CC - Item 4A - Public Hearing on Short-Term Rental of Residential Homes and Boarding House - Municipal Code Amendment 18-02ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: GLORIA MOLLEDA, CITY MANAGER J� N
DATE: .LUNE 19, 2018
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON SHORT-TERM RENTAL OF RESIDENTIAL
HOMES AND BOARDING HOUSES — MUNICIPAL CODE
AMENDMENT 18-02
SUMMARY
The Rosemead Zoning Code (Title 17) of the Rosemead Municipal Code carries out the policies
of the Rosemead General Plan by classifying and regulating uses of land and structures within
the City. The Zoning Code, however, is silent on short-term rental of residential homes and
boarding houses, and as such the uses are not currently regulated for land use. The proposed
Municipal Code Amendment would amend the Rosemead Zoning Code by adding definitions for
"Boarding house or rooming house" and "Short-term rental," and prohibit boarding/rooming
house and short-term rental of residential homes in the residential zones (R-1, R-2, and R-3).
The proposed Code Amendment would not affect residential rental (e.g., home, duplex, triplex,
apartments, etc.) with a lease or rental agreement that is not short-term.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and
2. Introduce for first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 980 (Attachment "A"), approving
Municipal Code Amendment 18-02.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This Ordinance is exempt from additional environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and
CEQA regulations (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000. Et seq.) because it establishes
rules and procedures to permit operation of existing facilities; consists only of minor revisions
and clarifications to existing regulations and specification of procedures related thereto; and
consists of actions taken to assure the maintenance, protection and enhancement of the
ITEM NO. 4.A
City Council Meeting
June 19, 2018
Page 4 of 4
environment. This Ordinance, therefore, does not have the potential to cause significant effects
on the environment. (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3).)
Furthermore, this Ordinance is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under 14 Cal.
Code Regs. §§ 15301, 15305, and 15308.
On June 4, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to
receive oral and written testimony relative to Municipal Code Amendment 18-02. Analysis of
the proposed amendment is provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report. The Planning
Commission Staff Report, Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, Planning Commission
Resolution 18-10, and written public comment letter are included in this report as Attachments
"B," "C," "D," and "E" respectively.
It was the Planning Commission's consistence to recommend to the City Council that short-term
rental (30 -days or less) of homes in residential zones (R-1, R-2 and R-3) should be prohibited.
The Planning Commission also agreed that boarding or rooming house should also be prohibited
in the said residential zone. The discussion focused primarily on the definition of a boarding
house or rooming house. Upon conclusion of discussion and consideration of one written public
comment by Mr. Brian Lewin, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to recommend the
following definition:
"Boarding house or rooming house" means a dwelling unit where sleeping or non -sleeping
rooms are rented for lodging purposes to individuals with Ave or mere separate rental
agreements,_ sr—leases, or subleases either written or oral or implied, whether or not an
owner, agent, or rental manager is in residence. Meals may be provided to boarders in
connection with the renting of sleeping rooms or common kitchen facilities may be provided.
This definition does not include household, convalescent facility; residential care facility;
group home; emergency shelter; supportive housing; transitional housing; hotel; motel; or
other extended lodging facility as these terms are defined in this code.
The underline text above represents Planning Commission's added language to Staffs proposed
definition, and the sifikethfeugh text represents the Commission's deletion.
At the conclusion, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-
10 recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 980 to approve Municipal Code
Amendment 18-02.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
The Planning Commission received one written letter which was read into record and discussed.
FISCAL IMPACT - None
City Council Meeting
June 19, 2018
Nee 4 of 4
STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT - None
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a
public hearing notice published in the Rosemead Reader on June 6, 2018, and posting of the
notice at the six (6) public locations.
Prepared by:
Ben Kim, Dir or of Community Development
Attachment A: Ordinance No. 980
Attachment B: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 4, 2018
Attachment C: Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated June 4, 2018
Attachment D: Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-10
Attachment E: Written Public Comment Letter by Mr. Brian Lewin
Attachment A
Ordinance No. 980
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. 980
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF
THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SHORT TERM
RENTAL OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND BOARDING HOUSES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to
justify approving Municipal Code Amendment 18-02, in accordance with Section 17.152.060 of the
Rosemead Municipal Code ("RMC") as follows:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific
plan;
FINDING: The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of
the General Plan. It is a goal of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to enhance and
maintain the quality and character of Rosemead's residential neighborhoods. To ensure that
the residential character is maintained, a General Plan policy is that the City should actively
promote the maintenance of properties and building through code enforcement. The
proposed code amendments will provide the City with additional tools for ensuring safe and
decent housing while working to enhance the visual quality of residential neighborhoods and
ensure safe and decent housing for all City residents. This ordinance is tailored to preserve
the residential character of a neighborhood by prohibiting commercial enterprises such as
short-term rental and boarding house businesses in the residential zones and while respecting
the rights to privacy and association that the California Supreme Court recognized in City of
Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123 and related cases.
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare of the City; and
FINDING: Adopting this Ordinance is in the public interest because it is designed to protect
public health and safety while also promoting public welfare. The City has in recent years
experienced a great number of short-term rental of residential homes and boarding houses
that house temporary residents in residential housing, often in unsafe conditions. Short-term
tenants that stay only for one night, a week, or even a few months in its residential area have
little interest in public agencies or the welfare of its citizenry as they do not participate in
local government and community organizations that strengthen a City and its residents. This
Ordinance promotes public health, safety, and general welfare and serves the goals and
purposes of the RMC.
C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of [the]
Zoning Code.
A-1
o^ �. o m o a� tFi C Y m
R w m
�?m w"❑w"gym - oY 3m w�a g 5 ha N
M x r
N N moil
C Kms' o .-' [D �p q w uq
To
�awq N C� y ca m w m o w N: a ° o dq ❑ n m ° o m o d�-r
� m 0.0 � < •:+: O O.. � R .'+ ° � m � (RD w � C Oy ° � i--` ° K '� ..� h N _
w VJ �. '•3 N O N w° N
"a " bq ao o h m c w .. m o
m N �. C '-h k m �.: h A G m ? O
onC7 o c w S° c s
c a°—'.g'o o ° ;;❑ o "` ,.,o Rf° v� a�,�•o �•� co
° iq
R o o" ro o as It o s o wA 6 r" K C7
°. n o 3 R °- o°aq CL
cn
R W N `J' rr m w vi ° :� .�. F 5- N w ,t y .* w — G
c
aq
° Qom' 97 UQ Q' P-
o 0O ° O
°`'�CL
m = �.
o�' vG, rn
m m �, m
y' "Z4CL
c z w c o o y' ',
CL
'S' R. v� •� R N .. N .7e rn"P �'
C .0.°. w "' w ,� W .5. T P.. R w m y T3 R y y
R -h O O ° w °O W N p' w N O4 C _ a- w w.
