Loading...
PC - Minutes - 12-01-14 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 1,2014 The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Eng in the Council Chambers, 838 E.Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-Commissioner Tang INVOCATION-Vice-Chair Dinh ROLL CALL-Commissioners Herrera, Lopez,Tang,Vice-Chair Dinh, and Chair Eng ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez,Assistant Planner Hanh, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney, Greg Murphy, presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DESIGN REVIEW 14-09- Dat Wong has submitted a Design Review application requesting approval to construct a new 2,981 square feet two-story single-family dwelling unit. In addition, the applicant is proposing to construct an attached three-car garage. The subject property is located at 9342 Guess Street, in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential)zone. PC RESOLUTION 14-18 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 14- 09, PERMITTING A NEW 2,981 SQUARE FEET SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT WILL CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 9342 GUESS STREET, IN THE R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 14-18 with findings,and APPROVE Design Review 14-09,subject to the nineteen(19)conditions. Assistant Planner Hanh presented staff report. Chair Eng welcomed back Cory Hanh and announced to the Planning Commission that he had worked for the City of Rosemead as an intern in the past. She asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Tang asked if this dwelling will be demolished and reconstructed as a new building. Assistant Planner Hanh replied yes. Chair Eng asked what is the building height and is it comparable to the other two-story homes in the neighborhood. 1 Assistant Planner Hanh replied there are two(2)other homes that are comparable to this dwelling unit. Chair Eng asked what the City's current Municipal Code driveway width requirement. Assistant Planner Hanh replied the minimum width is 12 feet. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number sixteen(16) and asked if back flow preservation devices are the same as back flow prevention devices or are they something different. Assistant Planner Hanh replied they are the same. Commissioner Lopez asked if the design compliments the rest of the neighborhood. Assistant Planner Hanh replied yes, and that there are two (2)other homes in the neighborhood with this proposed design. Chair Eng asked if there were any other questions or comments. None Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to the podium. Designer Dat Wong explained to the Planning Commission that this project will consist of the demolition of the existing home and the reconstruction of a new two-story single-family home with a three-car garage in the rear. Chair Eng asked if Dat Wong was the designer and property owner. Designer Dat Wong replied he is not the property owner,just the designer. Chair Eng requested that Mr.Wong repeat his name and address for the record. She asked Mr.Wong if the property will be owner-occupied when it is completed. Designer Dat Wong replied yes. Chair Eng asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. Audience member requested to look at the design of the project. Resident Tom Warner stated he lives across the street from this site and asked when this project will begin. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that the applicant may address that question if Chair Eng would like to call the applicant back to the podium. She explained if this project gets approved tonight, then the applicant may submit plans to the Building and Safety Department for approval for which they can apply for permits. Chair Eng requested Designer Dat Wong to the podium and asked how long it will take for construction to begin once the plans are approved and permits have been pulled. Designer Dat Wong replied that construction process usually takes six (6) to ten (10) months depending on the contractor. He added that the applicant would like to start construction right away and it will probably take three (3) months to have the plans approved and permits pulled. 2 Community Development Director Ramirez stated it looks like it will take about three(3) months before the City gets the plans and then it will take another three(3) months to review them. She added it looks like construction may begin in the summer or early fall of '2015" and read Condition of Approval number thirteen (13) which explains the days and hours of construction that the City allows. Chair Eng thanked Mr.Wong and asked if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments. None Chair Eng asked for a motion. Commissioner Tang made a motion,seconded by Commissioner Lopez,to ADOPT Resolution No. 14-18 with findings,and APPROVE Design Review 14-09, subject to the nineteen (19)conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes and explained the ten (10)day appeal process. B. PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY(PCN) 14-01 • Jose Rodolfo Bravo Garcia, owner of El Indio Market, has submitted a Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) application requesting that the City of Rosemead determine that the issuance of a new off-sale beer and wine license for the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP 96-696) for this meat market will serve the public convenience or necessity, as required by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)when a project site is located within a census tract with an undue concentration of alcohol licenses and/or a crime reporting district with an undue concentration of crime. The subject site is located at 2245 San Gabriel Boulevard, in the C-3(Medium Commercial)zone. PC RESOLUTION 14-19 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING A PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY (PCN 14-01) DETERMINATION. