Loading...
PC - Minutes - 01-04-16 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 4,2016 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Tang at 7:01 pm in the Council Chambers, 8838 E.Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-Vice-Chair Lopez INVOCATION—Commissioner Dang ROLL CALL—Commissioners Dang, Eng, Herrera,Vice-Chair Lopez and Chair Tang STAFF PRESENT-City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, Associate Planner Hanh, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. Chair Tang stated Community Development Director Ramirez has an announcement/request. Community Development Director Ramirez stated on the Agenda this evening there are two Public Hearing items and staff has received a request to move Item B (Administrative Use Permit 15-03) first, above Item A (Conditional Use Permit 15-05). City Attorney Murphy explained that if the Planning Commission would like to do this,then a motion, a second, and a voice vote would be sufficient. He added a full roll call vote is not necessary. Chair Tang asked the Planning Commission if there is a motion. Vice-Chair Lopez made a motion to move item B (Administrative Use Permit 15-03) before Item A (Conditional Use Permit 15-05)and it was seconded by Commissioner Herrera. Chair Tang asked if all is in favor. Vote resulted in: AYES: DANG, ENG,HERRERA,LOPEZ,AND TANG NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Murphy presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT 15-03 -Juan Cuevas submitted an Administrative Use Permit application to establish a vehicle towing with storage use at 8723 Garvey Avenue. The existing building consists of 1,800 square feet of floor area. The proposed project would not add any new floor area to the property. The subject property is located in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial)zone. PC RESOLUTION 15-22 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT 15-03, TO ESTABLISH A VEHICLE TOWING WITH STORAGE USE AT 8723 GARVEY AVENUE (APN: 5289-010-026).THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE M-1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL)ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 15-22 with findings (Exhibit "A"), and APPROVE Administrative Use Permit 15-03, subject to the thirty (30) conditions. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. Chair Tang asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng thanked Associate Planner Hanh for forwarding and emailing the comment letters from the residents. She requested that in the future if they are available to be included in their packets so they have time to review comments in a timely manner. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that the letters should have been included originally but unfortunately it was an oversight by staff. She explained once it was realized, it was emailed immediately to the Planning Commission, the City Attorney, uploaded to the City Website, and available at the public counter in City Hall. Commissioner Eng asked how long this lot has been vacant. Associate Planner Hanh replied the last business located at this site was El Monte Lawnmower and their business license expired on October 31,2012. Commissioner Eng asked if this had been a lawnmower repair facility. Associate Planner Hanh replied that it appears that they rented and repaired lawnmowers. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant is the property owner. Associate Planner Hanh replied no. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant is leasing the property. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if there are other M-1 zones in the City where it does not abut against a residential properly. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng stated based on the staff report,there are exterior tenant improvements to the lot and asked if there are any plans for the building itself. 2 Associate Planner Hanh replied there had been building permits pulled for structural repairs, but that has nothing to do with the Administrative Use Permit itself. Commissioner Eng asked if the structural repairs were code issues. Associate Planner Hanh replied no. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant is planning on painting the building. Associate Planner Hanh replied the applicant may answer that question. Commissioner Eng asked what the hours of operation are. Associate Planner Hanh replied the office hours are 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday, but vehicles would be released 24 hours a day. Commissioner Eng asked if the front gate is going to be replaced. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if it will be an automatic gate. Associate Planner Hanh replied he does not have that information. Commissioner Eng asked if the gate will have to be opened manually for vehicles entering and exiting. Associate Planner Hanh replied the gate will be locked. Commissioner Eng asked if the gate will be closed all the time or will it be open during business hours. Associate Planner Hanh replied it will be closed all the time. Commissioner Eng asked if the gate will need to be opened manually each time a vehicle needs to enter. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if there is a pedestrian gate. Associate Planner Hanh replied no and explained that there is an entry door to the building. Commissioner Eng stated she did not see one on the site plan,there is a gate for tow trucks,and asked if there was a gate for pedestrians. Associate Planner Hanh replied no. Commissioner Eng asked how the pedestrians enter. Associate Planner Hanh replied there is a waiting area in the building for pedestrians. Chair Tang rephrased the question and asked how pedestrians get into the waiting area. 3 Associate Planner Hanh explained the applicant will open the gate for pedestrians/vehicles. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number twenty-three (23) and asked what the current standard noise decibel is for the City. Associate Planner Hanh replied the allowable exterior noise level is 60 dba from 7:00 am to 10:00 pm and 45 dba from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. Commissioner Eng referred to the tow trucks dba numbers of 97-112 dba and asked if that had been verified. Associate Planner Hanh replied no. Commissioner Eng asked if the use of lifts,chains,and engine noises are inevitable with this operation. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Chair Tang asked if this site is one or two parcels because there are two addresses. Associate Planner Hanh replied it is one parcel and explained there were two addresses but only one will remain. Chair Tang referred to the limitation of five vehicles being stored on the lot and asked if there is a limit of vehicles stored on the street. Associate Planner Hanh replied vehicle storage can only be on the property. Chair Tang asked so the vehicles are not allowed on the street. City Attorney Murphy stated that goes with the operational guidelines under State law, which states that towed vehicles have to be secured,so they would not be allowed to be parked in the street. Chair Tang asked what the square footage for each vehicle storage space is. Associate Planner Hanh replied vehicle storage space needs to comply with the City's parking standard, there are three spaces that are compact,and two that are standard. Chair Tang asked what the square footage is for each. Associate Planner Hanh replied he does not have the square footage, but the compact space is 8x16 and the standard space is 22x9. Chair Tang stated the City's Code does not have a specified use for this type of operation and vehicle rental use is what it is being compared to. He commented if this is an adequate comparison and recommended that in future revisions or updates to the General Plan or Zoning Code that guidance for tow truck operations is included for future reference. He asked staff on the North side of the properly what is the current height of the wall. Associate Planner Hanh replied he did not measure it but looks like approximately 6 feet. Chair Tang asked if there have been any updates on the mitigation measures as it relates to the resident concerns. Associate Planner Hanh replied no. 4 Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number twenty-three(23)and asked how it will be enforced. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that the City has a noise meter that code enforcement officers use to take readings when necessary. She also informed the Planning Commission that the applicant has agreed to turn off the tow truck back-up warning signals. Commissioner Eng asked in terms of the lifting of the chains and trucks engines running how much noise will that create. Community Development Director Ramirez replied there is not a way of knowing until the business is in operation. Commissioner Eng asked what the current standard size for parking is. Associate Planner Hanh replied that a standard parking spot at a parallel angle is 22x9, a standard spot that is not parallel at a 90 degree angle is 18x9, and a compact parking spot would be 16x8. Commissioner Eng asked what the width of this lot is. Associate Planner Hanh replied it is 60 feet. Commissioner Eng asked if the turnaround point will be towards the rear of the property. Associate Planner Hanh replied that is a question the applicant may answer. Vice-Chair Lopez asked for information regarding storing the vehicles, if this is a repo-type towing service, and how vehicles are released if it is open 24 hours when office hours are closed. Associate Planner Hanh replied that vehicles will be released 24/7 and there are office hours for the building. Vice-Chair Lopez stated he is concerned on what time in the evening will cars be coming in and or being released. Associate Manner Hanh replied that is a question the applicant may address. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if it is storage of repo cars. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that is a question that the applicant may address. Chair Tang referred to the staff report and stated there is a typo that needs to be corrected on page 5 of 16, under the sub-section of Analysis. He stated the word'engine" needs to have the"r" removed at the end. Commissioner Dang asked what triggers a landscape review in a parking lot design and is there anything in the Municipal Code. Associate Planner Hanh replied that along with the review of the plans it is requested that the applicant meet the minimum landscaping requirement,which is 3%of the entire lot. Commissioner Dang asked if there is a mandate on a certain amount of trees. Associate Planner Hanh replied no. Chair Tang opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to the podium. 5 Applicant Juan Cuevas stated he is available to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Eng asked Mr.Cuevas to share his experience in operating a towing business. Applicant Cuevas stated he was a manager of a tow lot in West Los Angeles that serviced impounds,AM, and motor clubs. He stated his business is an impound operation as well and they do motor club calls 24 hours every day. He added that they do operate 24 hours a day as the trucks are on the road the majority of the time,and if they are at the shop they are not making any money. He explained that the trucks do not come in and out, they are not usually stationed there,and are mostly out in the field. Commissioner Eng asked how long the applicant has been doing this. Applicant Cuevas replied since '2004". He has been a manager since 2004 and he had been an operator before that. Commissioner Eng asked if this is his first owned tow truck business. Applicant Cuevas replied no it is his second. Commissioner Eng asked when the busiest time for incoming calls is(during the day or evening). Applicant Cuevas replied it varies. He explained, when it rains they get a lot of calls due to accidents or there are calls from apartment complexes calling because of cars blocking parking stalls. Commissioner Eng asked if the use is primary to store cars. Applicant Cuevas replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if the public would have the ability to take parts. Aplicant Cuevas replied no. Commissioner Eng asked how long are cars stored. Applicant Cuevas replied there is a maximum of 30 days. If they are not retrieved, a lein is placed on them and after 30 days they get auctioned off. Commissioner Eng stated based on the parking standards there are 7 parking stalls for customers and 5 for vehicle storage stalls and asked if that is economically feasible for him. Applicant Cuevas replied yes,because he has an additional storage lot. Commissioner Eng asked if it was close to the City of Rosemead. Applicant Cuevas replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if he owned the property. Applicant Cuevas replied no. 6 Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant is leasing the properly and how long is his lease. Applicant Cuevas replied yes,they are leasing the property and it is for 5 years,with an option for another 5. Commissioner Eng asked how tall the tow trucks that they will be using are. Applicant Cuevas replied they are light duty tow trucks, they are F150's and they a have a clearance of 5'6" or 5'7". He added they do not have a flat beds as of yet. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant will be using any flat beds. Applicant Cuevas stated he hopes to be using flat beds in the future, but currently he will only be using 2 tow trucks. Commissioner Eng asked if the parking lot is large enough for flatbed trucks. Applicant Cuevas replied yes, he hopes that it will fit in there, but they have another storage lot where they can be parked. He added that trucks will not remain in the storage lot as it is a 24 hour business and they need to be on the road. Commissioner Eng asked when cars usually get pick up when they have been impounded. Applicant Cuevas replied there is not a set time. Commissioner Eng asked if a customer arrives after office hours is there staff to assist them. Applicant Cuevas replied yes, but customers usually arrive during office hours because there is an additional gate fee if it atter office hours. Commissioner Eng asked if the gate is an automatic gate or a swing open type gate. Applicant Cuevas replied it is a swing open type. Commissioner Eng asked what the procedure is when a tow truck needs to enter the lot. Applicant Cuevas explained that the tow truck driver would call dispatch to let them know they are arriving and staff will let them in. Commissioner Eng asked if the trucks will be able to enter the parking lot with one turn. Applicant Cuevas replied it depends how large the vehicle is and where it needs to be parked. Commissioner Eng stated the width of the lot is 60 feet and asked what the turning radius the trucks will need is. Applicant Cuevas replied it is a light duty truck and is just like turning a pick-up. Commissioner Eng referred to the site plan and asked if the plan is to make turns at the rear of the property. Applicant Cuevas replied it depends where they are going to park the vehicle. Commissioner Eng asked what the noise level may be due to the chains being used. 7 Applicant Cuevas replied it depends on the tow truck operator and explained the operator can be very self- conscientious about the chain. He added the chain can be picked up and put into a box. He stated he will remind drivers to be careful. Commissioner Eng asked if the cars that are impounded are working cars not disabled cars. Applicant Cuevas replied yes,because there is no sense in towing something that will not be picked up. Commissioner Dang asked if there is an accident and there is a disabled car in the middle of the street,will they tow that car to their lot. Applicant Cuevas replied it depends on what time it is, if the car is going to the body shop, or if it is going to the customers home. He added it is up to the customer and it could go to his lot for various reasons to store. Commissioner Dang stated if there is an accident at 2:00 am, potentially you can go back to that lot,open the gate, unhitch, and leave the vehicle there overnight. He asked in terms of a 24 hour business this is a scenario that can happen. Applicant Cuevas replied yes. Commissioner Herrera asked what the required height of the wall in the rear of the property. Associate Planner Hanh replied the minimum is 6 feet and the maximum is 8 feet. Commissioner Herrera asked if currently it is the minimum of 6 feet all the way across. Associate Planner Hanh replied the applicant is looking into installing a new 8 feet tall block wall. Chair Tang asked the applicant how long he has been running his other location. Applicant Cuevas replied since"20081 . Chair Tang asked how much storage space is at that location. Applicant Cuevas replied 20,000 square feet. Chair Tang asked how many cars will fit on that lot in terms of storage. Applicant Cuevas replied that location can store about 25 cars. Chair Tang referred to the turn radius and asked if the lot is at its maximum of storage how would the trucks maneuver entering and exiting the lot. Applicant Cuevas replied that it is not likely it will be full at all. He added customers will be picking up their vehicles as (they don't sell anything). He state the majority of his business is motor club calls, AM, and the storage is for impounds and crash vehicles. Chair Tang asked why he asked for 5 vehicle storage spaces only and not more. Associate Planner Hanh replied because staff used'vehicle rental use" as the closest use in terms of parking and that requires 1 parking space for every 250 square feet. 8 City Attorney Murphy stated in essence because of the manner in which staff has interpreted the code for a use that is not specifically set-forth,a parking requirement has been put on the applicant that is