•., (D N C c 0 .-y (C (D 7 O v' N w "'h O w ^' '7' O
C N C Y R w h R
n m m
o w
tr �. o o �'
w N° R ° m 0 0 q y n
Dq
CL
CL
CL
o• �• �• � o � �, � wm � � w io' B o o c o � •o � �
D
w
y-
3-
a
a
m
n r
o»
n x
m
m
p
x
D
D
i
N
c
p
p
n
n
n
N
z
p
3
N
^
N
m
N
y
a
m
3
m n m
m c m
c
v
c
Q
u
c >•
o
,*
n
c
a
c
N
s
o
J
w
_
v
v
o N
`z N
s
J
n
s
pp
n
d
'm
°
w
O
o
o
c
F
3
m
o
Q O. ^O
n
n
N
Z m
w m
m
m
3
c
N
v
o
m n
_.
m c
m
v
-O
f^d'
d
M
m
3 m
a
w
C
m
n
n
�,
f°
C
3
c
3
n°°'
£ x
3
m
m
3
p
<
c
n ID
T
00
O
O
(p O
N
N
n
ON
CE
c
°
m
�
m
c
'm
m
n
C
a
D
C
n
C
n
C
D
a
n
C
D
D
D
a
n
C
D
C
a
n
C
n
C
a
a
y
m
O
N
m
N
N
Y
�
N
N
A
A
N
N
N
N
N
f4
fE
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
m
D
D
D
m
m
m
8m
2
�
m
m
a
J
T Y
Y
Z
Z
n Y
O
O
O
O
N O
n
N_ V
O
O
0 O.
-
D
J
n
N
d
O Y
O
O
o
apt
•�
�,
n
a
° c
n
o
o
pa'
e
rg
6
ry
N r
w
N
N
u
3
N
0
J
J
d
2
6
N
Events
Notes:
P
Permitted Use
A
Permitted Accessory Use
AUP
Administrative Use Permit Required
CUP
Conditional Use Permit Required
-----
Use Not Allowed
Section 4. Environmental Review. This Ordinance is exempt from additional environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code § § 21000, et seq.,
"CEQA") and CEQA regulations (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000. Et seq.) because it
establishes rules and procedures to permit operation of existing facilities; consists only of minor revisions
and clarifications to existing regulations and specification of procedures related thereto; and consists of
actions taken to assure the maintenance, protection and enhancement of the environment. This
Ordinance, therefore, does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment. (14
California Code of Regulations §§ 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3).) Furthermore, this Ordinance is
categorically exempt from further CEQA review under 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15301, 15305, and 15308.
Section 5. Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly constructed in order to achieve the purposes
stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council's intent that the provisions of this Ordinance be interpreted
or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.
Section 6. Enforceability. Repeal of any provision of the RMC does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or
liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring
before this Ordinance's effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in full force and effect for
sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Ordinance.
Section 7. Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the
remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
Section 9. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall publish a
summary of this Ordinance and post a certified copy of the full Ordinance in the office of the City Clerk
at least five days prior to the adoption and within 15 days after adoption of the Ordinance, the City Clerk
shall publish a summary of the Ordinance with the names of the Council Members voting for and against
the Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rosemead,
County of Los Angeles of the State of California on
am
Steven Ly, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney
Burke, Williams, & Sorensen, LLP
UMI
Attachment B
Planning Commission
Staff Report of June 4, 2018
ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT:
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM; PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: JUNE 4, 2018
.SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 18-02
SHORT TERM RENTAL OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND BOARDING
HOUSES —.ROSEMEAD ZONING CODE (TITLE 17)
SUMMARY
The Rosemead Zoning Code (Title 17) of the Rosemead Municipal Code carries out the
policies of the Rosemead General Plan by classifying and regulating uses. of land and
structures within the City. The Zoning Code, however, is silent on short-term rental of
residential homes , and boarding ,houses, and as such the uses are. not currently
regulated for land use. The proposed Municipal Code.Amendment would amend the
Rosemead Zoning Code by adding definitions for `Boarding house or rooming house"
and "Short-term rental," and prohibit boarding/rooming house and short-term rental of
residential homes in the residential zones (R-1, R-2, and R-3): The proposed Code
Amendment would not affect residential rental (e.g., single-family dwellings, two-family
dwellings (duplex), multiple -family dwellings (three or more units)..with a lease or rental
agreement that is not short-term.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This Ordinanceis exempt from additional environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.,
"CEQN) and CEQA regulations (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000. Et seq.)
because it establishes rules and procedures to permit operation of existing facilities;
consists only of minor revisions and clarifications to existing regulations and
specification of procedures related thereto, and consists of actions taken to assure the
maintenance, protection and enhancement ofthe the environment. This Ordinance,
therefore, does not have the potential .to cause significant effects on the environment..
(14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3).) Furthermore, this
Ordinance is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under 14 Cal. Code. Regs.
§§ 15301, 15305, and 15308.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission:
ME
Planning Commission Meeting
June 4, 2018
Page 2 of 7
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public.testimony; and
2. Adopt .Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-10 with findings (Exhibit "A"), a
resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 980 (Exhibit
"B") for the approval of MCA 18-02.
DISCUSSION
Background
The recent increase in the number of short-term rental units in Rosemead and their
potential effects on residential neighborhoods has ledto discussion on whether or not
the use should be regulated:. Short-term rentals consist of either home -sharing (e.g.,
homeowner renting a room), and vacation rentals where the entire unit is used
exclusively for guests as a way of generating income for the property owner. Although
many short-term rentals have negligible. effect to the surrounding residential
neighborhood, certain short-term uses have created problems, including excessive
noise, glare (lights at night), high traffic volume, lack of street parking, trash & debris,
and others. An example is a short-term rental use in a single family residential
neighborhood where approximately 30 beds were individually rented at $20 per night.
The neighborhood saw an increase in traffic, street parking shortage, public
disturbance, and general concerns for safety. The use also placed a strain on the City's
resources with Code Enforcement violations and calls for law enforcement services. .
City Council Workshop
On March 27, 2018, the City Council held a duly noticed workshop to discuss short-term
rental of residential homes (among other upcoming Code Amendments). The following
is a summary of the City Council input for the Planning Commission's consideration:
• The Council discussed three potential options:
o Prohibit entirely short-term rental of homes and boarding houses in
residential zones.
o Allow short-term rentals with licensing (e.g., Conditional Use Permit and
business license) and TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax) assessment.
o Allow room rental with owner residing on the.property. Entire home rental
not allowed.
Boarding house or rooming house. (rented to two or more separate rental
agreements or leases) is not an appropriate use in residential zones. Potential
problem when a renter converts the home into a boarding/rooming house.
a Measures for how the City would enforce short-term rental .uses.
Planning commission Meeting
June 4, 2018
Page 3 of 7
Zoning Code Sections
The following Zoning Code Sections would be amended with the approval of MCA 18-
02:
Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.04.050 (Definitions)
New definitionfor "boarding house or rooming house" would be added to the
Zoning Code. In general, boarding house or rooming house is defined as a
dwelling unit where sleeping rooms are rented to multiple transients (two or
more) regardless it the owner, agent or manager resides on the property. "Short-
term rental" definition is added to state that short-term rental is occupancy of
thirty (30) days or less.
Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17 12 020 (Residential District Land Uses
and Permit Requirements)
Table 17.12.020.1 (Uses in Residential Districts) is amended to identify that
"boarding house or rooming house," and "short-term rental" is not permitted in R-
1, R-2, and R-3 zones.
The effect of the above language would prohibit all short-term rental (as defined) of less
than. 30 -days in the R-1, Rr2, and R-3 zones. Boarding house or rooming house,where
sleeping rooms are rented to individuals with two or more separate rental agreements or
leases; either written or oral or implied, would be prohibited regardless of occupancy
period.
The proposed Code Amendment, however, would not have an effect .on the following
uses and activity:
"Supportive Housing," "Transitional Housing," or "Residential Care Facilities"
which are already defined and permitted in the residential zones and subject to
State status.
Residential rental (home, duplex, triplex, apartments, etc.) that is longer than 30 -
days, as rental period in excess of 30 -days is not defined as "short-term."
MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS
Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060, amendments to the Zoning Code
may be approved only if all of the following findings are first made:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan;
The proposed. amendment is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element
Goal 1 to, "Maintain stable and attractive single-family residential
NN
Planning Commission Meeting
June 4, 2018
Page 4 of 7
neighborhoods." Short-term rental and residential homes and boardinghouses
adversely affect the characteristics of a residential neighborhood with increase in
traffic, noise and glare. Transient short-term occupancy use, therefore, does not
promote stable character to residential neighborhoods.
2. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and
The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, as its goal is to protect and maintain
the residential characteristics of neighborhoods.
3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions
of the Zoning Code.
The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Zoning Code in that
the Ordinance defines and establishes guidelines for short-term rental of
residential homes, and boarding and rooming houses which were silent and
undefined. The amendment ensures that short-term transient uses are
prohibited in residential zones in order to protect the residential characteristics of
established neighborhoods.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has .been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which
includes publication in the Rosemead. Reader and postings of the notice at six. public
locations.