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 2245 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD, IN THE C-3(MEDIUM COMMERCIAL)ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 14-19 and APPROVE PCN 14-01 with findings,subject to the eighteen (18)conditions of approval. Assistant Planner Hanh presented the staff report. Community Development Director Ramirez explained to the Planning Commission that this market actually had an ABC license for off-sale beer and wine and the market recently sold. She added that generally through escrow the ABC license is transferred to the new owner, but, in this case, when escrow took place the transfer did not go 3 through. She added that it had nothing to do with ABC denying it. She stated that ABC did not acknowledge the sale as a transfer,so the owner had to apply for a new ABC license. Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Lopez asked if the crime rate was related to the market or other incidents. Assistant Planner Hanh replied there was one crime incident in"2014",which was a petty theft incident and was not related to alcohol. Vice-Chair Dinh referred to the off-sale beer and wine ABC license, which requires the alcohol to be sold and not consumed on the premises. She stated that when she visited the site she had noticed there was an eatery inside the market and asked if this license will conflict with the eatery. Assistant Planner Hanh replied that the license is only for off-sale, so customers will only be allowed to purchase the alcohol. He added the market currently has a sign that state's; "Alcohol consumption is not allowed on the premises'. Community Development Director Ramirez added that there are ABC Licenses available for off-sale and on-sale of alcohol, but the applicant is requesting it remain an "off-sale beer and wine ABC License",which is consumed off-site and not on-site. Vice-Chair Dinh asked what the operating hours of the market are. Assistant Planner Hanh replied the markets operating hours and sale of alcohol are 8:30 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.,daily. Vice-Chair Dinh asked if there is a security guard on the premises. Assistant Planner Hanh replied there is not a security guard, but the Chief of Police did require that the applicant submit a security plan. He explained if this application is approved the security plan will be routed to the Chief of Police for approval. Chair Eng asked for clarification on the name of the market. Assistant Planner Hanh stated the name of the market was"El Novillo Meat Market" and now has been changed to "El Indio Markel". Chair Eng referred to the staff report on page two (2) where it indicated there were a number of Conditional Use Permits for ABC licenses and the last one for this market was CUP 96-696 and asked if the term CUP has been eliminated. Assistant Planner Hanh replied that is correct and explained all the CUP's that are listed in the staff report are all for the off-sale beer and wine licenses and the renewal process has been done away with. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that it had nothing to do with the use, instead all annual renewals of CUPs were done away with regardless of the use. Chair Eng stated she appreciates the explanation by Community Development Director Ramirez in regards to why the ABC license was not renewed and that it had nothing to do with ABC denying it. She asked if staff knows when this current ABC license that is due to expire in January was first issued. 4 Assistant Planner Hanh replied the original issue date for the previous off-sale beer and wine ABC license was February 24, 1997. Chair Eng referred to the reported crime and asked if the petty theft incident was the only crime reported within the last year for this location. Assistant Planner Hanh replied the last reported crime for this business was the petty theft on February 23,2014. He added before that there had not been a reported crime for this business since 2012. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number fourteen (14) and suggested that she prefers the language in Exhibit"A" Conditional Use Permit 96-695, Conditions of Approval number five(5) because the language extends to the parking lot area and it is clearer. She asked City Attorney Murphy for advice and this can be done. City Attorney Murphy replied it would take some research and time to find out if Ordinance No. 567 is still operative. He added the law requires signs to be posted with reasonably specific language referring to the penal code section and if you have a local section,from which you could be cited,then you would also have to cite the City code section. He stated that the proposed Condition of Approval number fourteen (14)in the staff report meets both of those requirements, which would then allow for code to cite for the Rosemead Municipal Code or allow the Sheriffs to cite for the penal code. He stated that the language in Condition of Approval number fourteen (14) is needed in order to be able to cite. He stated the Planning Commission could add to Condition of Approval number fourteen (14) to state, The applicant shall post signs to the interior and exterior of the business stating "Possession of open alcoholic beverage containers on these premises is prohibited by law. CA Penal Code Section 647e. RMC Section 9.08.070." Chair Eng stated that her concern is because this is a high crime area she would like the signs posted in the parking lot and inside the business prohibiting open alcohol beverage containers. She recommended that the extra language be added to Condition of Approval number fourteen (14). Commissioner Lopez asked what the verbiage for "CA Penal Code Section 647e and RMC Section 9.08.070" is before there are revisions to Conditional Use Permit fourteen (14). City Attorney Murphy stated he is looking it up right now. Chair Eng stated the market has a kitchen with a letter grading of"A" and confirmed with staff that the applicant has applied for the required food licensing permits. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that is correct. Chair Eng stated when she visited the site she observed towards the front of the business exposed wires hanging from the ceiling. She recommended that the wires be enclosed for safety reasons. Assistant Planner Hanh stated the applicant has already agreed to remove the wires and explained they were from a previous security camera. City Attorney Murphy stated "Penal Code Section 647e"states"...that the City or any City or County made by its own Ordinance provide that no person who has an open bottle can or other receptacle of alcoholic beverage can enter, be, or remain on the posted premises including the posted parking lot adjacent to a retail packaged off-sale alcoholic beverage licensed pursuant to Division 9. Any person violating the provision is guilty of an infraction. Posted premise for this purpose means the premise is subject to the business license, the parking lot immediately adjacent and the sidewalk immediately adjacent". He stated prohibition cited in the language will include the parking lot and the sidewalk. He stated that if it is required to put posting inside and outside, then it puts people on notice 5 and the parking lot is covered by that section. He recommended rather than making changes to Condition of Approval Fourteen (14), and if it is the will of the Planning Commission, when it comes to time to approve includes the modification stating that"The applicant should post signs to the interior and exterior of the subject building...", with the rest being the same as written by staff. Vice-Chair Dinh stated if the interior is included and the applicant decided to apply for an "On-Sale Beer and Wine ABC license"would it come back to the Planning Commission for approval. City Attorney Murphy replied yes, and explained that it may require a PCN or it would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit application. Community Development Director Ramirez clarified that it would come back to the Planning Commission regardless. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number fifteen (15) and stated the applicant is occupying the subject building and recommended that the words "Prior to occupancy" be changed to "Commencement of sale of beer and wine"as related to the installation/submittal of the security plan and that it be in place. City Attorney Murphy stated he recommends that ft states, "Prior to the exercise of any rights granted hereunder the applicant shall submit the security plan ..."and then continue to what is already written by staff. Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions for staff. Commissioner Tang asked staff if they have checked to see if there is sufficient lighting of the subject site. Assistant Planner Hanh replied there was not a site investigation completed in the evening and explained that would be part of the security plan. Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Eng asked if the applicant is present and would like to speak. Applicant Jose Rodolfo Bravo Garcia spoke from the audience but was not audible. Chair Eng stated the Planning Commission has proposed two modifications to Conditions of Approval numbers fourteen(14)and fifteen(15) and asked the applicant if he is not opposed to the modifications. Community Development Director Ramirez requested the applicant come to the podium. Applicant Jose Rodolfo Bravo Garcia resident of El Monte explained why he had to apply for a new ABC license. Chair Eng explained the modifications to Conditions of Approval numbers fourteen (14)and fifteen (15) and that the Planning Commission has proposed and asked applicant Jose Rodolfo Bravo Garcia if he agrees with the modifications. Applicant Jose Rodolfo Bravo Garcia replied yes. Resident Brian Lewin referred to the discussion of modifying Condition of Approval number fifteen (15), and stated it was noted that the applicant must"submit" a security plan prior to commencing the sales of alcohol beverages. He 6 added that the wording now has been explained as must be"approved". He asked if the wording will be; "must be approved prior to commencing of alcohol",and if not, is there precedent for that and how will it work. Chair Eng stated Condition of Approval number fifteen (15) states"the applicant shall submit a security plan, subject to the review and approval of the City and Chief of Police." Resident Brian Lewin stated he sees a distinction between "submit the plan subject to approval"and that it does not seem clear to him. City Attorney Murphy explained that ultimately the security plan will have to be approved by the City and Chief of Police. He explained it cannot be required that the approval be given prior to the exercise of the rights, because in the case that we require that approval be given, it could essentially have one department in the City do a back door denial of the permit that is being requested this evening. He explained the applicant can submit it and ultimately theft plan will be approved, but that process may take more time. He added that as long as the plan has been turned into the City, and the City is working on it, the applicant can move forward. Chair Eng thanked Mr. Lewin and asked if there is anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any comments or further questions for this item. Commissioner Tang stated he lives close to the proximity of this business and has not seen any public safety issues since he has lived there. He stated his only concern was lighting. Chair Eng stated if there are no further questions a motion is requested. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera to ADOPT Resolution 14-19 and APPROVE PCN 14-01 with findings, subject to the eighteen (18) conditions of approval. (Conditions of Approval numbers fourteen(14)and fifteen(15)were revised by the Planning Commission on 12/1/14) Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes and explained the ten (10)day appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of November 17,2014 B. Planning Division Entitlement List Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission if there are questions or comments in regards to the two (2) items on the Consent Calendar. 7 Commissioner Tang recommended a correction be made to the Minutes of November 17,2014 on page six(6), he stated the word"pass" in the last paragraph is misspelled and should be changed to"past". Chair Eng asked if there were any other corrections or comments. None Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission for a motion. Commissioner Lopez made a motion,seconded by Commissioner Herrera to approve the Consent Calendar with one correction on page six(6)to the Minutes of November 17,2014. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced the City of Rosemead's two(2) upcoming events"The Annual Tree Lighting Ceremony" followed by"Dinner with Santa"and gave time, location, and price.She stated she hopes all will attend. She also announced that there will be only one (1) City Council meeting to be held on Tuesday, December 9, 2014. She added December, and the next meeting will be in January of 2015. She announced City Hall will be closed for the Christmas holiday's beginning December 24, 2014 at noon and will re-open on Monday, January 5,2015. Commissioner Lopez asked if Southern Califomia Edison will be doing the exchange of Christmas lights. Community Development Director stated she will obtain that information and send an electronic message to the Planning Commission. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS A. Electronic Cigarettes Chair Eng thanked staff for the Staff Report and asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments. None Chair Eng stated a request to speak form has been submitted from Brian Lewin and called Mr. Lewin to the podium. Resident Brian Lewin expressed concem with the amount of money made and the growing amount of youth using this type of industry. He requested that the City take some sort of action in terms in the zoning level if possible. He referred to the City of Santa Monica and stated they recently made electronic cigarettes functionally equivalent to regular cigarettes and suggested the City of Rosemead follow their example. He stated he is not sure if this type of industry in terms of sales, use in different locations,or zoning can be regulated from the Planning Division. He asked City Attorney Murphy if it would it be possible to make electronic cigarettes functionally equivalent to regular 8 cigarettes from the zoning perspective. He stated the City of Rosemead does not have a Smoking Ordinance and he has looked through the City of Rosemead's Municipal Code but did not find anything regulating cigarette smoking restrictions. He added that in the Health Code it stated the City has adopted the County Code and requested the City • define smoking regulations and to include electronic cigarettes. Chair Eng requested that staff clarify the City's smoking regulations. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that the City does have prohibition of smoking in Public Parks, City Buildings, and prohibition within twenty (20) feet of City Buildings. She quoted the Municipal Code prohibiting smoking in City Parks is 12.44.050 and the Municipal Code prohibiting smoking in City Buildings is 244.060. She stated that includes; City buildings, City Hall, Community Centers, park offices, or any City owned and operating vehicle. She stated currently the Planning Division does not regulate tobacco stores. She asked City Attorney Murphy to clarify Mr. Lewin's other questions. City Attorney Murphy stated there are two (2)ways that cities are regulating electronic cigarettes (also known as "Vaping"), which is the consumption of the e-cigarettes. He explained one (1)way is by zoning, which a Planning Commission would have some say in. He added the zoning power would only deal with the siting and allowing the conditions of operations of stores that would sell these products. He explained to the extent that the City of Rosemead zoning code does not have any prohibitions on tobacco retailers, it would be difficult to have regulations of e-cigarette retailers. He added other cities will have a variety of regulations of tobacco retailers where pipe and tobacco stores could be treated differently than stores that primarily feature cigarettes, and e-cigarettes retail would fall somewhere in the spectrum of what is being