Loading...
PC - Minutes - 03-21-16 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 21,2016 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Tang at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers, 8838 E.Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-Commissioner Eng INVOCATION-Commissioner Lopez ROLL CALL-Commissioners Deng, Eng, Herrera,Vice-Chair Lopez and Chair Tang STAFF PRESENT - City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, City Planner Valenzuela, Assistant Planner Lao, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 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 A. DESIGN REVIEW 15-06 - Vinh Tran has submitted an application for a Design Review requesting to construct a new 2,818 square feet two-story single-family dwelling unit with an attached three-car garage. Any new dwelling unit to be constructed that equals or exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of developed living area shall be subject to a discretionary Site Plan and Design Review. The subject property is located at 8917 Newby Avenue (APN: 5391-011-034) and in the R-2 (Light Multiple Residential)zone. PC RESOLUTION 16-04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 15- 06, PERMITTING A NEW 2,818 SQUARE FEET TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT WITH AN ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 8917 NEWBY AVENUE (APN:5391-011-034), IN THE R-2(LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL)ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 16- 04 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 15-06,subject to the 23 conditions of approval. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Chair Tang asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng thanked staff for including the floor plan in the staff report. Chair Tang stated there are no further questions for staff, opened the Public Hearing, and called the applicant to the podium. 1 Robert Tobin from Tobin Construction stated he is the contractor for this project. He stated this is a basic home and will be an improvement in this neighborhood. Commissioner Eng stated this will be the first two-story home on this block. She stated that she likes the location of the two-story addition being placed towards the back of the property and asked if this was a conscience decision. Robert Tobin replied no, it is a standard building design. Commissioner Dang referred to the chimney on the rendering, how it projects vertically, and stated he understands there is a mechanical code requirement that states it needs to be elevated 2 feet above anything combustible within 10 feet. He asked if a direct vent was installed would that requirement still be required. Robert Tobin replied no. Commissioner Dang stated he thought that requirement was only for wood burning fireplaces. Robin Tobin stated wood burning fireplaces are no longer allowed in the Los Angeles County. He asked Commissioner Dang if he was leading to reducing the height of the fireplace. Commissioner Dang replied yes. Robert Tobin explained the problem with reducing the height of the chimney is there are windows on that side and you have to keep the smoke away from the windows. Vice-Chair Lopez asked what is done structurally for a free standing chimney like that to make it earthquake proof. Robert Tobin explained that the chimney base is wide, it flutes up, it will have a massive footing at the bottom, and will have shear panels with hold-downs all the way around it to the top. Commissioner Eng asked what the width of the fireplace is. Robert Tobin replied it is 5 feet wide at the base and the top is 3 feet. Commissioner Eng asked the measurement of the windows located on the same side of the chimney. Robert Tobin replied the windows are the standard egress size,small, and trimmed nicely. Chair Tang commented this is a nice design and asked if the three-car garage is going to be located towards the front of the property. Robert Tobin replied yes. Commissioner Dang asked if the entire driveway will be stamped concrete. Robert Tobin replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked what type of water healer will be installed. Robert Tobin replied it will be a tank less exterior water heater. Commissioner Eng asked where it will be placed. 2 Robert Tobin replied it will be placed on the West side and will not be visible from the street. Chair Tang asked if there were any further comments or questions. None Chair Tang closed the public hearing and asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions or comments for staff. None Chair Tang asked for a motion. Vice-Chair Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 16-04 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 15-06,subject to the 23 conditions of approval. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera,Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with the vote of 5 Ayes 0 Noes and explained the 10-day appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced the date, time, and location of the City of Rosemead "Easter Egg-stravaganza". 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS A. Lot Coverage and Fence Height Chair Tang stated Item 6A will be presented first. City Planner Valenzuela stated that at the Planning Commission meeting held on Monday, January 4, 2016, Commissioner Dang requested that two code sections relating to lot coverage and fence height be discussed at a future Planning Commission meeting. She presented a power point presentation to the Planning Commission to help clarify lot coverage and fencing requirements. After the presentation she asked if the Planning Commissioners had any questions in regards to fencing. Commissioner Eng asked in regards to fencing when there is a combination of rod iron on top of stones or stucco, when is it determined that it is a retaining wall instead of a design element. 3 City Planner Valenzuela replied it is a retaining wall when there is landscaping or a planter and when water needs to be retained on the property. Vice-Chair Lopez stated so the foundation is not taken into consideration and it is just the retaining wall portion of it because there is another 18 inches of foundation below that retaining wall. City Planner Valenzuela replied that is correct. Chair Tang stated there are a lot of properties that have retaining walls because their homes sit at an elevated grade. He added the retaining wall purpose is meant to make sure the structure of the home is not compromised. Commissioner Eng asked technically if a front yard is not wanted a retaining wall may still be necessary. City Planner Valenzuela stated that is correct and that is the reason you see a 2 or 3 foot block walls throughout the City. She added those are retaining walls. Vice-Chair Lopez asked what happens when you have a slope front and the higher portion goes down to the lower portion, and you want to put a wall in,which grade will you use the high end. City Planner Valenzuela replied they look at the finished grade from the house itself. Chair Tang referred to page 3, of Article 4, 17.68.050, Retaining Walls and read Section's B & C and asked for clarification on what the maximum height is. City Planner Valenzuela replied the staff report is correct and it is 4 feet and she meant it as 3 or 4 feet. Chair Tang asked if at grade level measurement is considered from where the homeowner's property line is. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if a lot of other cities require retaining walls. City Planner Valenzuela replied all cities probably do if you have some kind of landscape or planter. Commissioner Dang referred to Article 2, page 17, read conditions (J and 3) and commented even if the homeowner wanted to propose 4 foot it would require a Design Review. City Planner Valenzuela stated staff discussed this with the Building Official and he did not consider this a fill. Commissioner Dang stated he would like to make a note that when zoning is discussed he does not see how the Building Official fits into the zoning laws. He added the purpose of the Building Official is for safety, he does not take into account of neighborhood compatibility, how the neighbor is going to be impacted, and stressed that when it comes to zoning requirements staff should not hang their hat on the Building Official's determination. He added however, it could be used as some kind of rational recommendation, but staff should not hang their hats on the Building Official, especially if he is not present to defend that finding. Community Development Director Ramirez addressed the Planning Commission and reported the Building Official was to be present this evening and she does not know why he is not. Commissioner Eng stated she shares Commissioner Dang's point on that and there are distinct roles for Building and Planning. She added Building looks at mechanical, function, and safety where Planning looks at design 4 standards. She stated that Building is not equipped or has the tools to look at the design standards because that is not their job/role. Commissioner Dang passed out an Exhibit(pictures of an elevated wall),which he passed out at the January 4, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Community Development Director stated the pictures need to be available to the public also. Chair Tang asked what the difference is between a fill that would raise a building pad or the front yard elevation verses an existing home which is already elevated from the street level. Commissioner Dang referred to the front page Exhibit A and Exhibit B, and stated Exhibit B is the prior condition. Exhibit A is when the new ownership moved in and elevated the front wall, then they backfilled it creating a fence that is more than 4 feet from the sidewalk. He added this is an impact to the neighborhood, which again the Building Official does not take that into consideration when he makes a definition. Chair Tang stated he understands what Commissioner Dang is trying to relay, but when he looks at the property and as it gets closer to the sidewalk it does slope down. He added in this case, when staff looks at whether the fence falls within the code, he asked if it is measured from the grade level from where the home is to make sure it meets the maximum of 4 feet height. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Dang referred to the Exhibit C(picture)and stated that is what Chair Tang question is referring too. Commissioner Lopez stated looking at this picture, it looks like the homeowner meets the height requirement. Commissioner Dang stated this exhibit has two folds to it; 1) it should have gone through a discretionary review because they are elevated more than 24 inches. Vice-Chair Lopez stated that the 4 feet wall is based from the foundation of the home. Commissioner Dang asked City Planner Valenzuela in Exhibit C if the 4 feet is shown correctly. City Planner Valenzuela explained how the calculations and measurements are made. Commissioner Dang stated the confusion is that she mentioned foundation, its foundation of the fence and not the house. City Planner Valenzuela stated it is at the grade level and staff considers grade where the house is, as Vice-Chair Lopez is stating. Commissioner Dang stated that would be difficult to rationalize. City Planner Valenzuela explained and pointed out on the power point slide where the grading level would begin. Commissioner Dang referred to that power point slide and asked if the foundation of the house is the elevation that would be measured. City Planner Valenzuela pointed out on the power point slide and explained where the grade level of the home would begin. 5 Commissioner Dang asked how staff would describe Condition J.3 on page 17 of the staff report. City Planner Valenzuela asked for clarification from Commissioner Dang. Commissioner Dang stated if you look at Exhibit B it shows that the sidewalk was the original grade, they put a 24 inch wall, they back filled it, it's sloping back toward the house, so the 24 footer tall block meets Condition J. 3 on page 17, therefore they did not have to go through a Design Review. He added if they now slip in another extra roll of blocks and filled it with additional dirt then Condition J.3 is no longer satisfied, it's been elevated taller. City Planner Valenzuela stated staff,as a policy, if they are filling it with dirt it is not considered as a fill. Commissioner Dang asked what they consider as a fill. City Planner Valenzuela replied anything that is permanent,dirt can be removed. Commissioner Dang stated concrete can be removed also. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that when staff discusses a"fill"it is referred to when they are raising the foundation of a house not the landscaping. Chair Tang stated when he is looking at both pictures and the front yard looks like it slopes down and they decided they wanted to raise it another 12 inches so that it could be at grade where the property, then he feels that is alright because they want to make it so the property is entirely level. Commissioner Dang referred to the last page of his Exhibit and stated on the lett side the wall is 4 feet tall,the street slopes from lett to right, so when you get to the right side of the property it is elevated. He added that wall is 7 1/2 feet tall, it's monstrous and the neighbor next door does not have any fences so there is a huge impact on the neighborhood this way. He stated if staff measures everything from the foundation it is creating these very tall walls. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that staff does not know if the fences that Commissioner Dang is referring to are legal. She added that staff does not have a list available this evening and we were not requested to do any type of research. She stated the first question would be if this fence was built with a permit to determine if it is legal or not. Commissioner Dang thanked Community Development Director Ramirez for pointing that out and the discussion this evening is not to point out if this is legal or not, but it's the fact to follow the rules that City Planner Valenzuela is pointing out to the Planning Commission and if it meets the definition. He stated that he is just pointing out that this is an interpretation that he is not comfortable with. Community Development Director Ramirez stated City Attorney Murphy can discuss how policies are followed and if there is anything that the Planning Commission would like revised, then staff can present the recommendations to the City Council on their behalf. She explained that staff would need to know what changes or recommendations the Commission is requesting. Commissioner Dang referred to the front page of his handout and read a portion regarding the height of the wall. He stated they have been discussing finished grade and if they take ground elevation as meaning the original elevation prior to any construction work that would put a limitation on how these walls cannot be taller even by use of a retaining wall. 6 City Planner Valenzuela stated that because the code says ground elevation or finished grade they have allowed residents to build their fences at finished grade. Commissioner Dang stated so it is an interpretation to select finished grade as the point of reference. He added so it could also be interpretation to select ground elevation as a point of datum. Vice-Chair Lopez addressed Commissioner Dang and asked how he considers ground elevation when the City of Rosemead was built as tract homes,where you have one side of the street and they used filled did to get to the other side of the street. He stated there are different ground elevations all throughout the City. He stated the basis of the foundation should be the house to all, and if you have a house with a 10 foot grade you will not have a 20 foot wall, there will still be limitations and 7 feet is the maximum no matter what the grade is. Commissioner Dang stated he has no objections to tract homes that were built in the past. He stated these are modern concerns that he has, and he has no objection to the 4 feet fencing, but he is concerned with the building of excessively tall fences. He added the interpretation of using a finished grade, when in fact this wall can be as tall as it wants, and if you fill it,you get to measure your fence from your new grade. City Planner Valenzuela stated that staff does measure from the properties highest point finished grade of the house itself. Chair Tang interrupted the discussion and requested that the power point presentation continue because there is a Public Speaker request this evening on this item. City Planner Valenzuela continued with the Power Point presentation, which included lot coverage information and definitions of landscaping and hardscape. She concluded her presentation and asked if there were any questions for staff. Chair Tang stated there will be discussion and called Speaker Request Brian Lewin to the podium. Resident Brian Lewin suggested that after looking at 17.12.030.1 (B. District specific requirements) on pages 15 and 16 of the staff report (number's 1 a. and g.) that these two be rewritten to make things dearer and also to add a provision that prohibits contiguous connections between driveway areas and any other paved or impermeable surface areas greater than 3 feet in width, with a minimum gap of 2 to 3 feet in between. He also suggested changing the highlighted section in B. 1 to add wording to clarify that the ground level surfaces that are cited (g1 and g2) be considered in calculating the total percentages of impervious surfaces. He added if staff specifically reference and addresses B.1, g.1, and g.2, then you remove that ambiguity. He stated those are the items he suggests the Planning Commission consider if they are going to present this to the City Council. Chair Tang asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions. Commissioner Eng asked when the retaining wall requirement was implemented by the City. City Planner Valenzuela replied this was updated in the year'201T. Commissioner Eng asked if it was required prior to that. City Planner Valenzuela replied that there was not a fencing section in the code before that. Commissioner Eng asked what was the thinking behind the retaining wall and the counting of the height of the fence. 7 City Planner Valenzuela replied staff has always measured fence height from the finished grade of the property and it has always been analyzed that way. Commissioner Eng asked if finished grade is where the house sits and not the front yard. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng referred to the language regarding the fill (Section J. 3, on page 17 of staff report) and stated staff has decided as policy to just base this on the building pad and not the front yard because the front yard grade may be different from the building pad. City Planner Valenzuela replied when staff considers filling it is considered if the foundation changes. Community Development Director Ramirez stated for example the project that was heard previously that lot is currently empty and if they wanted to bring in dirt to make the house higher,then staff would consider that a fill. Commissioner Dang stated what Commissioner Eng is saying is that Condition J.3 clearly states any fill that would raise the building pad or the front yard elevation, so it is not necessarily for the fence purposes it is not at the foundation of the house. He stated it is the grade immediately in back of the fence. City Planner Valenzuela stated staff will follow that direction if that is what the Planning Commission would like to recommend. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that this is different if you are talking about finished grade for fencing. She explained this is saying if someone wanted to raise their front yard then they would have to come to the City to have it approved. She stated that does not mean that is where the fencing will go,the fencing is at the highest finished grade point. Chair Tang stated that he cannot see that someone would want to put 2 feet of landscaping or dirt in their front yard that is above their finished grade. He stated if they were to fill their front yard to increase their elevation it would only be to make sure their front yard is at a level as the same of their finished grade of their house. He stated looking at Exhibit B, it looks like the homeowner wanted the front yard to be level rather than having a declining slope and expressed that seems fair. Commissioner Dang referred to Exhibit B and stated the original grade was at the sidewalk and when they built that house they wanted a level area, so they elevated it as much as they could and that was 24 inches. He stated the new owner made it taller and at that point it should have gone through a Design Review. Commissioner Lopez stated that it looks like the homeowner just wanted to match the height equal to the neighbor. Commissioner Dang stated that would be fine and if the homeowner was to come before the Planning Commission he would support that rational. He added that it is just the fact that they did not go through the Design Review process. Commissioner Lopez stated if they meet the standards a Design Review is not required and does not need Planning Commission approval. Commissioner Dang stated on page 17, Condition J.3,it states that it does. Commissioner Lopez stated that is different, that is for the elevation of the home, as Community Development Director Ramirez has explained. 8 Chair Tang agreed that was for the intent of the elevation of the home not the wall. Commissioner Dang stated its off topic but it is related and read Condition J-3, which is to find a pad that is more than 24 inches and if it is, it goes to the Planning Commission for approval. He added d it is approved,then they can do the fence. He stated Vice-Chair Lopez is correct. Vice-Chair Lopez stated the height of the wall is not going to be based on that elevation, it is going to be based on the original elevation. Commissioner Dang stated that question never got a closure. Vice-Chair Lopez asked Community Development Director Ramirez for clarification on this concern. Community Development Director Ramirez stated at this point staff would like to know what Commissioner Dang is requesting and if the Planning Commission would like to have staff present it to City Council. Chair Tang stated that on Exhibit A, it is being assumed that the homeowner filled it with dig and we do not know for sure if there is dirt that goes up that elevated wall because you can't see that. He added that the homeowner did put up an elevated wall according to this Exhibit. He stated it still looks like they meet the code of not exceeding the 7 feet requirement. Commissioner Eng asked what is considered a natural grade and how is it defined. City Planner Valenzuela replied natural grade in this case would be where the sidewalk is. Commissioner Eng stated the way the code is written today fences are not truly 4 feet high and asked staff in their experience what has been the best planning's practice in determining the fence height design standard. Community Development Director Ramirez stated when this code was updated, it was the previous City Planner that prepared this item. She added that a survey had been conducted. She added that at one point it was recommended that the fence height be reduced,but the City Council was not in favor of that. Commissioner Dang addressed the Chair, referred to Exhibit C, and stated you can see where the homeowner put the fill behind the new wall to make it taller. He stated on Exhibit E there is a close shot, you can see that the vegetation is right there, and they did elevate the dirt behind the wall. He addressed Community Development Director Ramirei s question and he referred to the front page of his handout, read a sentence, and requested that ground elevations to be interpreted as the original grade. He added so when you measure fence height from original or finished grade, staff would pick the worst lower of the two, and this way you maintain consistency benched against the neighborhood. He added if you use finished grade the contractor could elevate the front yard, the retaining wall, and at that point you will have a over height wall because you will have measured it against a taller grade. City Planner Valenzuela stated she has concerns, referred to a Power Point slide, which presented a picture of an apartment building, and pointed out areas of where a 6 foot fence height may be of safety issue. Commissioner Dang stated the reason it is elevated to 6 feet is because there is parking underneath it. He stated that is different concern that he has and he does not see how a garage should not observe a side-yard and a 0 side- yard is being given, if the garage is encroaching all the way into the property line. He added that is a different concern for another day. He continued to explain and point where there is a 6 foot elevated pad,there is a basement garage, and it is being put right at the property line. He stated he has not seen in the Rosemead Zoning Code that it is allowed, but he has seen it. 9 Chair Tang stated that this is getting off topic and he understands that there is a need to be consistent across the board when it comes to fencing. He added, the Planning Commission needs to remember that the homes built in Rosemead are not consistently built at the same level, so it is hard to apply a one size fits all fencing plan to every single home. He stated if it is being suggested that it be limited to the ground elevation, then there may be times where they will be allowed to only build a 1 foot fence. He used the home on the slide as an example and continued that if that homeowner was only allowed to build a 1 toot fence, then if there were kids playing in that yard with that slope they could tall over that 1 foot fence,which is now a safety issue. Commissioner Dang stated that is why going back to Condition J3., if it elevates more than 24 inches it goes through a Design Review process with the Planning Commission and at that point the homeowner can request a 4 foot fence as a safeguard for the children. He recommended this needs to go through a Design Review and not be given by right. Vice-Chair Lopez stated that will only happen if they bring up a change in the grade. He commented he agrees with Chair Tang that everything is different in the City of Rosemead. He stated Commissioner Dang is talking about new and it is not new,we are talking about restructuring on the property the same as it is. He added you are not changing the property line because if you do then you have to tell them to grade it down to the original and we do not know where the original is in Rosemead. He stated the residents are building their walls per City standards and if the standard grade location changes, then a lot of problems will be coming up. He expressed that improvements are necessary but as long as the 7 foot requirement is being maintained as the maximum of the grade and to change from where they would start from it will be worst. Commissioner Dang stated that Vice-Chair Lopez is correct and this is mostly focused with new development and referred to the slide showing the 7 foot wall, and stated in that scenario it would need a Design Review approval and it is not by right. Vice-Chair Lopez explained that if the homeowner is requesting a fencing permit to use a retaining wall that is called out at 3 feet, which is of legal right, and they are only putting up a 4 foot fence, he does not understand why the Planning Commission would have to approve something that is standard. He stated if they are requesting an additional 5 feet then yes, he agrees it should come before the Planning Commission. City Planner Valenzuela clarified that a site plan/design review is an administrative review and goes through staff. Community Development Director Ramirez referred to Exhibits A& B and the property next to it and explained how the fencing would be measured. Commissioner Dang stated in his perspective a front yard is supposed to be nice and wide open that is why fences are kept at 4 feet. He stated he understands why homeowners would want to enclose their front yards for child safety concerns, but expressed that should not be a zoning mechanism to sponsor a taller wall. He stated he has a back yard, it is fenced, and his kids play out there all the time, but his front yard is not fenced and that does not mean that his kids need to go out there to play. He added the Building Official would require a fall hazard of 42 inches if the fall hazard is more than 30 inches,so if you have a 24 inch retaining wall you will not need a retaining enclosure. Community Development Director Ramirez reinstated what Commissioner Dang is requesting for Title 17 Zoning 17.68.070(A)to read; "The height of fences, walls, and hedges shall be measured as the vertical distance from the ground elevation,which refers to original grade or finished grade of the properly on which the fence or wall is erected to the highest point of the fence or wall". She added Commissioner Dang has also requested that it be added in here that you pick the lower of the two and that is where you would start your measurement from. She asked if this is what Commissioner Dang is requesting. 