Prepared and SyKmi�ted by:
Ben
of Community Development
EXHIBITS:
A, Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-10
B. Draft Ordinance No. 980
Planning Commission Meeting
June 4, 2018'
Page 5 of 7
EXHIBIT "A"
PC RESOLUTION 18-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE
NO. 980 FOR THE APPROVAL OF MCA 18-021 AMENDING TITLE. 17
(ZONING). OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT .NEW
REGULATIONS FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL OF RESIDENTIAL
HOMES AND BOARDING HOUSES
WHEREAS, Section 17.152.060 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the
criteria for a Zoning Code Amendment;
WHEREAS, Sections 65854 and 65855 of the California Government Code and
Section .17.152.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes. the Planning
Commission to review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding
amendments to the City's Zoning Code;
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2018, a notice was published in the Rosemead Reader
and notices were posted in six public locations, specifying the availability of the
proposal, and the date, time; and location of the public hearing for Municipal Code.
Amendment 18.-02;
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and
advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Municipal
Code Amendment 18-02; and
WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all
testimony presented to them in order to make the following'determination.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT.RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Rosemead as follows:
SECTION 1. This Ordinance is ,exempt from additional environmental review
under the California Environmental. Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§
21000, et seq., "CEQX) and CEQA regulations (14 California Code of Regulations 5§
1.5000. Et seq.) because it establishes rules and procedures to permit operation of
existing facilities;, consists only of minor revisions and clarifications to existing
regulations and specification of procedures related thereto; and consists of actions
taken to assure the maintenance, protection and enhancement of the environment.
This Ordinance, therefore, does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the
environment. (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3).)
M
Planning Commission Meeting
June 4, 2018
Page 6 of 7
Furthermore, this Ordinance is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under 14
Cal, Code Regs. §§ 15301, 15305, and 15308.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES
that facts do exist to justify approving Municipal Code Amendment 18-02, in accordance
with Section 17.152.060 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any.applicable
specific plan;
FINDING: The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan Land
Use Element Goal 1 to, "Maintain stable and attractive single-family residential
neighborhoods." Short-term rental and residential homes and boarding houses
adversely affect the characteristics of a residential neighborhood with increase in
traffic, noise and glare. Transient short-term occupancy use, therefore', does not
promote stable character to residential neighborhoods.
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and
FINDING:.The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, its goal is to protect and
maintain the residential characteristics of neighborhoods.
C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of
. the Zoning Code.
FINDING: The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Zoning
Code in that the Ordinance defines and establishes guidelines for short-term
rental of residential homes, and boarding and rooming houses which were -silent
and undefined. The amendment ensures that short-term transient uses are
prohibited in residential zones in order to protect the residential characteristics of
established neighborhoods,
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS City Council
adoption of Ordinance No. 980 for the approval of Municipal Code Amendment 18-02,
for the amendment of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead. Municipal Code regarding
short-term rental of residential homes and hoarding houses.,
SECTION 4. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on June 4, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN.
ABSENT:
r
Planning Commission Meeting
June 4, 2018
Page 7 of 7
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the, adoption of this resolution and
shall transmit copies of same to the Rosemead.City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 4t day of June 2018.
Sean Dang, Chair
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting,. held on the 16th day of April
2018, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES: .
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen;'LLP
Ben Kim, Secretary
G37
EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO. 980
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,
CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OT THE ROSEMEAD
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SHORT TERM RENTAL OF RESIDENTIAL
HOMES AND BOARDING HOUSES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.Findings. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do
exist to justify approving Municipal Code Amendmentl8-02, in accordance with Section 17.152.060 of
the Rosemead Municipal Code ("RMC") as follows:
A. The. proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific
plan;
FINDING: The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
General Plan. It is a goal of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to enhance and maintain the
quality and character of Rosemead's residential neighborhoods. To ensure that the residential character is
maintained, a General Plan policy is that the City should actively promote the maintenance of properties
and building through code enforcement. The proposed code amendments will provide ,the City with
additional tools for ensuring safe and decent housing while working to enhance the visual quality of
residential neighborhoods and ensure safe and decent housing for all City residents. This ordinance is
tailored to preserve the residential 'character of a neighborhood by prohibiting commercial' enterprises
such as short -tern rental. and boarding house businesses in the residential zones and while respecting the
rights to privacy and association that the California Supreme Court recognized in City of Santa Barbara v.
Adamson (1980) 27 C91.3d 123 and related cases.
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare of the City; and
FINDING: Adopting this Ordinance is in the public interest because it is designed'to protect
public health and safety while also promoting public welfare. The City has in recent years experienced a
great number of short-term rental of residential homes and boarding houses that house temporary
residents in residential housing, often in unsafe conditions. Short-term tenants that stay only for one
night, a week, or even a few months in its residential area have little interest in public agencies or the
welfare of its citizenry as they do not participate in localgovernment and community organizations that
strengthen a City and its residents. This Ordinance promotes public health, safety, and general welfare
and serves the goals and purposes of the RMC.
C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of [the]'
Zoning Code.
FINDING: The City's ability to exercise its powers in accordance with Article XI, § 7 of the
California Constitution to regulate land use is well-established. This ordinance is intended to regulate
aesthetics, traffic, parking, public peace, and other, similar,matters related to public health, safety, and
welfare. Similar regulations that prohibit or regulate transient commercial uses of residential property
M
have been upheld in cases such as Ewing v. City of Carniel-By-The-sea (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1579
because such regulations are rationally related to preservation and enhancement of the residential
character of the neighborhood and stability of the community.
Section 2. RMC § 17.04.050 [Definitions — General] is amended as follows:
A. Addition of New Definitions. RMC § 17.04.050 is amended.to add new definitions for
"boarding house or rooming house" and "short-term rental," as. follows:
"Boarding house or rooming house" means a dwelling unit where sleeping rooms are rented to individuals
with two or more scute rental a"reemeuts or leases either written or oral or implied,.whether or not an
owner, aggent, or rental manager is in residence Meals may be provided to boarders in connection with
support ve housing n'ansitional housing hotel motel' or other extended lodging facility as these terms
are defined in this code."
"Short-term rental" means any dwelling that is ocLtMied or intended or designed to be occupied on a short-
term basis for occupancy duration of thirty f30) calendar days or less."
B. Amendment to Existing Definition. The existing definition of "family" contained in .
RMC § 17.04.050 is amended as follows:
"Family" means any group of individuals living together as the functional equivalent of a family where
the residents may share living expenses, chores, eat meals together and are a close'gioup with social,
economic, and psychological commitments to each other. A family includes, for example, the residentsof
residential care facilities and group homes for people with disabilities. A family does not include larger
institutional group living situations such as dormitories, fraternities, sororities, monasteries, er-nunnerAes,
or boarding houses.
Section 3. RMC § 1.7.12.020 is amended to read as follows:
Table 17.12020.1, Uses in Residential Districts, identifies the uses of land allowed in each
residential zoning district, and the land use permit, requ red, if any, to establish each use. Where the last
column in the tables (Specific Use Regulations) includes,a section reference number, the regulations in
the referenced section apply to the use in addition to those shown in the table. .
Table 17.12.020.1: USES IN RESIDENTIAL, DISTRICTS
a
MR
See section 17.12.030 for district specific requirements. See
Single-family Dwellings
Chapter 17.42 for Manufactured Homes:
Two-family Dwellings (Duplex)
-
P
P
See section 17.12.030 for district specific requirements.
---
----
DR
See section 17.12.030 for district specific requirements.
