". He explained that this would be universally applied and asked if something like this can be done. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, May 19, 2014, at 7:00 p.m ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary Diana Herrera Chair 14