very likely to be much more than possibly be required and the applicant is willing to work with staff on that. Chair Tang asked if there were any further questions for staff. None Chair Tang called Mr.Craig Denton to the podium. Resident Craig Denton stated he is the operator of the Del Rey Mobile Home Park and is here speaking on behalf of the senior citizens that reside in this mobile home park. He recommended to the Planning Commission that this Administrative Use Permit for Champ Towing be denied. He expressed that this business would be detrimental to their health, safety, and general welfare for these reasons: excessive noise, smelly exhaust fumes, powerful glaring lights, and it is a 24 hour operating business. He added the Del Rey Mobile Home Park has been housing seniors ages 55 and older for 27 years, most of the residents own their own mobile home, and the mobile homes back up to the lot where the tow business would operate. He added this mobile home park is the only one in the City of Rosemead for senior citizens and all the residents would be negatively affected by the noise impact. He stated most of the seniors have medical health issues that would be aggravated by the frequent loud piercing noises by the tow trucks, which are commercial trucks and are not designed to be quiet. He expressed concern of the availability of vehicles being released 24 hours, the noise of other tow truck companies that Mr. Cuevas cannot monitor, and the maneuvering of the tow trucks in the narrow driveway. Commissioner Eng asked Mr. Denton how many units the mobile home park has. Resident Denton replied 27 mobile homes and 7 house rentals. Commissioner Eng asked if they are all owner-occupied. Resident Denton replied they are all owner-occupied, he currently owns one,and he has plans to put a caretaker in it to maintain the property. Chair Tang asked staff how many tow trucks will this operation be allowed to have. Associate Planner Hanh replied they will be allowed to store 2 tow trucks on this site. Chair Tang asked if the applicant can have 3 trucks but they are only allowed to have 2 on the site. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Chair Tang asked what the time limitations for the trucks backing-up beeps. Associate Planner Hanh replied that the applicant has agreed to not use that function at all. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that is Condition of Approval number twenty-eight(28). Chair Tang thanked staff and called Sandra Loose to the podium. Resident Sandra Loose stated that the lot for this proposed business is a small narrow lot, which will make maneuverability of the tow trucks and vehicles difficult. She stated during this process of parking the vehicles the 9 back-up beeping noise, loud noises, and exhaust fumes will be just a few feet away from some of the senior's bedrooms. She added chains will be used to secure the vehicles and the chains raking over metal will create frequent noise also. She stated the additional noise will be from the hydraulics lifting vehicles, so they may be towed and idling of trucks.She expressed the exhaust fumes will also be hazardous and the glaring lights will also disturb the senior residents. She requested the Planning Commission deny Administrative Use Permit 15-03. Resident Helen Housley stated she has resided at this senior mobile home park for 36 years and the Denton's have taken very good care of this park, kept it safe for its residents for many years, and are very good managers/owners. She expressed that the 8-foot wall in the rear will be necessary because tow trucks are loud, noisy, fumed, and will be right next to 5-6 mobile homes in the rear of the park. She is also concerned that the applicant may decide to get dogs and that will be additional noise. She stated this is a very narrow lot and most of the work done by tow trucks is done backing up unless it is a big lot with a large turn-a-round. She expressed concern with why this business would want to be at this location when it will bother so many of the residents that have been there for many years and recommended another location would be better. She thanked the Planning Commission for all they do. Resident Brian Lewin stated that just because a use is assigned to a certain type of zone doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea for everywhere that zone exists. He stated that this is why this is an Administrative Use Permit and this is zoned for it, but it is not a good location for this use.He commented tow trucks are very loud, and they frequent a property near him where he can hear the chains, lifts, and everything through his double pane windows. He recommended that this type of business would be great if it was away from residential properties. He stated this could create traffic issues while trucks await entering and existing the lot because Garvey Avenue has a lot of traffic. He stated these trucks can come anytime during the day including rush hour. He asked that the Planning Commission consider that this is one of those cases where it is rightfully zoned for manufacturing but not this site. He thanked the Planning Commission. Resident Javier Magdaleno stated he is representing his mother that resides in the mobile home park in space no. 9. He referred to the 5-foot wall in the back of the lot and stated that the height is not very high with trucks will be backing up to it, and there are mobile homes directly on the other side. He added that the limit of tow trucks is 2 currently, but what if the business expands and the applicant request more trucks. He expressed concern with this type of business and does not want it in this neighborhood. Resident Marianne Crosby stated the main reason she moved to the Del Rey Mobile Park is because of the peace and quiet there. She expressed concern that this business will be bad for her health due to the fumes (as she has asthma), it will be noisy, and as you get older you do not want to deal with noise. She added she is worried because there are residents that reside here that are older with pulmonary/asthmatic conditions that will be also affected. She expressed that the Planning Commission reconsider this business and the applicant finds another location that will not cause stress to other people. Resident Jannette Schneider stated they have worked very hard at keeping the mobile home park quiet with the businesses that are right around it. She referred to the problem they had with the detail/auto painting shop and explained Quality Air Control would come out at 8:00 am(when the breeze wasn't blowing fumes there way) and then staff would check and not smell anything. She stated her concern is that testing and monitoring of noise may not be done at appropriate times or while the noise is there. She asked the City Attorney if this business will have a handicap parking stall. City Attorney Murphy replied yes. Resident Jannette Schneider referred to parking situations and asked if she would still be able to park on Garvey. She expressed concern with the upkeep of the property, and that the landlord has not done anything to 10 improve it. She expressed she does not sleep well, she lives in one of the mobile homes that is against the wall, if the wall is taller it will cut off her breeze,the noise will be loud,and recommended this business find a better location. Resident Peter Avila stated his mobile home is the closest at 3 feet away from the towing business. He added the fence will not do anything no matter how high it is and he would like to live his last years in peace. He thanked the Planning Commission. Resident Reverend Jiwan Hunter PH. D. stated he is 83 years old and has lived at this mobile home park for 12-13 years and would like to live there a little longer. He added it is a good place to live. He stated a towing business is noisy, the fence will not keep the noise or fumes away, and the applicant may have flatbed trucks in the future. He requested the Planning Commission not approve this item. Chair Tang asked if there were any further questions or comments from the public. None Chair Tang closed the Public Hearing. He asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions or comments. Commissioner Eng thanked the residents for attending this evening and their comments. She also thanked Mr. Cuevas. She stated she visited the mobile home park and it is very nice clean park and the residents are all happy. She stated that some of the noises that will be generated from this business are inevitable and recommended that this is not an appropriate use for this location. She encouraged Mr. Cuevas to work with staff to see if there is another location in Rosemead in the M-1 Zone that does not abut residential properties. She stated it is about the quality of life and the majority of this park is owner-occupied and not rental properties. Commissioner Herrera stated she is concerned that this is a 24-hour operation. She stated that maybe