Multiple -family Dwellings
-
See Article 3, Chapter 17.30, Section 1.7.30.190 (Second
Second Dwelling Unit, Single -story
P
P
P
Dwelling Units)
See Article 3, Chapter 17:30, Section 17.30.190 (Second
second Dwelling Unit, Two-story
CUP
CUP
CUP
Dwelling Units) .
a
MR
Section 4. Environmental Review, This Ordinance is. exempt. from, additional environmental
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et
seq., "CEQA") and CEQA regulations (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000. Et seq.) because it
establishes rules and procedures to permit operation of existing facilities; consists only of minor revisions
and clarifications to existing regulations and specification of procedures related thereto; and consists of
actions taken to assure the maintenance, protection and enhancement of the environment. This
Ordinance, therefore, does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment. (14
3
See Article 3, Chapter 17.46 (Mobile Horne Parksand Park
Mobile Home Parks -
CUP CUP . CUP
Conversions)
Boarding house or rooming house
----- ----- ----- Not permitted
Short-term rental - --- - Not Permitted
�Ca[e Uses
Child Care Home, Small Family.
See Article 3, Chapter 17.30, Section 17.30.160 (Large and
(eight or fewer)
P
P
P
Small Family Child Day Care Home Facilities).
Child Care Home, Large Family
-_--
AUP
AUP
See Article 3, Chapter 17.30, Section 17.3 0.160 (Large and
(nine to 14)
Small Family Child Day Care Home Facilities)
Residential Care Facilities (six or
P
P
P
fewer
Residential Care Facilities (7 or
-----
CUP
CUP
more)
Supportive Housing
P
P
P
- Transitional Housing
P
P
P
-7777777
[Agrizulturegrid'AfllmabRelated Uses - -
Animal Keeping
A
A
A
See Title 6 (Animals) ofthe Municipal Code
Horticulture - Private
A
A
A
' Other Uses -
See Section 17.12.030 and Article 3 Chapter 17.32 (Accessory
Accessory Structures
A
A
A
Structures)
Educational Institution - Private
CUP
CUP
CUP
- Educational Institution - Public
P
P
P
Home Occupations, including
A
A
A
See Title 5, Chapter 5.41 (Home Occupations)
Cottage Food operations.
Lighted outdoor sporting field or
CUP
CUP
CUP
See Article 4, Section 17.66.060
court (tennis, basketball, etc.)
Places of Religious Assembly
CUP
CUP
CUP
Public Buildings and Facilities
AUP
Public Utility Facilities
PP
Telecommunication Facilities, not
JAUPAUP
Including Wireless
CUP
CUP
Telecommunication Facilities
-
Temporary Uses and Special
See Article 5, Chapter 17.124 (Temporary Use Permits and Special Events)
Events
Notes:
P .Permitted Use
- A Permitted Accessory' Use -
AUP Administrative Use Permit Required
CUP Conditional Use Permit Required
---- Use Not Allowed
Section 4. Environmental Review, This Ordinance is. exempt. from, additional environmental
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et
seq., "CEQA") and CEQA regulations (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000. Et seq.) because it
establishes rules and procedures to permit operation of existing facilities; consists only of minor revisions
and clarifications to existing regulations and specification of procedures related thereto; and consists of
actions taken to assure the maintenance, protection and enhancement of the environment. This
Ordinance, therefore, does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment. (14
3
California Code of Regulations H 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3).) Furthermore, this Ordinance is
categorically exempt from further CEQA review under 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15301, 15305, and 15308.
Section 5. Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly constructed in order to achieve the
purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council's intent that the provisions of this Ordinance be
interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this
Ordinance:
Section 6: Enforceability. Repeal of any provision of the RMC does not affect any penalty,
forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any
violation occurring before this Ordinance's effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in full
force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this
Ordinance.
Section 7. Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the
effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance
are severable.
Section 8. Effective Date., This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
Section 9. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall
publish a summary of this Ordinance and post a certified copy of the full Ordinance in the office of the
City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption and within 15 days after adoption of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk shall publish a summary of the Ordinance with the names of the Council Members voting. for
and against the Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rosemead,
County of Los Angeles of the State of California on
Steven Ly, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney
Burke, Williams, & Sorensen, LLP
B-11
B-12
Attachment C
Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of June 4, 2018
Minutes of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 4, 2018
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:01 pm by Chair Dang in the City Hall Council
Chambers located at 8838 E. Valley Boulevard.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Eng
INVOCATION — Chair Dang
ROLL CALL — Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Vice -Chair Tang and Chair Dang
ABSENT — Commissioner Lopez
STAFF PRESENT — City Attorney Thuyen, Community
Associate Planner Hanh, Assistant Planner Wong, Comr
1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND
City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE
None
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. DESIGN REVIEW
story single-family
003.034). Any new
square feet of dev
project site is local
PC RESOLUTION
COUNTY OF LOS
A NEW :3,245 SG
GARAGE. THE SI
SINGLE-FAMILY R
STAFF RECOMME
08 with findings ar
Community Development
staff report.
Engineer Fajardo,
RIGHTS
1 - Wei Zhi Li has submitted a Design Review application to construct a new two -
ailing unit with 3,245 square feet of floor area at 3731 Charlotte Avenue (APN: 5371 -
tiling unit to be constructed that equals or exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500)
led living area shall be subject to a Discretionary Site Plan and Design Review. The
in a Single -Family Residential (R-1) zone.
8 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,
TELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 18-01, PERMITTING
RE FEET SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT WITH AN ATTACHED THREE -CAR
ECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3731 CHARLOTTE AVENUE (APN: 5371-003-034), IN
DENTIAL (R-1) ZONE.
N - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No.18-
IOVE Design Review 18-01, subject to the 22 conditions.
Kim introduced Assistant Planner Kinson Wong and stated he will be presenting the
Assistant Planner Wong presented the staff report.
Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff.
None
Chair Dang asked the Design Architect to the podium to speak about the project.
Kamen Lai, Project Designer, thanked staff, gave a brief summary of the project, and stated that he may answer any
questions the Planning Commission may have. He added that the applicant agrees to all the conditions of approval.
Commissioner Eng asked if the home will be owner -occupied.
Project Designer Lai, replied the home is currently vacant and when completed the property owner will move in.
Commissioner Eng asked how long the property owner has owned the property.
Project Designer Lai replied that they just recently purchased the property and maybe it has been six months.
Vice -Chair Tang stated it is a beautiful design.
Chair Dang stated that he noticed there are a lot of articulations and asked if it was a City requirement or his design.
Project Designer Lai, replied some are City requirements and some are also their choice.
Commissioner Eng stated she appreciates the articulation,
stand out.
Chair Dang opened the Public Hearing and
None
Chair Dang closed the Publi(
questions.
None
Chair Dang stated articulation
facing the street. He added t
pavers helps to beautify the f
or the applicant's choice.
Project Designer Lai replied it
Chair Dang asked staff if the
Assistant Planner Wong repliE
one tree.
and it is nice which makes the home
anyone wishing to speak on this item.
there were any further comments or
this design flows well, and he appreciates that the garage doors are not
touch that the block wall stucco will match the home and the interlocking
ig. He asked if the trees that are being proposed are a City requirement
of both City requirement and their choice.
is a City requirement.
and explained for every 50 feet of frontage of a development it is required to plant
City Engineer Rafael Fajardo, explained that there is a City Ordinance that when improvements are $10,000, you are
required to plant a tree.
Chair Dang stated so there is a $10,000 valuation, and if the frontage is more than 50 feet it is required to plant a street
tree.
City Engineer Fajardo stated that is correct.
Assistant Planner Wong clarified that the tree he was referring to is the tree on the private property.
Chair Deng asked if the $10,000 requirement is a Public Works requirement.
City Engineer Fajardo responded, but it was not audible.
Chair Deng thanked staff and asked if there were any further comments or questions.
None
Chair Dang asked for a motion.
Vice -Chair Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 18-08 with
findings and APPROVE Design Review 18.01, subject to the 22 conditions.
Vote resulted in:
Ayes:
Dang, Eng, Herrera, and
Noes:
None
Abstain:
None
Absent:
Lopez
Community Development Director Kim stated thefmotion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, and 1 Absent and
explained the 10 -day appeal process.
B. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 81334 - Chau Pham has submitted a Tentative Parcel Map application to
subdivide one existing parcel into two parcels. The existing single-family dwelling would be remodeled
to be located within one of the two proposed parcels, and comply with all development standards,
including the minimum setback requirements. The project site is located at 3836 Temple City Boulevard,
in the Single -Family Residential (R-1) zone. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 16.08.030, "no person
shall subdivide any real property, improved or unimproved, or any portion thereof, shown on the latest
adopted county tax roll as a unit, or as contiguous units, into four or fewer parcels for the purpose of
sale, transfer or encumbrance, whether immediate or future, until a final map thereofhas been filed and
approved in accordance with the requirements of this chapter, or in accordance with the requirements
for a'subdivision of the State Subdivision Map Act, Government Code § 66410 et seq."
PC RESOLUTION 18-09 - 'A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP 81334, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF ONE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS. THE PROJECT SITE IS
LOCATED AT 3836 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD (APN: 8593.024.031), IN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
(R-1) ZONE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No.
18-09 with findings and APPROVE Tentative Parcel Map 81334, subject to the 69 conditions.
Community Development Director Kim stated Associate Planner Hanh will be presenting the staff report.
Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report and stated City Engineer Rafael Fajardo has requested to add an
additional condition of approval.
Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if there were any comments or questions for staff.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if there are any plans to develop on the proposed parcel that the existing dwelling is not located.
Associate Planner Hanh replied the applicant has not submitted any plans for a residential development but the existing
house will have to be remodeled to meet the setback requirements.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if the driveway for the existing house will need improvements.
Associate Planner Hanh replied yes, and explained the applicant will have to close off the existing driveway and install
a new driveway that will meet Public Works requirements.
Chair Dang asked City Engineer Fajardo what is the condition of approval that he would like to add.
City Engineer Fajardo replied a fire hydrant is being proposed and he would like to add that a 15 feet red curb be in
front of the fire hydrant.
Chair Dang asked the City Attorney where that may be
City Attorney Thuyen asked the City Engineer Fajardo
of approval.
Community Development Director Kim recommended
heading stating "Other Conditions".
City Attorney Thuyen replied he is amendable to that s
Vice -Chair Tang also
the water hydrant.
Associate Planner
"Road Section"
Chair
Hanh
Chair Dana stated Condition of
Associate Planner Hanh replied
45.
City Attorney Thuyen
renumber the rest ac
ided that it could be added i
that City Engineer Fajardo
will that be under.
conditions of
he recommends this be included in the conditions
number 70 be added and include a
number 52, which already includes
he would like it added under the heading of
Condition of Approval number 45.
45 refers to sewers.
would be moved down and this will be a new condition of approval number
itis being proposed that it would be added as Condition of Approval number 45 and
Associate Planner Hanh replied yes.
Chair Dang asked if there were any comments or if this is agreeable to them.
Planning Commission accepted the change.
Chair Dang asked if there were any further comments or questions for staff.
None
Chair Dang asked the applicant to the podium to speak on the project.
Henry Poquiz, from HB Engineering stated he is present to answer any questions.
Commissioner Eng asked why the property is being subdivided.
Engineer Poquiz replied that the lot is too big and it originally was two parcels. He
merged and the applicant is now just using one portion of that and they are just red
Commissioner Eng commented that it had been consolidated before.
Engineer Poquiz agreed, he explained it had been a lot merge, and
Commissioner Eng commented that the parcel was split so evenly a
Vice -Chair Tang asked how that works when it had been split before
Engineer Poquiz replied that it use to be two lots and at one time the
so now it is legally one parcel. He stated now the applicant would li
to no through a subdivision process for a Subdivision Map Act. He
through the Subdivision Map Act.
Vice -Chair Tang asked how it came about that the parcels had
Engineer Poquiz replied the previous owners choose to merge
could see that there was a vacant lot that is not being used. ,.
Chair Dang referred to Commissioner Ei
soon or will it be sold as a vacant lot.
Engineer Poquiz replied yes, that is the j
Chair Dana asked if the same owner will
Engineer Poquiz replied yes.
Chair Dang asked if there WE
None
gently they N
looks pretty.
ned that the parent tract was
this back to how it was.
the lot use.
and then it was merged together.
revious owners merged the two parcels together,
e to revert this back to two parcels and will have
added'you cannot split the parcels without going
the parcels together and when his client bought it, they
asked if the vacant lot was going to be developed
and if the lots are divided, then the applicant may title the lots separately.
plans for the vacant lot.
questions or comments for the applicant's representative.
Chair Dang opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on this item
None
Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments.
None
5
Chair Dang asked the City Engineer if this development will have its own street tree.
City Engineer Fajardo replied it is required, but in this case there is only an eight -foot driveway, and a tree well is
usually 4X4 or 3X3. He added during construction he will send an inspector out to see if it will meet ADA requirements
if they install a tree. He explained if they see they cannot install a tree because they do not have the 48 -inch clearance
for ADA then the applicant may submit for a 'Tree In -Lieu Permit' for a fee of seven hundred and Fifty dollars. He
stated ADA compliance in regards to driveways has been a concern that they have been addressing.
Chair Dang asked if when site plans are submitted for the vacant land does Public Works help the applicant decide
ideally on where to put the driveway and install the tree.
City Engineer Fajardo replied yes, it can be done, but it has to be done during construction to make specific locations.
Chair Dang asked if it can be done ahead of time during the plan development and construction document process.
City Engineer Fajardo replied it can be done as long as the project has been approved.
Vice -Chair Tang stated that what is being asked is if while plans are being developed for the proposed project Planning
would work with the applicant to help identify the location of the trees and asked staff if that is correct.
Associate Planner Hanh replied that is correct and it will first go throui
eventually it goes to Building Plan Check, and then it will be routed to
Vice -Chair Tang asked if that is all done before
Associate Planner Hann
Plan Check, Planning will review it,
s for their review.
Chair Dang recommended to help the developer save money;, if the applicant submits a preliminary site plan, showing
where the building and garage are located, then staff could show the Engineer where the driveway will be placed. The
Engineer would then be able to say where the tree can be placed: He added then you could design the building around
that.
that when the applicant submits plans it will then be routed to
the
Chair Dang stated he wishes there was something preliminary, so that you would not have to develop the whole plan,
then find out it does not work, and then you would have to flip the building around. It would be something preliminary
before the applicant would develop the floor plans.
Associate Planner Hanh stated for the single-family dwelling use it is permitted by right, so they would submit during
the regular plan check standard procedures. He added staff and the City Engineer will work with the developer to
assure the appropriate locations are decided on.
Chair Dang asked if by that time if the floor plans and elevations are fully completed, or 70-80% are completed. He
also asked if that is when it routed to the City Engineer.
Associate Planner Hanh replied that Planning would review the private property first. He added it would be approved
by Planning before it would go to Building and Safety, while routed to Public Works the Engineer will work with the
developer in regards to the street tree locations and if they will meet all the requirements.
Community Development Director Kim stated the question may be that the Chair would like staff to sit and work with
the applicant, to make sure the applicant is aware of all the development standards, including Planning and Public
Works requirements, so that they have the full information before they start developing the construction documents.
Chair Dang agreed and stated he does not want to have the developer spend a lot of money developing 80 to 90% of
construction documents and then to find out they just to meet satisfy a street tree requirement, he will have to change
the design. He commented that is not a fruitful way of doing business.
Community Development Director Kim stated staff can provide the information to the applicant in advance.
Chair Deng recommended that a hand sketch be submitted to the City Engineer and if he agrees then the applicant
can proceed with construction documents.
Community Development Director Kim stated that can be taken care of.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if that is the standard operating procedure. He added during the early stage of the development,
staff would work with the applicant to help develop those plans to make sure they adhere to all the rigors of the code.
Community Development Director Kim replied that the applicant would typically before doing construction documents
would come into City Hall and get all the requirements, including Planning, as well as Public Works, and any other
department. He added in this particular case staff will make sure to provide that information to the applicant in advance.