10 Commissioner Dang replied yes. Chair Tang asked if there are any other comments or discussion. None Chair Tang expressed that the code is currently adequate in addressing the fencing height limit and that staff is making sure it is being applied correctly and consistently to all properties within the City,whether they are elevated or not. He stated a motion was made by Commissioner Dang and requested a second. Commissioner Eng stated she will second the motion. Commissioner Herrera asked if the motion is to make the changes that Commissioner Dang requested. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. City Attorney Murphy clarified that this is not a Public Hearing so a recommendation is not being made to the City Council as to the new language. He explained because this is coming from Matters from the Chair and Commissioners not a Public Hearing it is to direct staff to take this to the City Council as their recommendation as a change to the code. He stated that the City Council would then review it and say yes they want to follow the Planning Commission's recommendation. He stated then staff would prepare the correct ordinance and bring it back to the Planning Commission,then it would go to the City Council for two hearings before it would be adopted. Or,the City Council can say no, as a matter of policy they disagree with the Planning Commission and prefer the fences be continued to be measured as they are today and for staff to take no further action. He explained the way these go forward and this is the same for Rosemead and everywhere else if it is a Commission initiated change, it has to go to the City Council first to get direction for staff to actually spend time to prepare the ordinance and moving it forward. He stated what the Planning Commission is doing this evening is an informal step, but it is the first step in getting staff to take this to City Council and they have the statutory right to do this as a Commission. He stated if that is what the Planning Commission believes, then they can give direction to staff to move forward with it. He added staff will make sure it gets to the City Council,City Manager, gets on a City Council Agenda(and again with Council it is not a Public Hearing it will be an action item to say yes staff get this done or no staff as a matter of policy we will not move it forward). He explained this is an action item portion this evening and will come back as an ordinance if that is the will of the elected officials. Vice-Chair Lopez asked this action will take place if the Planning Commission votes yes. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the majority will have to be a yes vote to move forward on this item. Commissioner Dang stated that he understands if the language of the Ordinance is changed it goes through the City Council, but if staff is asked for an interpretation of what was discussed this evening,will that go through City Council. City Attorney Murphy replied because staff has consistently interpreted this and the other sections that have been discussed the same way in the 10 years that City Planner Valenzuela has been here, it would be problematic to switch course on the interpretation without changing the language. He stated if clarifications are wanted or to make something more concrete than the idea of adding language is the appropriate way to go. He stated simply switching an interpretation is likely to lead to problems that will have one of his colleagues to defend the City. He added he would not suggest going in that direction. Chair Tang requested a vote. 11 Community Development Director Ramirez stated a verbal vote will be necessary. She explained the Planning Commission is voting on whether to give staff direction to present the changes that have been requested this evening to the City Council for further direction. Commissioner Herrera asked what the changes would be. City Attorney Murphy stated it would be the change to Section 17.68.070 to clarify that the measurement of the vertical distance for a fence would be from the lower of the ground elevation or the finish grade. Commissioner Dang stated with the lower elevation being the natural grade. Community Development Director Ramirez stated instead of the way it is done now at the finished grade. Commissioner Eng stated currently staff interprets the building pad as the grade and it is being requested that the determination for height begin at the natural grade. Commissioner Dang explained Exhibit C shows that it would be 4 feet tall it would be 6 feet tall because the natural grade would be at the sidewalk as opposed to the fill that has been created. City Attorney Murphy stated he would like to clarify that when you say the lower of the two,then that would also work on the opposite situation on a downhill slope where the finished grade would be way below street level, then that lower street level would be where that front yard fence would be measured at as well in addition to a side yard fence. Community Development Director Ramirez called for a verbal vote. Vote Results: Ayes: Dang and Eng Noes: Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the vote does not pass and the vote is 3 Noes and 2 Ayes. Commissioner Dang stated he would like to thank the Planning Commission for listening. Commissioner Eng thanked Commissioner Dang for this discussion and it was helpful. Chair Tang went on to Item B. External Water Heaters and asked if a staff report will be presented for this item. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, this item was requested to be put on the Agenda by Commissioner Dang who will do the presentation. Commissioner Dang addressed Chair Tang and staled there were two items on Item A and fencing was the only one discussed,Lot Coverage was the next item. Community Development Director Ramirez asked what changes Commissioner Dang would like to see in regards to lot coverages. 12 Commissioner Dang referred to Exhibit G and asked how staff interprets pedestrian walkway and vehicular access because it looks like it is over 50 percent. City Planner Valenzuela replied that the property in Exhibit G has not been given a final and there are modifications that will have to be made. She added there are a lot of residents that do their fencing and paving without getting the appropriate approvals from the City. She stated as a business friendly manner, counter staff reviews it and the code does allow them to exceed their paving width with the Community Developments Director's approval. She explained modifications have been made to this property and staff is aware of the amount of paving the resident has and it has been required the resident add more landscaping. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that the property Commissioner Dang has brought forward is a properly that has not been approved,staff is aware of it,and the property owner is making changes. Commissioner Dang referred to Exhibit G and stated sometimes he sees that there is a 6 to 7 foot pavement right adjacent to the driveway, a permit or zoning approval is obtained for this,and asked if the Planning counter allows this type of scenario. City Planner Valenzuela replied if it is a pedestrian walkway the code states it is limited to 5 feet. Commissioner Dang asked if there is something that can be made so that it is a contrast and does not blend into the driveway. City Planner Valenzuela replied there is nothing in the code that requires that, so staff has not addressed that issue. Community Development Director Ramirez referred to Exhibit A and Exhibit B and stated that when it is found out that there is too much cement, she requires them to install permanent planters to prevent them from parking cars in front of their door. She explained that sometimes this is found out after the fact and staff is sensitive to what has been done, financial situations, and reasonable solutions. In this case,the reasonable solution was to have the property owner install permanent planters. Commissioner Dang stated that is a good solution. Community Development Director Ramirez added if this concern had been brought to staff beforehand there would have been something incorporated and there would have been a clear distinction. She added resident Brian Lewin was kind enough to bring two of these items to staff's attention. She explained both projects had come to Planning Division to obtain approvals and after the remodeling started, then the fencing and cementing was completed without prior approval. Commissioner Herrera asked if the property owner knew they needed approvals from the City. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes,they knew and this happens all the time. She added it would have been realized when the final inspection is completed, but fortunately it was brought to staff's attention beforehand. She stated that Code Enforcement is very proactive when it comes to commercial and in residential it is reactive. Commissioner Eng asked it an action needs to take place in regards to Lot Coverage. Commissioner Dang replied no, a solution has been composed, he likes the landscaping idea, it gives a visual break, and it is limited to 5 feet. 6.B. External Hot Water Heaters 13 Commissioner Dang referred to the Water Heater Staff Report, pictures of external water heaters, how they are slanted outward, and projected upward and are leaning past the eave of the house. He expressed that these external water heaters are silly, awkward, and they don't fit the neighborhood. He showed a picture of a one story house that he found that shows how an external water heater should be appropriately shown. He explained it is showing that it goes all the way through the eaves, it is painted, landscaped, and screened. He stated he had wanted to bring this to staff's attention and he expressed this is how he thought this is how venting's were supposed to be installed.He also expressed that the water heaters are not supposed to be placed in the side-yard and requested that City Planner Valenzuela read that section to the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Ramirez stated it is on page 2 of the Staff report, under yard encroachment if the Planning Commissioners would like to read it. Commissioner Dang read Residential Zoning Districts 17.12.030 (B)(1)(g)(1) to the Planning Commissioners and stated that staff is interpreting that this exterior mounted heating to be a water heater and he disagrees with that interpretation. Community Development Director Ramirez responded to Commissioner Dang that is correct and that is the way it has always been interpreted. She referred to the first picture and stated that the hot water heater had been completed without Planning or Building & Safety's approval. She stated staff has contacted the homeowner and requested this water heater to be painted to match the color of the home and to change the venting to an angular position, as shown in the two-story home. She explained the Zoning Code only requires that the water heater be shielded and so that had to be done. She added the Zoning Code does not require that a hot water heater has to be painted or that venting goes straight up through the roof. She stated the Building & Safety Division determines how the venting is installed based on the Building&Safety Codes. She stated if the Planning Commission's request is to have it a certain way staff will need to ensure that it does not conflict with Building& Safety Codes. She stated if the Planning Commission would like staff to present the recommendations to the City Council it can be done. She added water heaters are allowed on the side-yards and staff conducted a survey with the surrounding cities to determine if any cities do not allow water heaters in the side-yard. She stated the City of San Gabriel did not respond, but the Cities of Alhambra, El Monte, Montebello, Monterey Park, Temple City, and Arcadia all allow water heaters on the side-yard or the rear of the yard. She stated that it is not any different in the City of Rosemead as the other surrounding cities with the exception of San Gabriel because they did not participate in the survey. Commissioner Herrera asked if the venting requirements are same. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the venting and painting requirements vary from City to City. Commissioner Herrera asked if the side angle of the venting was done because of financial difficulties. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that she does not have the information on why the homeowner did it that way, it is legal, and all cities do allow it. City Attorney Murphy explained that if it is the will of the Planning Commission to make that change,just from a visual perspective, looking at it having the vent go through the roof makes a lot more sense. He added there will be a level of cost involved, there will be re-sealing, waterproofing, and flashing once a new vent is installed. He stated cost may also be involved if the City is challenged. He stated if this is something that the Planning Commission wants to take forward to the City Council as a policy manner that they request the City Council to direct the to change the Zoning Code appropriately,so that in R-1 and R-2 zones venting for water heaters be attached to the wall and should not angle away from the wall in a way from the structure. He stated that way it will have to go up through the roof and it will be allowed legally. He added this is something that will have to be very clear in the Zoning Code, because 14 it will be a difference from neighboring jurisdictions. He stated that needs to be very clear if the Planning Commission wants to go forward with this recommendation. Community Development Director Ramirez stated while the Zoning Code is quiet about the venting and painting of water heaters, staff does work with the residents and ask them to do that. She added they are usually successful, but it is not required at this point,and if someone chooses not to do it,then they do not have to. Vice-Chair Lopez stated the property owner only needed to make a simple angle. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that is what the property owner is doing because they are not willing to go through the roof. Commissioner Eng stated it would have made it more aesthetically appealing. She stated that the community needs to be educated on why these requirements will help their property and help the community. She stated she had a client that needed a contractor to replace an HVAC unit and that the contractor had stated he did not need to acquire a permit from the City. She added there are times the homeowner and contractor does not know what is required from the City. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that contractors do know but she agrees that sometimes homeowners don't know when permits are required. She stated that water heaters and anything else aesthetically, which is not strictly required by the Zoning Code, then staff works with the applicant in getting those things done. She stated that the homeowner is educated on how it will increase their properly value. She stated in this case,Commissioner Dang requested they go through the roof and the properly owner did want to know where it says it has to go through the roof. She explained that the property owner did not want to go through the roof and not everyone is willing to no matter what the cost is. Chair Tang stated there is a Speaker's Request submitted for this item and called Brian Lewin to the podium. Resident Brian Lewin stated that he supports the idea of mitigating the impact by instituting a more specific vertically aligned requirement. He added going through the roof would be ideal, although failing that, if they are able to just do a double bend and have it go up. He referred to color consistency and recommended to corporate into the code if this change is made, to require any equipment to have a color that is consistent with or complimentary to the color of the structure which it is upon to be attached. He stated the other option would be is not to allow them to be attached to the side-yard at all. He referred to the 5 feet set-back requirement and added that may be a key factor if water heaters may be placed on the side-yard and if it is enforced. He stated he supports the Planning Commission if they take action or recommend this action to the City Council. Commissioner Dang stated the original questions were 1)are water heaters allowed to be on the side-yard, he believes it is an interpretation, and 2) it it is allowed to be on the side-yard, can it be requested that the vent goes vertically up. He referred to the cost issue that had been discussed and stated when new water heaters are swapped out for the old ones they use the existing vents. He stated the vent is an issue when a brand new one is installed and the cost is minimal. He stated the Zoning Code says if it is in the side-yard it needs to be screened and the best way to screen it is to paint it. He requested that the Planning Commission make a decision on whether the water heater should be allowed on the side-yard or not. He referred to the Zoning Code and that it states an exterior amount of heating, and expressed that would be for a furnace not a water heater, or for example NC equipment is allowed on the side-yard, but not a refrigerator. He added you cannot just use the word heating and tie it into a water heater. He stated that is not the right interpretation. Commissioner Eng asked Commissioner Dang what his concerns or reservations are on having a water heater on the side-yard. 15 Commissioner Dang replied that his concern is that water heaters are usually about 6 feet tall with venting that shoots upward and is something that can't be missed. He stated that furnaces are a lot smaller and lower and you will probably not see them. He referred to page 13 of the Design Review Staff Report and read Condition of Approval number 16 and stated staff alludes to the fact that a furnace as an exterior mounted heating is a furnace not a water heater. He reiterated that a water heater is an interpretation and wants the Planning Commission to know that and it is not a by right item. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that Commissioner Dang has read a condition of approval and the code is not quoted in that item. She explained if you read further it also states 'and other equipment", which then staff would consider hot water heaters. She stated the reason hot water heaters are not included specifically in this staff report is because it is a waterless water heater, which is different in how you can screen those and install those from a regular hot water heater. Commissioner Eng stated that Commissioner Dang's point and ultimate goal is that the water heaters/venting do not stick out like a sore thumb. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if Commissioner Dang is trying to eliminate them completely. He stated this is something that residents do and he understands the venting concerns and expressed that what he is hearing is that Commissioner Dang does not like what he sees. He stated that Commissioner Dang is looking for what it doing to the neighborhood in how it looks, and asked if he is recommending that water heaters will no longer be allowed on the exterior of their properties and have them only in the interior. Commissioner Dang stated the purpose of the side-yard is to keep it clear. Vice-Chair Lopez stated that what he is hearing is that Commissioner Dang is not liking what he sees right now. He stated he understands what Commissioner Dang is saying about the set-backs, the walkway, but he is also saying that he does not like what he sees. He asked Commissioner Dang if he just does not like what he sees. Commissioner Dang replied he does not like to see water heaters on the side-yard. Vice-Chair Lopez stated that is different from what he is saying and he is using a wording to say he does not want to allow this anymore. He stated the Planning Commission needs to be careful because you are stepping onto grounds of why not,these are old homes and some of these homes had water heaters built right in the middle of their kitchen and a lot of residents found ways to place them outside and remodeled kitchens. He added the cabinets are not the best way, but what do you do because some of the homes are older and new homes will not have it on the side-bar. Commissioner Dang stated at the last Planning Commission meeting that was held there was an item with a home and the water heater was on the side-yard. He stated that he had put a condition on it. Vice-Chair Lopez stated it will still happen that way, but you can't say you don't like them, and sometimes they are an eyesore, but sometimes that is the only place water heaters can go. He suggested that maybe they can find better places to position them. Chair Tang asked if there is already an existing code to require water heaters to be screened and should that not satisfy the appearance aspect. Commissioner Dang stated there are two folds in that question 1) is it allowed and again it is an interpretation right now, 2) if it is it allowed, make sure it is screened, and 3) make sure it is not vented off through the eaves like an awkward thumb. He asked City Attorney Murphy if applicants can only be told to do something if it is documented and a condition cannot be placed if simply someone does not like it. 16 City Attorney Murphy replied in general Commissioner Dang is correct. The Planning Commission has from time to time worked with applicants to condition projects so that later on down the line a subsequent owner isn't going to make changes that run counter to what the applicant and the Planning Commission understand what is the purpose of the project or a good design. He added there are applicants that do agree to conditions that have been found on the property later,but then there are times where the applicant says no,they will not make that change. He stated as the Planning Commission you cannot force an applicant to agree to accept a condition that is not supported by some code that is supported by the City of Rosemead. Community Development Director Ramirez stated with hot water heaters and the issue of it being on the side of the home, (which staff does support and all the surrounding communities allow it) staff will continue to support it if it is taken to City Council. She explained that one of the main reasons is because if that was to change there are so many homes within this community that already have these and one of two things may happen; 1)all those homes would now become legal nonconforming because they now have something on their property that does not conform to code; and 2) it they want to do an addition they will not be able to without bringing their home up to code because they're home is legal nonconforming. She stated there is an expense in moving a hot water heater as new plumbing and electrical would be needed as well as other expenses. She stated is that being resident friendly, she does not believe it is, so from staff's point of view they do not want to create anything that is legal nonconforming. She stated staff has been successful in working with applicants to get upgrades completed. She explained the one that caught Commissioner Dang's attention was done illegally, but since then the property owner will be correcting it. She stated when property owners are asked to fix corrections they have been done. Commissioner Eng stated she appreciates Commissioner Dang's perspective, but there are limitations and there are properties that may not be able to just place the water heater in the rear of the home. She used her home as an example and stated she is fortunate to have large side-yards. Her concern is also as Community Development Director Ramirez mentioned is the expense of relocating water heaters and it will be a factor for some property owners. She also expressed that there may be properties where it is not feasible to relocate the water heaters from the side-yard. She stated she does support that if water heaters are located on the side-yard that they be screened properly. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that is already part of the Zoning Code. Commissioner Dang stated the cost keeps coming and expressed his concern that the cost is in the back of his mind when he makes a decision. He stated again it it is an existing water heater the vent will be there, the pipe will be there,you will unbolt, and put in the new one. He stated because these are new water heaters they will have to re- pipe anyway and will have to run the copper pipes to the new location. He stated whether it is run to the side-yard or the rear-yard the pipes will have to be run and the cost is already built in with the permit and contractors bid. He stated his other point is and if you are viewing this as a side-yard and if this code is being interpreted correctly and consistently then you could technically put this right in the middle of your front yard and no one could say anything about it. Chair Tang stated he has comments but before he does he would like to call resident James Berry to the podium. Resident James Berry explained that moving water heaters is a big issue,just moving the copper piping and going 10 feet, is a few thousand dollars. He stated a lot of the homes here in the City of Rosemead are very old and those old vent pipes may contain asbestos and now you're talking about abatement, which adds up another cost. He added holes in the roof are a concern also depending on what type of roof you may have. He stated there will be water issues also when making holes in the roof, which will have to be maintained. He added moving gas lines is another expense. He recommended that it be required to be painted because a lot of homes do have water heaters on the side-yard in the City of Rosemead. 17 Commissioner Eng asked if this will create legal nonconforming concerns if the requirement is changed for newly constructed homes. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, it will for all of those who already have it. She addressed the comment of putting water heaters in the front yard and stated there are requirements that they have to be certain distances from windows and front doors,so the chances of it going in the front yard is very slim. She added it it were to go in the front yard,then it would be required to screen and staff is not going to allow a 6 foot tall block wall in the front yard. She stated there are a lot of things that would probably prohibit it from going into the front yard. Chair Tang stated in regards to the appearance and aesthetics of a home and having a 6 foot wall on the side-yard is not going to be appealing, but having it on the front yard is less appealing. He stated as long as the code is enforced in regards to screening it would be more appealing on the side-yard and agrees that the ventilation should be consistent with the color of the home and blend in. Commissioner Eng suggested Commissioner Dang make a motion regarding his request. Commissioner Dang stated there are three motions he would like to make the first motion is to eliminate water heaters on the side-yard. City Attorney Murphy explained that the Planning Commission would be directing staff to take to the City Council their recommendation that the Rosemead Municipal Code be amended to state clearly that water heaters will not be allowed on side-yard set-backs. Community Development Director Ramirez stated a second will need to be made. Commissioner Dang asked City Attorney Murphy if the Municipal Code states if water heaters are allowed on the side-yard or is it being interpreted that they are allowed on the side-yard and as a legal perspective he does not know if he would take to City Council and ask them to place water heaters on the side-yards. City Attorney Murphy stated because this has been interpreted by staff consistently for a number of years and in light of the Community Development Directors research on what neighboring cities do,this would be a policy manner that would have to go to the City Council. He stated the interpretation should not be switched without changing the language in the code and makes it fairly known to the public letting them know how the City of Rosemead will be handling water heaters on side-yards. He recommended that wording not be switched without making a proper public notice and should be taken to the City Council. Commissioner Dang stated he also called the neighboring cities and two on that list responded that they do not allow water heaters on the side-yard. He stated he has put in a motion and if he gets a second that is fine and if not the meeting can move forward. Chair Tang announced that Commissioner Dang has made a motion and asked if there is a second. None Chair Tang stated a second has not been made,so the motion dies. Commissioner Dang stated his second motion is that the enclosure, vent, and extension of the vent for water heaters be painted to match the color of the wall. He stated his third motion is to have the venting go vertically upward rather that jagging beyond the eave. 18 Chair Tang stated the second motion is to require the applicants to paint the ventilation and cover the same color as the house. Commissioner Herrera asked if currently applicants are not required to paint them the same color. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, they are not required to, staff will request it, and 10 out 10 will do it. Chair Tang asked if this is placed into the Zoning Code and homes are not in compliance with this, will all homes be required to do this. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, it will require all homes to paint them, it will effect everybody, and if they don't they will be legal nonconforming. Chair Tang stated there is a motion by Commissioner Dang and asked if there is a second. Commissioner Eng asked for clarification on what the motion entails. Commissioner Lopez asked if everyone that exist with this now would it be legal nonconforming. City Attorney Murphy explained that they would be legal nonconforming and when they want to make other changes to the house they would be required to paint that to match the home. He stated because the code would be changing everything that was in existence before the code changed would be legal nonconforming as long as they want, but if they want to make changes to the house then they will have to paint it. Commissioner Eng asked Mr. Murphy it someone comes to the counter and request to relocate their water heater they will have to obtain a permit, and as policy can staff make conditions to require that the screen and vents be painted to match the stucco. City Attorney Murphy replied that the code requires screening and whether that is a wall or living screening,staff asks that they also paint it to match. He added as the Director has said most of the applicants agree and some say no, it cannot be reflective and the code says reflective, and as long as they have a mat finished vent and as long as the body box is screened with living material or a fence there is not much staff can do. He stated the code should be changed to make it clear to give staff a little more power. He said if this is something that will go up to the City Council and if City Council goes forward with this they will probably look at the code and tell staff to make other changes similar to help solve other similar problems that the Planning Commission has considered this evening. He stated the Planning Commission should send forth the recommendation for the painting and then let City Council make the policy decision on whether to move forward or not. Commissioner Eng stated her concern is the creation of a legal nonconforming issue. Chair Tang asked d this can be made as a common practice to put this as a condition of approval even though it is not in the code and will it be enforceable. Community Development Director Ramirez replied if it comes to the Planning Commission yes, then they can make this a condition; if it does not go to the Planning Commission, then it is staff that is trying to encourage them to do it. She stated to make this easier for all, a Code Amendment will be completed this fall and this is something that can be noted for the Planning Commission to include at that time. She stated staff is not against this because homeowners are currently being requested to do this so adding this is not a big deal. She stated staff works with applicants with the venting and request that it goes through the roof or at an angle and they usually work with staff 19 and do it. She explained that staff has not really had anyone say no they don't want to do that, but technically they can because it is not in the code.She stated if the Planning Commission is comfortable with presenting this as pad of the Code Amendment it can be done, but if they prefer presenting it to the City Council now,then that can go forward too. She added the Code Amendment will be presented to the Planning Commission before City Council so they can be reassured that it will be included at that time. Commissioner Dang referred to existing nonconforming and reiterated Mr. Murphy's point and Vice-Chair Lopez's comments, if it is existing nonconforming meaning that it is built without a permit, then it can remain as is. He stated in his view of existing nonconforming if anything is done indoors and the water heater is not moved, then it stays existing nonconforming. He stated that the Community Development Director stated that there are policies and guidelines in place and that if you remodel the inside like a kitchen remodel, then the homeowner is requested to paint the enclosure. He stated he is fine with it, if the water heater is not touched, built with a permit, it will get to retain any existing nonconformity it has. Community Development Director Ramirez slated that is correct and she did not state it any differently. However, if they wanted to do a remodel then anything that is not up to code would have to brought up to code. She explained if someone wanted to add a room,then it would have to be brought up to code, and it is very easy to say it needs to be painted. She added but when helping someone at the counter and they say they only have money for certain changes and not paint, and then it gets to be difficult. Commissioner Dang stated that the Planning Commission wants to give staff support, it it needs to be in writing and needs to go to the City Council,then they are there to help. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the question is does the Planning Commission want this to go to City Council now or do they want to wait until the Code Amendment is presented in the Fall. Commissioner Dang asked if there is a cost issue if it is done now verses going through the Code Amendment. He stated because if they wait to do this during the Code Amendment this concern will not see any changes until next year. He added it takes a while before the language is written, it goes to the attorney to review, the Planning Commission reviews it, it goes to City Council, and then goes through publishing. He stated so it could possibly be another year before it is completed. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that it would go to the Planning Commission in the Fall and they will already be written. Commissioner Dang asked if the language will already be included and will be presented to the Planning Commission in November 2016. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes,the target date is in November 2016. She explained that staff makes it a goal to complete code updates by November. It goes to the Planning Commission first, then City Council. She stated it will then go to the City Council for their approval. It takes two readings and a 30-day notice period before it goes into effect. She stated it probably would not go into effect until January of 2017. She stated that if this is recommended this evening to go to City Council, then there will be cost and time involved because currently staff is impacted by a lot of projects and a new City Manager will be starting soon so this may be something that may have to wait for the new City Manager. Commissioner Eng stated this concern has been this way for a while and recommended that waiting another 4 or 5 months will not be unreasonable and have a huge impact. 