if this was a different type of business with limited hours with no evening hours or limited to 10:00 pm, then it might be more appropriate. She recommended the property owner update the property to encourage a different type of business to apply. She recommended that a tow truck business is not appropriate. Vice-Chair Lopez stated he is concerned for the community, the elderly, the noise, and the disruption of their lives. He stated he has lived in Rosemead since 1975 and he remembers the sweat shop. He addressed the owner/manager of the mobile home park and told them they have done a great job. He stated he does not support this business at this location. Commissioner Dang stated fumes have been discussed and expressed concern with fumes, odors, gasoline and engine fluids,which are potentially hazardous chemicals. He added those fluids will eventually saturate the soil, damage it, and contaminate the surrounding property. He stated that would lead to a particular concern that has not been discussed. lie referenced to Mr. Denton's comment about the CHP Memo,which stated any tow truck company may enter the subject site to tow vehicles away. He addressed Mr. Cuevas and stated that he may control his staff but he may not be able to control tow truck drivers from other companies going onto the site. Applicant Cuevas responded from the audience but it was not audible. Commissioner Dang responded to Mr. Cuevas comments and stated correct, he could tow it off the site, park it on the street, and a tow truck would hitch on. He stated that is one particular concern in that situation that Mr. Denton pointed out. He stated that he noticed the gate was located at the property line and asked if there had been any thought in moving the gate further back so that tow trucks would not be blocking the public right-a-way. He recommended that this is something to consider for future projects. 11 Chair Tang thanked the residents for taking the time to come out to speak on this matter. He also thanked Mr. Cuevas for wanting to expand his business in the City of Rosemead. He explained that there are a lot of potential businesses that would like to come into Rosemead but unfortunately the way the City is structured with residential homes abutting businesses makes it difficult and the Planning Commission is faced with this challenge often at public meetings.He stated that the Planning Commission tries it's best to make mitigations so that the disruption is not so prevalent to the community, but the quality of life is an issue here. He stated the residents have been here for a while, this is where they live,this is their homes, and the issues here can negatively impact and affect their homes/community. He addressed the applicant and stated it is not that he does not want his business in Rosemead but the properties are too close together to avoid any disruption and agrees with the Planning Commission that this location may not be appropriate for this business. He agrees with Commissioner Eng and recommended that the applicant work with staff to find a better location. Community Development Director Ramirez stated based on the recommendation that has been given,that this public hearing be continued to the Planning Commission meeting to be held on Monday, February 1, 2016. She stated staff then can bring back a denial for Administrative Use Permit(AUP)15-03. City Attorney Murphy stated this can be done in two ways: (1)continue this hearing until February 1, 2016 and direct staff to bring back a resolution of denial, or(2)the Planning Commission can vote now to deny the project and direct that the resolution of denial be brought back for approval at such time as staff can bring it back and it would on the Consent Calendar. He added the time limit for the appeal period would be at the time of the approval of the denial of the resolution. Community Development Director Ramirez state whichever route the Planning Commission would like to go, staff will bring this item back to the Planning Commission meeting to be held on Monday, February 1,2016. Commissioner Eng stated that she recommends no further discussion is necessary and she would like to make a motion to deny the approval of Administrative Use 15-03. City Attorney Murphy requested that Commissioner Eng amend the motion to include directing staff to bring forth the appropriate resolution of denial based on the Planning Commission comment's this evening. Commissioner Eng amended her motion. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the item will also be brought back under the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lopez to ADOPT Resolution No. 15-22 with findings and APPROVE Administrative Use Permit 15-03,subject to the thirty(30)conditions outlined. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dang, Eng, Herrera,Lopez,and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. She explained there is usually a 10-day appeal process but because this item will be brought back on Monday, February 1,2016 the 10-day appeal process will be explained at that time. 12 City Attorney Murphy explained that this item will be brought back under the Consent Calendar so if the applicant does not wish to attend the meeting,the Community Development Director or staff member will contact them the next day to let them know what action the Planning Commission took. Community Development Director Ramirez let the audience know that this item will be brought back on Monday, February 1, 2016. She added there will not be a Public Hearing Notice and this agenda item will be under the Consent Calendar. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-05 - Christina Lin submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to establish a religious assembly use at 2739 Stingle Avenue.The existing building consists of 3,396 square feet of floor area. The proposed project would not add any new floor area to the property. The subject property is located in the C-3D RC-MUDO (Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development and Design Overlays)zone. PC RESOLUTION 15-21 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-05, TO ESTABLISH A RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY USE AT 2739 STINGLE AVENUE (APN: 5282- 009-007). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE C-3D RC-MUDO (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH RESIDENTIALICOMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAYS)ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 15-21 with findings (Exhibit "A"), and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 15-05, subject to the twenty-nine (29) conditions. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. Chair Tang asked the Planning Commission if there were any comments or questions for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if the tenant improvements are to remodel the interior and exterior painting. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if the assembly area is 884 square feet and how many people will it accommodate. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes, and the applicant is proposing there will be six(6)people per room. Commissioner Eng asked if that was the meditation room. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if the other room is open space. Associate Planner Hanh replied there are six(6) seats in the meditation room and six (6) seats in the adjacent assembly room. Commissioner Eng stated she will have the applicant clarify the question. She referred to the Conditions of Approval and asked why there is not a condition regarding special events and if the applicant is not anticipating any events. Associate Planner Hanh replied that question can be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Eng asked if there are hours of operation. 