Chair Dang thanked staff and asked the Planning Commission for a motion.
Vice -Chair Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera to ADOPT Resolution No. 18.09 with
findings and APPROVE Tentative Parcel Map 81334, subject to the 70 conditions. (Condition of Approval
number 45 was added by the Planning Commission on June 4, 2018.)
C. MUNICIPAL CODE
SHORT-TERM REI`
CODE (TITLE 17) -
the policies of the
Code Amendment wou
or rooming house" am:
of residential homes in
not
or more
OF
SIDENTIAL HOMES AND BOARDING HOUSES — ROSEMEAD ZONING
:ad Zoning Code (Title 17) of the Rosemead Municipal Code carries out
general Plan by classifying and regulating uses of land and structures
ode, however, is silent on short-term rental of residential homes and
he uses are not currently regulated for land use. The proposed Municipal
9 the Rosemead Zoning Code by adding definitions for "Boarding house
term rental," and prohibit boarding/rooming house and short-term rental
iential zones (R-1, R-2, and R-3). The proposed Code Amendment would
I., single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings (duplex), multiple -family
with a lease or rental agreement that is not short-term.
7
PC RESOLUTION 18-10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 980 FOR THE APPROVAL OF MCA 18-02, AMENDING TITLE 17
(ZONING) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT NEW REGULATIONS FOR SHORT TERM
RENTAL OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND BOARDING HOUSES.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - That the Planning Commission:
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony and
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 18.10 with finding (Exhibit "A"), a resolution
recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 980 (Exhibit "B") for the approval of
MCA 18-02,
Community Development Director Kim presented a brief presentation on Municipal, Code Amendment 18-02, Short -
Term Rental of Residential Homes and Boarding Houses, and the staff report. He stated a printed version of the
presentation has been passed out at dais for the Planning Commission.
Vice -Chair Tang referred to the first slide where the definition of Short-term rental which reads, "Any dwelling that is
occupied or intended or designed to be occupied on a short-term basis for occupancy duration of 30 -calendar days or
less". He stated the City of Pasadena states "30 Consecutive Days" and asked if the City of Rosemead's definition
should also state 30 Consecutive Days.
Community Development Director Kim replied Short-term Rental would be any rental that is less than 30 consecutive
days or 30 days.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if the term consecutive needs to be incorporated into the City's definition or does it not matter.
Community Development Director Kim replied it does not matter, but he will check on how it reads. He added if one is
to rent a house and that occupancy period is less than 30 days, then it is considered to be short-term. He stated the
term for short-term is up for discussion and he does have a specific reason why, but recommended 30 days.
Vice -Chair Tang stated he
needed to be incorporated.
Community Development Director Kim stated a workshop had been held by the City Council including this Ordinance
"Short-term Rental", as well as other ordinances that are coming up to the Planning Commission. He stated the
discussion at the workshop was various options, 1) prohibit the short-term rental altogether, 2) will it be for 30, 60, or
90 days and it was recommended at,30 days, 3) some type of licensing, and 4) room rental only and require that the
property owner live in the home. He said the current proposal to the Planning Commission is to add the two definitions
discussed or not permit short-term rental 30 days or less at all in all of the residential zones. He referred to the "Table
17.12.020.1: USES IN. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS" and recommended adding the two titles (Boarding House or
Rooming House and Short-term Rental) and put dashes in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts, which would mean the City
would not permit those type of uses. He stated currently the code is silent. He added the last exhibit in this
presentation is a listing of what is included in Airbnb as of today and they are examples of bed rentals, which are rented
out on the average of $18.00 - $20.00 dollars a night. He explained staff has verified these Airbnb locations, which are
just outside of the City of Rosemead boundary. He added they are within the neighboring cities. He said the reason
for the 30 days is because home rentals if there is a lease in place it is usually for six months to year or it could be
longer, but once the lease period ends it could go to month to month, so the 30 days would coincide with the month to
month. He explained that is why staff is recommending the 30 days and he may answer any questions the Planning
Commission may have.
Commissioner Eng thanked Community Development Director Kim and stated she is glad the City is doing this and
requested the City Attorney's help and recommended "beds' be incorporated into the definition of "Boarding House or
Rooming House" to address the renting of just beds.
City Attorney Thuyen deferred the question to Community Development Director Kim and explained it was a definition
chosen and reviewed by the department.
Community Development Director Kim stated within the proposed Ordinance in Section 2.A., where the boarding house
or rooming house is defined, it states, "means a dwelling unit where sleeping rooms are rented to individuals" it can be
changed to state "sleeping rooms and beds". He added he can make that change ,and will confer with the City
Attorney's office after this meeting.
Chair Dang stated also with that paragraph it states "two or more
more.
Community Development Director Kim replied this is very simple t
thought has been put into it, and one reason is to close a loop hole
day period. He added so anything under 30 days would be cons
term. He stated there has been an instance where a particular entg
owner, so there is one lease for the house, and the person leasinc
individual bed, where they have put many beds. He added to prey
rental short-term period to 30 days, however, it Will not allow leases
controls the potential of multiple leases.
and asked why two or
the Ordinance has been written, but a lot of
the Short-term Ordinance calls out for a 30 -
short -term, so the City is not allowing short -
f actually rent the house from a property
with that single lease is subleasing each
City is saying they are going to limit the
eements of two or more, so it somewhat
City Attorney Thuyen stated when staff was developing this Ordinance, they did look for models of other jurisdictions
within California and they went with this approach. He added that there is not any meaningful difference in describing
this as sleeping rooms or beds, but the intent of this language, which is shared by a lot of jurisdictions in Southern
California is prohibiting multiple leases in a matter which makes it seem more like a boarding house as opposed to a
traditional one-year lease. He added the issue here that needs to be addressed is people are renting out rooms where
there are six people under separate leases and it is a use that is anti -residential character by having so many leases
and having it more of a transient boarding house verses having a traditional leasing arrangement.
Commissioner Eng stated for practicality reasons, it makes sense to have one lease if there are multiple people living
in an apartment. She explained if there were four leases it would cause a ping pong effect where each person could
say that they have not broken their lease.
Commissioner: Herrera asked if the term of 'two or more" is it there because it is not a single renter.
Chair Dang suggested that if it states, "sleeping rooms rented to individuals with a rental agreement(s)", and gave a
scenario on how this may work.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if it is just, "two or more"
City Attorney Thuyen, stated for a practical scenario they just don't want single-family homes to turn into. apartment
buildings,
Chair Dang stated he agrees and expressed he does not see the importance of, "two or more". He added it can be
one separate rental agreement and still be a boarding room.
Vice -Chair Tang asked for clarification on the intent of the definition of "two or more leases", and asked if you are
leasing one lease agreement with your tenant and if that tenant in turn subleases it to other people that you don't know
of, then it would fall under this ban. He stated that is the intent, but what will happen if he is the property owner and
he rents out his property where there are two individuals and two separate leases, they are there long term, not short
term, and asked can that occur.
Community Development Director Kim replied the intent is not for that scenario, and if two friends are living in a
home within a single lease then that is fine, however, if there is a transition of renters coming and going, and occurring
in a single-family home under separate leases, then that is what is trying to be prevented. The City is trying to establish
consistency and maintaining the character of the single-family home instead of all the turnovers of leases within a
residential area.
Vice -Chair Tang stated he understands the intent of this and is in support of
property owner, and reiterated the scenario of the two friends leasing his prop;
Community Development Director Kim replied that would typically be a single'
went to college and rented an apartment with two other friends. He stated'tha
Vice -Chair Tang asked what if the two people did not know each other.
Commissioner Herrera stated that would be a dorm.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if that would be considered a dorm.