20 Commissioner Dang stated that it sounds like the construction industry is willing to paint it from a staff's point of recommendation view, so he does not really see an emergency need to push this to the City Council right away, and agrees with Commissioner Eng. Community Development Director Ramirez stated so staff will make a note of this and when the Planning Commission sees the update go to them in the Fall, the items that will be included will be the painting of water heaters,as well as options for the venting. Commissioner Eng thanked Commissioner Dang for bringing this information for discussion. Chair Tang addressed Commissioner Dang and stated he has withdrawn this motion but did he want to continue with his third motion. Commissioner Dang replied yes, and the third motion is to require the vents to go vertically up through the eaves, as opposed to having it project sideways on the outer edge of the eaves. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff would like to recommend the same thing for venting as the painting and have it as part of the Code Amendment that will be done in the Fall. She reiterated that applicants have been complying when staff has been asking them to do changes. City Attorney Murphy stated he would like to clarify that the third motion means that Commissioner Dang wants the venting to go vertically hugging the wall and through the roof, or having a double bend where it ends vertically but there is the diagonal out near the eave point. He stated he wants the motion to be clear in case staff takes this forward with the update this Fall the direction will be correct. Community Development Director Ramirez asked if Commissioner Dang would like to present this to City Council now or is he willing to wait for the Code Amendment in the Fall. Commissioner Dang stated he does not mind asking it to be taken vertically upright now, but it is his personal choice. Chair Tang asked for clarification does he means going vertically up through the roof or the double bend. Commissioner Dang replied vertically up through the roof as shown in an exhibit presented this evening. (Picture was held up and shown to the Planning Commission) Commissioner Herrera asked it that is for new construction or anyone that wants to relocate their water heater that is outdoors in the side yard. Commissioner Dang replied that would be for any new water heater installation and any existing one they would just unstrap and install another one because the venting would be already be there. Commissioner Herrera asked but what if the venting was already crooked. Chair Tang stated any new water heater installation but if they are considered legal nonconforming and wanted to do anything to their home or do a major modification the would have to bring that up to code, which means they would have to put the vent through the roof. Commissioner Dang stated he thinks Commissioner Herrera is asking if it is a replacement, if you are replacing the old one with a new one,does it require the venting to go up vertically through the roof. Chair Tang stated if it is being replaced it would require a permit. 21 Commissioner Dang stated that would be his reading. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that Commissioner Dang is requesting that the requirement be that the vent goes through the roof if it is a new water heater or replacing it. Vice-Chair Lopez stated so if this is going to be voted on this evening it will be to approve that the venting goes through the roof or vote no,and leave this item as is. Commissioner Herrera stated or the Planning Commission has the option to wait for the Code Amendment in the Fall. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that is correct. She stated from staffs point of view either way they would talk to the Building&Safety Division because they regulate how water heaters and vents are installed and will work with staff on the language. She added staff will present what the Planning Commission would like to recommend to the City Council,as well as give their input on the issue. Chair Tang stated there is a motion by Commissioner Dang to have the water heater ventilation go vertically through the roof and asked if there is a second or would there like to be a substitute motion to request the double bend. Commissioner Eng stated it is all related and because of cost and resource perspective she recommended it would be practical to take this item when staff updates the Code Amendment. Commissioner Dang stated it the Planning Commissioners do not feel this is urgent enough, then this can be deferred to November or the Fall of 2016. Commissioner Eng stated this is more practical because taking one item to the City Council and in light of the limited resources on staff, it may be more practical. Chair Tang stated he would like to offer a substitute direction that if the Planning Commissioners are not supportive of the vents to go through the roof they also consider that double bend. Commissioner Dang suggested that he put in a motion for the vertical vent now and if that does not go through then he will put a motion for the double bend. Community Development Director Ramirez asked if this is for this evening or for the Fall of 2016. Chair Tang replied for the Fall of 2016. Community Development Director Ramirez stated if this is for Fall of 2016, you will not need to worry about this now because staff will put in all the options. She explained the Zoning Code Update will be given to the Planning Commission with highlights on what areas will be changing, and you will be able to make comments, changes, or recommendations. Commissioner Eng stated that she would like to have it proposed to the City Council that a subcommittee be formed for the Zoning Code Update. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that when staff goes to update the Zoning Code they will let the City Council know. Commissioner Eng stated Commissioner Dang would be an awesome committee member. 22 City Attorney Murphy stated there is a motion pending. Commissioner Dang recommended that it be decided if vents should go through the roof or if it is a double bend. He added and in the Fall of 2016 the Community Development Director can move whatever direction into those languages. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that can be done, but when staff discusses this item with Building & Safety, and if they come up with different ideas those would be included and the reasons why. She stated that there is no need to vote on this tonight. She stated that d the Building& Safety Division states it can be both ways, then it will be presented that way. However, if the Planning Commission states they only want it one way, then it would be presented to the City Council what staff recommends and what the Planning Commission recommends. She stated it would then be up to the City Council to make the determination on how they would like it done. Commissioner Dang stated if the Building Official will allow both ways, then whatever the Planning Commission decides would be the way to go. Vice-Chair Lopez recommended just waiting because there is still confusion on which way to go. Chair Tang stated that is a little presumptuous. Commissioner Dang stated he did not know there was still an internal debate. He added if there is still a debate on it being vertical or double bend,then the Planning Commission can wait. Chair Tang stated he is interested in what the Building& Safety Official has to say about this topic as well. Community Development Director Ramirez stated she apologizes for the Building &Safety Official not being present this evening as he was asked to be present and she does not know what happened. Commissioner Dang asked Community Development Director Ramirez if this should be discussed at the next Planning Commission meeting just to get a response from the Building&Safety Official. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff would like to request that the Planning Commission just wait because it is a lot of work and there has been a lot of time spent on this. She added but it is the will of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Herrera stated that Commissioner Dang stated he will not be present at the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Dang stated he believes staff is going to cancel the Planning Commission meeting to be held on April 4,2015. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff will get to that. Commissioner Dang stated he is curious to see the response and not necessarily have an action. Commissioner Eng stated she is willing to wait. Commissioner Dang stated that City Attorney Murphy stated there is a motion pending and he would like to withdraw it. 23 Chair Tang stated the direction to staff is to look into this matter in the Fall of 2016 Zoning Code Amendment Update. Commissioner Dang stated he would like to thank everyone for hearing him out and he appreciates the openness and open dialog. He stated he appreciates staff, the research, the audience, and especially Mr. Murphy for all the legal technical advice. Commissioner Herrera asked if there is a Planning Commission on April 4,2016. Chair Tang stated the next Planning Commission meeting will be an April 18, 2015, and the meeting of April 4,2015 will be cancelled due to lack of quorum. Community Development Director stated three Planning Commissioners will not be available for that meeting of April 4,2016. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission will be held on Monday, April 4, 2016 at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. oca John . Chair 1 � Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 24