13 Associate Planner Hanh replied they are 9:00 am to 6:00 pm daily. Vice-Chair Lopez asked what was the previous use. Associate Planner Hanh replied it was a Day Care. Commissioner Lopez commented but it was not audible. Commissioner Dang referred to the colors being used and asked if the applicant submitted an elevation with a coloring scheme. He added he does not know what Sheer Apricot and Red Chipotle look like. Associate Planner Hanh replied no, he did not receive a colored elevation. Commissioner Dang stated he will ask the applicant. Associate Planner Hanh offered to bring that color at a later date. Commissioner Dang stated he would like to see not only the colors with the elevation but he would also like to see a rendering. Chair Tang asked if this building was just sold or is this new lease. Associate Planner Hanh replied he does not have that information. Chair Tang stated he had a question in regards to the colors and wanted to see a rendering to have a visual of how the building will fit within the community. He referred to special events and asked it there will be any and if any mitigation measures were made in regards to traffic and parking. City Attorney Murphy stated that parking lots are overfilled at special holiday times no matter what the religion is. He added a religious use must be treated by the City similar to any other assembly use,so all of the same standards that apply to assembly use have to be applied to the religious use. He stated that under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person's Act, the City would have to be a little more favorable to a religious use than to an nonreligious assembly use. He stated that he approves the conditions of approval that have been drafted and that they treat this proposed use as an assembly use and treat it fairly in respect to the way the City regulates assembly uses within the City. He stated if there are specific questions let him know, but when it comes to parking, you cannot require more parking for a religious site than you would require for a nonreligious site such as a movie theatre, that could have long lines with people waiting to see a movie. He stated he understands the Planning Commissions concerns but there are legal issues involved and he can help guide them through them. Commissioner Dang asked if frequent religious activities are allowed in the courtyard. He expressed concern that parking may be affected due to outdoor events. Associate Planner Hanh replied according to the Zoning Code the amount of parking required is determined by the floor area of the assembly use. He added the area outdoors would not be considered floor area. Commissioner Dang stated going with that concept is there anything in the Municipal Code that requires all activities be carried out within the building. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no. 14 Chair Tang asked if there were any other questions or comments for staff. None Chair Tang opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Applicant Christina Lin stated her facility is more like a retreat center that studies Buddhism and meditates. They don't burn incense and most of the people that attend are very quiet (wanting body, mind, and spirit balance). She added seniors also attend, it is very peaceful, they are not into special events, have more parking space than they can use,and can share the parking with their neighbors to help the community. Commissioner Eng asked the applicant if she was the property owner. Applicant Lin replied no,she is a full-time volunteer and Board Member. Commissioner Eng asked if the Board recently acquire this property and do they own it. Applicant Lin replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked what inspired the location for this Temple because this area is very industrial and usually they are in residential areas for residents in the area and who will this Temple serve. Applicant Lin replied it has been helpful to her because she likes to study Buddhism, mediation has calmed her, and she has been able to help more people. Commissioner Eng stated that around New Year's the Buddhist Temples get very festive and asked if this facility will have plans to offer this type of festivities. Applicant Lin replied no, they may be closed for Chinese New Year and people may go elsewhere. She stated they are really not a Temple and more of a retreat. Vice-Chair Lopez asked how many people at any given time will be using the facility for meditation. Applicant Lin replied maybe six(6)people during the week and maybe fifteen(15) people on Saturday and Sundays. Vice-Chair Lopez asked usually there is never more than that. Applicant Lin replied she hopes there is more than that. Commissioner Dang asked Ms. Lin what are the plans for the outdoor area that is being resurfaced. Applicant Lin replied meditate outdoors and walking in the yard. Commissioner Dang asked if there are plans to put statues outdoors for praying. Applicant Lin replied no. Commissioner Dang expressed that the operation of this building sounds more like a school, where people are coming to study, mediate, and then go home. Applicant Lin stated the main goal for them is to study Buddhism/Meditation. 15 Commissioner Dang asked if there is anyone that sleeps over in the building. Applicant Lin replied only the Master sleeps overnight in the building. Commissioner Dang asked if people arrive at 8:00 am. Applicant Lin replied they will actually start around 10:00 am. Commissioner Dang asked what time does the Temple close. Applicant Lin replied it will close around 5:00 or 6:00 pm. Commissioner Dang asked staff what are the parking requirements for a school. He also asked Ms. Lin if children attended the Temple. Applicant Lin replied no. Associate Planner Hanh replied the parking requirements vary on the type of school. Commissioner Dang asked what the parking requirement for a retreat is. Associate Planner Hanh replied it is one(1)space per two(2)students plus one(1)space per employee. Commissioner Herrera asked if there will be any traffic issues such as off-site parking and congestion. Applicant Lin replied no. Chair Tang asked staff if the use will be open seven(7)days a week. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Chair Tang asked Ms. Lin where her colleagues and she currently do their studying. Applicant Lin replied currently they are doing it at home. Chair Tang asked if there is a part of day where it is busiest when people come. Applicant Lin replied no. Chair Tang asked if there is a particular time of the year that a lot of people attend. Applicant Lin replied no. Chair Tang asked for clarification if the Temple is just studying Buddhism and meditating like a school and they are not burning incense or praying. Applicant Lin replied yes. Chair Tang invited anyone wishing to speak on this item to the podium. 16 Business owner Edmund Cheng stated he owns a building near this location and he is present this evening to obtain information and asked if the zoning is permissible for this use. He also asked if this use is approved as a Temple currently and in the future if a different type of religious use wants to come in will they have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval. He expressed that this is not a good location for this establishment because traffic and parking is a concern also. He recommended that the City reconfigure the end of the street into River Street for easier access. He stated he would like to know if this use will be serving lunches or dinners, or how many members they have, he also heard this use was based from Northern California, and they may not have many members now but in the future they may. Resident needed Vietnamese/Cantonese interpreter (Associate Planner Hanh interpreted in Cantonese) stated that this resident says hello and he resides at 2731 Stingle Avenue. He expressed that this location is not an appropriate place for a Temple. He stated that there are a lot of Temples in the City of Rosemead and this would not be beneficial to the City. He also stated there may be a traffic concern because there is a T-Intersection, a traffic signal is not located there, and as the Temple grows it may create more traffic and traffic concerns. He expressed that there is no control over how much this Temple may grow, no way of capping the amount of people that may visit the temple,and there is no way of knowing how many people will attend. He stated there may be only six (6) people visiting at first,there is no way of knowing how many will visit in the future,and both good and bad people may attend this Temple. He stated that he does not know how the Planning Commission feels about this item but he opposes it. Resident Brian Lewin referred to Condition of Approval number nineteen (19) and recommended that opaque self- latching doors are not included and that the Planning Commission include this into the standard requirement. Commissioner Herrera asked staff if in the future if another religious assembly applies what the maximum capacity is. Community Development Director Ramirez stated whenever a new establishment applies they would have to meet the existing conditions of approval or they would have to request an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. She explained that if another religious assembly use wanted to apply they could, but they would also have to meet the conditions of approval. She added that the maximum occupancy level is established by the Building and Safety Department and does not have any information on how that is established. Commissioner Herrera stated so the maximum occupancy load is not available and the room is small she understands why the residents are concerned. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that the Fire Department may be called to investigate to see if the maximum occupancy load has been or is exceeded. City Attorney Murphy addressed three conditions of approval and read the last sentence of Condition of Approval number one (1) which states, "Any revisions to the approved floor plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division", he stated those plans are marked as Exhibit"B",which shows the floor plan of the site. He added,so whomever it may be the current applicant or any future person that assumes the site and wants to make changes to the interior will have to resubmit to the Planning Division. He referred to Condition of Approval number twenty-eight (28)which states, "Floor area for assembly use shall not exceed 900 square feet", so to the extent that any religious use be it this one or another one the growing congregation they would not essentially exceed a 30x30 room in which to have their assemblies. He stated that alone would limit the number of people that can show up at any time for assembly use. He referred to Condition of Approval number eight(8)and read, "the City and its Planning Commission and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use.", he recommended to the Planning Commission that they not put a number of people involved or a number of people who can be allowed on site at the Planning Commission level because it could put the City in First Amendment and Religious Land Use issues. He stated that the 17 circumstances that have been proposed by the applicant and the circumstances the Planning Commission would be approving would allow under Condition of Approval number eight(8) if this expands to a point that it is not incapable to the neighborhood, then staff could bring it back for a modification or revocation can move forward. He read the last sentence of Condition of Approval number eight (8), stated this is a special condition,addressed the Planning Commission, and stated to the extent of their concern of an expansion or enlargement of this particular congregation above what can be done or reasonably be done at the site with those three conditions of approval should give them some comfort. Commissioner Dang referred to Ms. Lin's testimony that this is more like a school, read the summary of the staff report, and stated that if the summary was changed to read school instead of religious assembly, then it would prevent another religious use (for example a Mormon Church), because it would be locked into a school use and it would not be a religious assembly use. He asked City Attorney Murphy if he was correct in that interpretation. City Attorney Murphy replied he has not looked at the Municipal Code enough to walk through this. He added this item can be continued to a date certain but what he has heard from the applicant is that this would be similar to a school use but they have applied for a religious assembly use,so if changes are made that is something staff and the applicant will have to work on and to tailor the conditions of approval for that kind of change. He stated he would have to get into the legal interpretation of what the study of meditation would entail to see if that would be more properly entertained as a religious assembly or school. Chair Tang asked staff if Brian Lewin's comment needs to be addressed. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, and referred to Condition of Approval number twenty (20) and stated it can be expanded to state, "A solid roof shall be added to the existing trash enclosure as well as self- closing doors." She added staff can work on that. Carmen Gao stated she is representing the businesses located on Stingle Avenue and expressed her main concern is that is a busy street and with parking issues. She added this type of use will not necessarily fit into this area because it is primarily an industrial area with many businesses that are factories or car repairs and have been there 10-20 years. She added that the applicant is stating there will be only six members at a time but she is skeptical and feels it will grow in membership because this is a large organization that is based currently in San Francisco. Inez Cheng stated she is a manager of one of the businesses located at 2727 Stingle Ave. She stated one of her concerns is that she had not been properly notified of this meeting and the only way she found out was through a poster posted on the property. She stated other concerns are that most of the businesses owners do not speak English, parking is a concern because it is a cul-de-sac, and there are a lot of car repair shops using the street as part of their business. She stated there have been tenants that have left and moved to other cities because parking was an issue. She stated another concern is because they are a cul-de-sac they continually have their trash bins taken advantage of and they have had to pay extra to the trash company to put locks on them. She expressed that the previous business, which was a preschool,was complimentary to the neighborhood but the Temple is being sort of vague is it going to be a school or temple,who is attending children or adults. Community Development Director Ramirez stated there has been a lot of confusion with this use with the term of school. She requested that the applicant be asked to clarify this because it was explained to staff that this is a religious assembly,they will be studying their religious belief just like bible study,and she stated it is not a school. Chair Tang invited the applicant to the podium so they may address that clarification. Owner Xuehui Yang stated her English is not very good and asked Christina Lin to help her translate.She stated they do have a large Temple based in San Francisco and they decided to open another facility to train people but it is 18 not like a school on a fixed schedule. She explained people will come on their own time so they will open early in the morning and close in the late afternoon.She explained in Chinese what the Temple will be doing. Ms. Christina Lin translated for Ms.Yang that the Temple is offering a religion to comfort and help people. Owner Xuehui Yang stated any religion like Buddhism or Christian help and teaches people. She added they do not currently have many members, parking should not be an issue, and they will be helping people. She stated daily activities will include meditation and listening to the Master. Commissioner Eng asked what domination of Buddhism is this Temple associated with. She also asked how does this Temple advertise and reach out to followers. She understands that the San Francisco Temple is International and requested a brief history of their Temple. Owner Xuehui Yang replied what type of Buddhist but it was not audible and they do not like to advertise. She stated they still have the large Temple in San Francisco and some of their followers go back and forth with some being regular members. Commissioner Eng asked how big the facility/property in San Francisco is. Owner Xuehui Yang replied but it was not audible. Commissioner Eng asked how many people attend that facility. Owner Xuehui Yang replied there are about 100 people that attend. She explained that they do not hold assembly very often,they only hold them a few times a year and listen to the Dharma and meditate. Commissioner Eng asked when the Dharma is there how people may attend the Temple in San Francisco. Owner Xuehui Yang replied 80-100 people attend. Commissioner Eng asked if the Dharma will visit this location once you are established. Owner Xuehui Yang replied no. Commissioner Eng referred to the University of the West, which teaches Buddhism, and asked if their philosophy is different than theirs. Owner Xuehui Yang replied the basics are pretty much the same except they are just a group and not a university. Commissioner Eng asked why they picked the City of Rosemead. Owner Xuehui Yang replied that in Chinese"Rosemead"means soft, beautiful,sweet,and they liked the name. Chair Tang asked how they get people to want to come to their facility, participate in their studies, and be in their retreat since they are based in San Francisco and you don't want to advertise. Owner Xuehui Yang replied they currently have regulars that attend and they refer their facility to their friends. Commissioner Herrera stated that currently the use looks nice, is small, peaceful,and has a nice philosophy but her concern is that in the future it may change its use or to a different religious assembly with the possibility that it may 19 expand and create traffic/parking concerns. She added that is why she was asking what the maximum capacity will be. Commissioner Eng asked if previous approved religious assemblies have been required to obtain Special Event Permits. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes and explained any large event meeting the requirements (regardless of religion, organization,or resident)would have to obtain a Special Event Permit. Chair Tang asked if there were any further questions or comments from the audience. Timothy Yao resident from El Monte stated he does not know what the logic is of placing a religious assembly on this street because most of the businesses are auto repair shops. He expressed that the noise coming from the auto repair shops could be an interference with the Temple's practice. Chair Tang closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if there were any further comments or questions. Commissioner Eng asked City Attorney Murphy if it was allowed to put a condition of approval in place that if this religious assembly were to hold an event that it would be required to obtain a Special Event Permit. City Attorney Murphy replied that can be viewed overly harshly whereas the Chair Tang has hinted,the law requires a Special Events Permit under certain circumstances regardless and if it is added it could lead to some troubles. Commissioner Eng asked City Attorney Murphy if the Planning Commission can deny the issuance of this permit because of incompatible use,even though it is a permitted use within the Municipal Code with fair operational standards. City Attorney Murphy replied that the Planning Commission would have to make a finding and referred to page four (4) of the staff report and stated the Planning Commission would have to find and read, 'Approval of the application will not be incompatible or injurious to other properties or land uses in the vicinity or create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare." He stated if the Planning Commission is going in the direction of a denial based on these kinds of findings, then similar concerns would have to be spoken on the record by each of the Planning Commissioners looking to deny this project. Chair Tang asked City Attorney Murphy based on the feedback that the Planning Commission has heard from the applicant is the right characterization of religious assembly correct for this application. City Attorney Murphy replied based on what he has heard he would continue to characterize this as religious assembly, however if the Planning Commission would like the best possible answer, he recommends continuing this item to a date certain such as February 1, 2016 or the first meeting in March because it would give staff time to research this,talk to the applicant,and be completely sure. Vice-Chair Lopez comments was not audible. Commissioner Herrera stated zoning is a good point and that this area is not zoned as residential. Chair Tang asked for clarification if a mixed-use is classified as residential/commercial. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it is zoned mixed-use, but the applicant is proposing commercial use. 20 Commissioner Dang stated he agrees with Vice-Chair Lopez analysis on traffic. He added comments about traffic from other businesses on the street and people using the street to park non-operable cars while doing auto repair on site, should not be a burden to this applicant because they are not responsible for those issues and they should not be held accountable. He also stated he also sees the future concerns that Commissioner Herrera commented on with this being titled as an religious assembly and if the applicant moves other religions may come in. He stated for example the outdoor area, in granting this as a religious assembly, it does not prohibit other denominations from using this court area. He said so, just from a purely life safety fire protection analysis of the building he recommended putting in some numbers the building code requires 1 per 15 square feet per person, so if you take this courtyard area and divide it by 15 you get a lot of people. He stated this applicant is stating they are not using this courtyard for any religious purpose and will be used for exercising and will be going back into the building for meditation and studying. He added because this room is so small for 420 square feet and divide this by 15 you will not get assembly occupancy in this building and the Building Official will tag this as a "B" occupancy, which can be confirmed by the Building Official. He stated lastly, after hearing this testimony he feels it is a center of learning and it doesn't matter if it's learning Buddhism or rock climbing, it is still a center of focus, they are teaching them material after that from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, and then they go home. He stated it is not like a religious assembly like a church where you go every Sunday, congregate, have a large mass, and then you would go home. He added it is not a weekly occurrence, which in his mind is an assembly. He stated it is a place of learning and referred to the parking standards and stated if he is correct it would require 7 parking spaces for a learning facility. He added they are providing 12 cars and that is the first point, the second point is this particular operation should be less intense than a daycare and because there are not any kids they would reduce the traffic demand. He recommended that it be kept as a learning facility you would not have to worry about future religious institutions coming in and changing the operation of this property and if it is approved as a school it would remain a school and if a future religious assembly wanted to come in they could not because the Planning Commission would be approving a school. Chair Tang stated he would like to address Commissioner Herrera and Dang's comments about future use after this applicant moves on. He stated the Planning Commission is satisfied with the reconfiguration under Condition of Approval number eight (8), or an alteration of its use staff can still bring it brought back to the Planning Commission for revisions. He asked if this is correct and it would come back to the Planning Commission for approval. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it would have to come back because the Conditional Use Permit is being amended and that would have to happen before the Planning Commission. Chair Tang referred to the courtyard and read Condition of Approval number twenty-eight(28) and asked if it needs to add to that condition that it specifies that it needs to be within the four(4)walls of that properly. City Attorney Murphy replied that may be a good place to work in what Commissioner Eng had discussed. He stated if the Planning Commission is going to base it on the applicant's own representation that there won't be assembly outdoors, but just the exercise that was spoken of, it could be the will of the Planning Commission to say that, "Floor area for assembly use should not exceed 900 square feet. If the outdoor area is to be used for assembly use an additional permit may be required'. He stated the wording of the permit will be left to the Community Development Director. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that would be fine. Chair Tang stated he likes that amendment and confirmed that it was satisfactory with Commissioner Eng. City Attorney Murphy stated Condition of Approval number twenty-eight (28) would be amended to state, "If any outdoor area is to be used for assembly use an additional permit would be required to obtain from the Community Development Department, such permit may be conditioned based upon the nature of the assembly'. He explained that way the department staff may deal with traffic and other related issues that arise over time. 21 Commissioner Dang asked City Attorney Murphy if the term "assembly use" have to reside underneath a root or does it have to be inside a building or can this assembly use be applied inside the courtyard area where there is not a roof. City Attorney Murphy replied that the way he currently reads the condition, floor area is defined under the Municipal Code as internal area, so as of now assembly use is internally and is 900 square feet. He added the modifications to Condition of Approval number twenty-eight(28)that he has read into the record saying that outdoor assembly would not be allowed without additional permits. He stated that he is satisfied that there would not be any kind of outdoor assembly without special permits,there would be outdoor activity,but not outdoor assembly. Commissioner Dang asked if it would provide clarity if the outdoors area be defined as for accessory recreational use and if it would be required. City Attorney Murphy advised the Planning Commission to be careful because someone will be living on the site and that person living on site would have to use the site as any resident would use their own property. He advised keeping it as group assembly and not allowing group assembly without additional permits. He added if it does start to happen on a regular basis staff will notice that a modification or expansion of the use and bring this back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Eng stated that is a good guideline and the applicant should be asked if they are agreeable to this amendment to this Condition of Approval. Chair Tang requested applicant Ms.Christina Lin come up to the podium so that the Planning Commission may explain the amendment to Condition of Approval number twenty-eight(28). Community Development Director Ramirez explained to Ms. Lin that if there is any outdoor assembly with multiple people, it will be required that they have to come to City Hall and apply for an special permit with the Community Development Department. Applicant Christina Lin replied she is agreeable to that. City Attorney Murphy stated individual activity would be allowed and assembly with people gathering in numbers would trigger it and would begin to fall into the parking requirement. He stated people gathering in numbers would begin to look like an assembly and would then require the additional permit or lead into a modification. Community Development Director Ramirez explained to the applicant that would not affect them going out and doing the exercising they were talking about. Commissioner Dang addressed Chair Tang and asked if the building code can dictate that number, for instance people that normally work and meditate within the building; those people will be the maximum number that will exercise in this court area. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that Commissioner Dang would like a building occupancy number. Commissioner Dang stated that is correct and the person inside will not be counted twice. Chair Tang asked if there is a separate capacity limit for indoors or outdoors. Commissioner Dang replied yes and explained that outdoors is 1 person per 15 square feet but if you use the one for indoors the number is drastically less. He added that can be confirmed by the building official. 22 City Attorney Murphy stated he does not see that condition of approval being a problem, but writing it this evening is, so this is something the Planning Commission will be asked to direct staff to bring back a modified resolution on February 1, 2016 and leave the Public Hearing open so the Planning Commission can discuss and modify the language if it is needed at that time,but it will not be under the Consent Calendar where there is no discussion. Commissioner Dang requested that the rendering be brought back on February 1,2016 also. Chair Tang explained to the applicant that the City Attorney will include language to match or limit the maximum occupancy limit to the indoors of the building to the outside courtyard and to hold this item open until the February 1, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. He asked the applicant if she is agreeable to this. Applicant Lin took a minute to discuss it with the owner. Associate Planner Hanh asked when speaking of matching the maximum occupancy are you referring to the building as a whole or just the assembly areas. Commissioner Tang replied it should be the building as a whole because you have office areas with administrative staff that is not meditating. Chair Tang apologized to the applicant and explained that the City Attorney will be writing a condition of approval, so the recommendation is to bring this to the next Planning Commission meeting on February 1, 2016. Applicant Christina Lin asked if this will take another month and can they use the facility currently. Chair Tang replied it will take about a month and they cannot use the facility currently. He stated he appreciates the local businesses coming out and voicing their opinions and he understands their traffic/parking concerns, but he does not feel that street parking is a sufficient concern because street parking is public parking and you cannot willfully deny an applicant because the street parking is being taken up. He addressed the concerns and comments with this use not being compatible operation in this area and stated if any other businesses were to apply the same concerns would be brought up and he does not feel those concerns are sufficient enough to deny this use. He referred to Vice- Chair Lopez comments and that there was a childcare facility there previously and the traffic was just as equivalent as this operation would be. He stated those are his comments and requested a motion from the Planning Commission. City Attorney Murphy stated the motion will be to Continue this item open to the February 1, 2016 Planning Commission meeting and for staff to take the direction given by the Planning Commission so far and return with a modified Resolution for approval. Vice-Chair Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 15-21 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 15-05,subject to the twenty-nine(29)conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dang,Eng,Herrera,Lopez,and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes 5 to 0 and this item will be Continued until Monday, February 1,2016. 23 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Community Development Director Ramirez stated there are no items under the Consent Calendar. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced the date, time, and location of the Joint Workshop with the City Council, Planning Commission, and Traffic Commission. She also reminded the Planning Commission that the January 18, 2016 Planning Commission will be cancelled due to lack of quorum and City Hall will be closed for the Martin Luther King Holiday. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Dang expressed concern with fencing requirements. He read the Municipal Code regarding fencing height requirements,shared photographs of fencing with the Planning Commission, and asked if the 4-feet tall requirement is from the inside or outside of the properly. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that the Zoning Code states that it is 4-feet from the property side not from the public right-a-way. Commissioner Dang stated if that is the case, then there will be a series of very tall 6-foot fences because of the slope and the way the Zoning Code reads it is ground elevation or finished grade. He questioned if there is an definition of ground elevation in the Zoning Code. Community Development Director Ramirez replied this is a concern that Commissioner Dang has presented to her previously and she spoke with the Building Official who informed her it is finished grade. City Attorney Murphy stated he would have to speak with the Building Official to confirm and if the Planning Commission as a whole would like to discuss this item, then it would be agenized as a non-public hearing item on a future agenda. He added if the Planning Commission finds that after discussing this item and would like to recommend changing or resetting the height measurement in the Zoning Code,then it would be recommended to the City Council. He stated the City Council would then give direction to staff to move forward because as a policy matter the City wants to make that change. He recommended this not be discussed in further in depth because staff would like to see this a pad of a noticed agenda and with all the necessary information. He stated if the Planning Commission would like to discuss this on a future agenda to please give direction to the Community Development Director. Commissioner Herrera asked if a permit is required for erecting a upfront slump stone with rod iron fence. Community Development Director Ramirez replied all fencing requires approval from staff and will require their plans be approved at the Community Development counter. She explained that the picture provided this evening was not approved by staff and not brought forth to the Community Development for prior approval. She also stated a "CRM" may be inputted so that staff may investigate,and address this concern. Commissioner Eng commented but it was not audible. City Attorney Murphy stated a voice vote would be necessary to bring this back as a formal agenda item. 24 Chair Tang stated he is in favor of that motion He also commented that in the City of Rosemead there are a lot of elevated properties and if this is taken in as a consideration for a policy matter,then consideration be taken that it could possibly affect all those property owners. Commissioner Eng expressed that this would be a good thing and will provide more clarity as a whole. Vice-Chair Lopez expressed that you never know if the slope is being built up by the resident or is it a natural slope. Commissioner Dang stated Commissioner Lopez brings up a good point. Chair Tang stated a motion has been made and seconded by Commissioner Dang to bring this item back at a later date. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated this motion passes with a 5- 0 vote and will be brought before the Planning Commission at the second Planning Commission meeting in March. Chair Tang requested that the Building Official attend that meeting and it be added to the motion. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:57 pm. The next regular Planning Commission meeting to be held on Monday,January 18,2016,at 7:00 p.m.will be Cancelled due to City Hall being closed in observation of the Martin Luther King Jr.Holiday and the next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Mond. February 1,2016. air John .ng _ Chair ATT,.,T:/ / a Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 25