City Attorney Thuyen stated the focus here is to create a Z
to the City and for Code Enforcement for violations of sect
there could be two strangers where the landlord decides to
amongst each other, but that is not the issue that would cre
be more of where there are complaints of multiple tenants c
but he is not sure it will materialize in
Chair Dang gave a scenar
has four beds, it could havE
boarding room, so if that is
boarding house or a boardir
Vice -Chair Tang stated he a
been developed is too broad.
family residences are at, but t
Chair Dang
discussed.
the
that
ie is just trying to test this as a
a year each.
an example of when he
was a
I Code Ordinance as matter of policy to apply generally
That would be complaint driven. He added theoretically
to separate leases to accommodate the mutual distrust
,iolations that the City would enforce. He stated it would
ig in repeatedly. He added he understands the concern
section is proposed.
1 home, located near a college, and each bedroom
s. He expressed that would be a boarding house or
different friends, and two different leases, it still is a
er Tang is correct in his comments.
t there is an intent that the City is trying to regulate but the definition that has
ed you dowant to protect the character of the community where those single -
certain examples when you put them into practice could violate the code.
with the term of "two or more leases", because of the one lease scenario
Vice -Chair Tang stated he gets that it needs to be defined as two or more rentals to prevent leases as subleasing, but
he recommends it needs to be defined a little more.
Chair Dang recommended if "two or more' is struck out it would stick a little better. He stated if it is written, "sleeping
rooms are rented to individuals with rental agreement or agreements, lease or leases" and leave it to that.
Commissioner Eng commented more than one lease.
Chair Dang stated that it would have to be more than two leases to trigger this.
10
Vice -Chair Tang stated unless the intent is to not allow anyone to have two leases on one property. He added that is
how he would interpret this definition to be.
Chair Deng agreed and stated that it that it faces a problem if someone is challenged andl say they only have one
lease and they have four friends.
Commissioner Eng stated that the intent of this is to address if the rental is less than 30 -days.
Chair Dang stated that is correct and read the two bullet points from the presentation.
Vice -Chair Tang referred to the definition on the Table located on the second to
stated that the definition states that boarding house or rooming house, and shor
R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. He stated he is looking at this as two separate definiti
Chair Deng stated they are two separate definitions. He stated
tabled and explained that the Planning Commission understand;
serve the limitation factor.
Community Development Director Kim stated staff can
Chair Deng stated his second question is that the boarding t
and R-3 zone, but it is silent on the C and M zone, so you can
asked if hotel is proposed, would that be a conditional use.
Community Development Director Kim replied
Chair Deng asked if that is
Community
use.
Associate
to a
Kim replied that he
but the
t page of the presentation, and
rentals, are not permitted in the
id not combined.
requested this topic be
i the definition does not
ng house is not permitted in the R-1, R-2,
a C -zone that is adjacent to a R -zone. He
use.
to double check, but hotels do require a conditional
permit in any zone, but they are not allowed in
Chair Deng stated the reason he is bringing this up is because he likes the City of San Gabriel's definition of boarding
house or rooming house and if we adopt their definition of boarding house and rooming house, it would equivalent to
hotels and motels and it would be better. He explained it would be better and by default, where ever you put it in the
C-2 zone, if a hotel is required to do it, your boarding home and rooming home should fall under those stringent criteria.
Vice -Chair Tang stated this ties into the earlier discussion of a definition of a boardinghouse and rooming house, and
the intent is to regulate transient occupancy of these residential dwelling units. He suggested that along the line of
Chair Deng's suggestion is that a timeline be incorporated into the definition of a boarding house or rooming house, so
that if it is less than 30 days, then it is not permitted verses if someone has two leases in a home, where they may be
there for one to two years.
Community Development Director Kim stated in regards to commercial districts, staff will have to do more research on
what that would be.
Vice -Chair Tang stated he was just referring to the residential districts.
Chair Deng asked if R-3 would allow apartments or is it single-family.
11
Community Development Director Kim replied R-3 would allow multiple families.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if Chair Deng's question is in reference to the C -zone.
Chair Deng replied the way that it is written boarding house and rooming house, they are prohibited in R-1, R-2, and
R-3 but it is silent in C and M zones.
Community Development Director Kim stated that the way the code works is that in order for a use to be permitted, it
has to be listed as a permitted use within the Zoning Code, so if it is not listed then his interpretation would be that it is
not permitted.
Chair Deng that would be even better and in this case the Zoning Code
permits it labels it, or if it is silent then it would be prohibited, or seekir
that point.
Vice -Chair Tang asked staff if there was any residential
Community Development Director Kim replied yes, there
residential.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if there could be residential properties that
Community Development Director Kim replied
Vice -Chair Tang stated if that
to them when the City is silent
Community Development Dire
control short-term in the reside
Chair Deng stated Vice -Chair'
business license to run a hotel
Community Development Direi
home would of been built for a
more.
Chair Deng statec
going to have to c
house and get the
Community Development
Kim
if that
maintain
)e a "permissible code", so whatever it
ommunity Development's guidance at
zones.
ed properties that are being used as
into the C -zone.
zone does this short-term apply
re the intent of the code that is being presented is to
of the residential areas.
f touched on a good point and if you have a house in a C-2 zone and if you go file a
y will have to go through'a conditional use process.
Kim replied they will have to go through a lengthier process than that, because the
dential purpose, so in order to allow a commercial use, it would have to go through
through some life safety, fire protection, parking, sewer fees, etc,, if you are
house to a hotel. He added that under this provision you could do a boarding
ps even more and be fine speaking for just zoning.
Kim stated boarding house is not listed as a permitted use in the commercial zone.
Chair Deng stated if boarding house and rooming house are not permitted in R-1, R-2, R-3, and the other C/M zones
are silent, which shows they are prohibited, and asked why bother listing them at all. He suggested just don't list them
and it will be automatic.
Community Development Director Kim replied there have been a couple of instances where Code Enforcement has
had to take action on specific cases on problems in the residential zones and it is not listed but the City needs a tool. He
12
added it is very clear if someone comes in and there is a debate, then staff can say it is specifically not listed and there
is a code section to refer to.
Chair Deng stated this will give the City a better tool as opposed to something that is more obscure and saying it is a
permissible code.
Community Development Director Kim stated there is no argument at this point and the effort here is to make it clear
for Code Enforcement and to get this in place to start controlling the short-term rentals and other potential issues in
residential districts.
Chair Dang stated he supports that and asked if going back to a house in the C -zone and it is silent, can an applicant
play the devil's advocate and say that because it is not listed it is not prohibited.
Community Development Director Kim replied there is another section in the code that defines hotels and hotel type
uses which is permitted in the commercial zones with a conditional use permit. He explained once you get into that
then there is a whole conversion of a home to commercial use.
Chair Dang stated that is good and it ties back into the
and rooming house the same as hotels.
Community Development Director Kim stated that was the intent
districts.
Vice -Chair Tang stated it wouldn't matter if someo
asked if this is not the intent of what is trying to be
not a hotel.
Community Development Director Kim replied yes, and
address residential zoning districts.
Chair Dang
districts to c
Gabriel's definition if you
house
type of uses in the residential zoning
rent for ten days in the C -zone and
iermissible if it is just one room and
right now the way the code is presented is a first step to
d just concentrate on just the residential zoning
at a later date.
Community Development Director Kim stated staff can work on that in the future.
Vice -Chair Tang agreed and stated the reason this is being discussed is because there have been some issues and
complaints with tenants. He added the focus now should be on the residential and if there are issues in the commercial
zones then it can be taken care of in the future.
Chair Dang stated that it would be worthwhile if somewhere in the chapter one of the Zoning Code in the administration
part to state that the Zoning Code is a permissible code if it is silent it is prohibited. He asked if there is language like
that currently in chapter one. He added that will give the City some ammunition to face some of these challenges.
Community Development Director Kim stated staff will double-check to see if there is something and the Zoning Code
update is in progress and maybe it can be added in one of the future clean-ups.
Commissioner Eng stated she understands why this proposed Ordinance is necessary and asked staff what has other
cities done as far as measures to enforce violations of these infractions if any took place.