regulated. He stated without that tool the Planning Commission does not really have any say in the prohibition use of the e-cigarettes, if you're going to talk about the sale, then that would not be prohibition as much as it would be a regulation. He added in terms of the prohibition of use,the consideration of e-cigarettes and vaping to be substantially similar to the use of cigarettes and smoking. He stated various codes,depending on where an individual City includes it in their Municipal Code,are being changed to include definitions of e-cigarettes and includes definitions of vaping. He said within the definition of smoking could be included use of using e-cigarettes and or the practice of vaping. He explained that way rather than going through the code and trying to add in vaping and cigarette use throughout the code your simply defining smoking to include that practice. He stated that is not something that would go before the Planning Commission and explained it is not a and use issue, zoning issue, or a business regulation issue. He added that is what some cities are doing and that essentially goes directly through City Council. He added the only time that might go before the Planning Commission would be when a City decides to do an Omnibus E-Cigarette Ordinance, which covers use in public buildings, public parks, restaurants, as well as controls of the locations and business operation regulations. He stated that would go before the Planning Commission for a recommendation because part of it would fall under the zoning power and while you wouldn't be making any regulations on it,you would see it. He added in Rosemead to the extent that there is not any regulations right now and unless it is the will of the City Council to adopt City regulations dealing with tobacco, what will probably happen is that in some point in the future an Ordinance will go to the City Council, to amend the definition of smoking and that way the City will be placing controls on it similar to what was put in place for regular cigarettes. Chair Eng commented that her concern is the attraction of this type of practice to children and she referred to the Chief of Police's comment in the Staff Report that electronic cigarettes are now being utilized to ingest illegal drugs through vapor and not just nicotine. She stated there are only two (2) of these type of businesses in Rosemead and recommended that the City be more proactive for health and safety issues. She stated the City has a Public Safety Connections, that addresses public safety issues and gives the community the opportunity to be proactive by attending the meetings once a month, which she also attends. She asked Community Development Director Ramirez if the only process regulating this type of business is a business license. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes but noted that it also goes go to the Planning Division to verify that it is an allowable use for the location submitted. 9 Chair Eng clarified with City Attorney Murphy that currently all that can be done to regulate this type of business is to define the e-cigarettes as tobacco use. City Attorney Murphy stated that is correct and that is something that is currently being done within some cities in the San Gabriel Valley and Santa Monica. He stated that is an Ordinance that would go straight to City Council and City Council would be the body to make a request of staff to bring such an Ordinance forward. Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commission has the ability to make a recommendation to the City Council to investigate this issue. City Attorney Murphy replied it would not be a formal recommendation of the Planning Commission because the matter is outside the prevue of the Planning Commission. He stated it could fall into the Public Safety Commission or certainly fall into any citizens interest but as a Commission if you wanted to take a position, then that position would be more along the lines of saying you would like the City Council to ask staff to investigate regulations on the zoning and siting of these businesses rather than by the use of individuals. He added use by the individuals does not fall into zoning law. Chair Eng asked so as a body the Planning Commission can request staff to look into the zoning of this type of business. City Attorney Murphy replied in terms of requesting staff he recommends that Planning Commission request that City Council make that direction and ultimately it is City Council direction. Vice-Chair Dinh shared an experience at a restaurant in a nearby city with her children and expressed concern with the use of electronic cigarettes within a few feet of them. She added with the FDA warning against the unknown dangers of electronic cigarettes she recommends that there be an Ordinance and the definition for tobacco use should also include electronic cigarettes. Chair Eng asked if there were any further comments. None Chair Eng thanked staff for providing this information to the Planning Commission. She also thanked Mr. Brian Lewin for addressing this item and stated that a recommendation will need to take place at the City Council level. She added the minutes of tonight's meeting will reflect the concerns of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Herrera announced the upcoming "Casino Night"event sponsored by the Rosemead Chamber of Commerce and gave date,time,and location. She invited all to attend. 10 7. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, December 15,2014,at 7:00 p.m. Nancy Eng 31) Chair ATT T: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 11