Community Development Director Kim gave an example of Monterey Park and stated they have had some significant
problems with short-term rentals and specifically boarding homes. He stated a home was rented to many individuals
13
in many rooms and individual areas (garages etc.) and they incorporated this short-term rental and boarding house
Ordinance. He added speaking with the Director in Monterey Park, their efforts have helped significantly controlling
those type of uses. He added if it is silent, there is always an interpretation or an argument that could be made by
people coming in saying the City code is silent and does not say they cannot do it, so it can be challenged. He said
the language was put in and if someone approached the City to inquire about the use, then they can show in the code
that it is not permitted. It is about getting the message out there and being transparent when that short-term rental will
not be permitted and stops the problem before it even gets started. He stated the second example is with the City of
Rosemead, there was an instance where the property owner rented a house and the person leasing the home rented
out to many individuals that has caused quite a bit of issues with the City and problems with the neighbors. It took a
lot of resources from staff, the Planning Department, Code Enforcement, Sheriff's Department, that has expended an
expensive amount of resources to get it controlled. He added this is the Cities first effort and we would like to put
something into the Zoning Code, so that if someone does come in staff can pull it out and say it is not permitted.
Commissioner Eng stated this is an issue and as a City, she is glad it is being addressed because this is a concern
that is happening. She added this will impact the quality of life in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones and secondly the City
has a lot of hotels and motels and it impacts their business as well. She said with the legitimate hotels and motels the
City has an oversight and there is accountability, but with this the City does not have the resource capacity to enforce
this. She recommended that this is a good first step, she agrees to have this put it place, and it can be refined.
Vice -Chair Tang asked what is the enforcement/process protocol once this is approved, will the first violation result in
a warning in the beginning and will citations happen later.
Community Development Director Kim replied
general the process is that the City would re(
notice of violation and inform the operator or
specific time to remedy the violation. He adde
the City will issue a citation.
Chair Dang stated he
Comment and asked if
attend this evening and read his
for "Boarding House or Roominc
state,"Boarding House or Roomi
or portions was removed) there)
agreements or leases, either w
residence...." He stated the pro
potentially rental or leasing for st
Chair Dang asked if there were
None
it will depend on what type of violation it is, however, in
or see if there is an issue, staff would do a courtesy
iat they are in violation of the City's code and given a
wner or operator does not remediate the situation, then
to give the public a chance to speak on this Agenda, so he opened this for Public
anvone wishing to speak on this item.
ublic comment that was given to her by resident Brian Lewin who is not able to
He stated that he had concerns about the first half of the definition language
;e" and suggested an alternate version to that first sentence to be modified to
ase" means a dwelling unit where sleeping or non -sleeping rooms (garage space
rented for lodging purposes to individuals with two or more separate rental
or oral or implied, whether or not an owner, agent or rental manager is in
changes are underlined and he added "for lodging purposes" so as to avoid
or other non -lodging purposes.
further comments or questions from the Public.
Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if there was more discussion on this item
or comment.
Commissioner Eng asked the Chair if staff has been asked to go back to work on the lease issue or is the Planning
Commission ready to move this forward.
14
Chair Deng replied as a summary the Planning Commission does not have a problem with the definition of short-term
rental, but the "Boarding House and Rooming House" definition the Community Development Director was going to go
back and look at the wording of "two or more separate rental". He referred to the email from Mr. Brian Lewin and stated
he is looking at it to see if there is any validity to his email and he can see his point. For example, if a person puts beds
in a living room, which does not have a closet, and asked staff if a bedroom is not a bedroom unless it has a closet. He
said if that living room does not have a closet then technically that room is not a sleeping room.
Community Development Director Kim stated that definition is a definition by the Building Code.
Chair Dang asked if itis silent in the Zoning Code
Vice -Chair Tang stated they are just being called sleeping rooms and it is not saying bedrooms. He stated the definition
of rooms in itself, is broad enough to say any room in a dwelling unit.
Chair Dang stated that some of what Brian Lewin's suggested has some validity and he said basically any rooms. He
stated garages could be removed and that is a building code issue, so that is an easy citation for Code Enforcement
to write. He said but the fact that it is a living room or any room without a closet and if they are using it as a lodging
purpose, then it should be deemed as a boarding house.
Vice -Chair Tang stated that is why he recommends it should
Commissioner Eng stated that Brian Lewin's poli
gathering spaces as lodging purposes, such as
that he wants all of those covered.
Chair Dang stated he agrees with Brian Lewin
are rented out. He added in Brian Lewin's case,
loop hole, so he sees Brian Lewin's point and hi;
dwelling unit that is rented out for lodging purpos
Commissioner Eng
it not be rests
room, dining
room.
a room that anybody can use the common
)r,a den. She said Brian Lewin's point is
and with the proposed definition, it aims at where sleeping rooms
he is saying a living room is not a sleeping room, so therefore, it is a
definition is'a little broader range, or it can say, "any rooms within a
�s% shall be considered as a boarding room.
4=0
;Iopment Director Kim stated the Zoning Code does have a definition for a bedroom and read, "A
any enclosed space within a dwelling unit that is designed for sleeping and has a permanent door
e and separation from all kitchen, living room, and hallway areas and complies with the uniform
AV code requirements for a bedroom".
Chair Dang stated if you explore the uniform Building and Safety code and if it says something about closets then you
might find that it requires it.
Commissioner Eng stated if someone rents out a dining room or living room space for lodging or sleeping and asked if
that would be covered under this Ordinance.
Community Development Director Kim replied that the definition that was discussed before making it more broad any
room for sleeping purposes or as defined by Mr. Lewin would provide better coverage.
Commissioner Eng stated she thinks that is what Brian Lewin's point was.
Vice -Chair Tang stated that use is already not permitted in those rooms and asked if it needs to be reiterated.
is
Community Development Director Kim stated he would not be averse to writing it and it would be additional language
that could be pointed out that to specify that the living room is not to be used for sleeping purposes.
Vice -Chair Tang recommended that this item be tabled to reword this definition and he recommends to defer to the
City Attorney to ensure that the language includes language that covers all rooms in a dwelling unit.
Chair Dang suggested that the Agenda be tabled so that staff may have time to work on it.
City Attorney Thuyen stated for clarification is the Planning Commission saying they would like to bring this item back
or are they doing a recommendation, because after hearing their comments, the bestway to address this is, and the
purpose of this item is really to just provide a recommendation and let the City Council know what the Planning
Commission thinks of this proposed Ordinance. He added since there is no issue with the short-term rental definition
and the issue is how to define a "Boarding House" and a "Rooming House', then he would like to recommend maybe
an adoption of this Ordinance and when to present this to the City Council, that staff provide some options on how to
define "Boarding House" and "Rooming House" and including the suggestion of the written comment of Brian Lewin
during the public comment period and also present some options of how some of the other San Gabriel Valley
jurisdictions have treated it. He stated the City Council could then evaluate and choose from that, also knowing the
concerns the Planning Commission have with potential roommate's situations,; and those type of concerns.
Chair Dang expressed that there are quite a few concerns
suggested that staff bring this item back to the Planning Cc
term rental portion could be approved separately.
City Attorney Thuyen replied he is checking to
reach a consensus on this Ordinance. He as
direction that he would like to add.
Vice -Chair Tang stated
to the City Council imm
ready to go to the City Council. He
the City Attorney if maybe the short-
nission may take if they do not
Director had any comments or
unless there is an urgency for this to get
Community Development Director Kim stated there is a desire to take this to the City Council as quickly as possible,
so that a couple of Code Enforcement cases can be rectified and staff is doing this as best as possible. He added in
order to preventpotential new cases such as the ones presented, and as soon as an Ordinance is in place, he would
feel more comfortable.
Vice -Chair Tang asked if it would be possible to have this item ready to come back to the Planning Commission in two
weeks. He also asked if this would be a reasonable time for City Council
Community Development Director Kim replied staff can bring this item back to the next Planning Commission meeting
if that is what the Planning Commission desires.
Chair Dang stated that he would not want all these issues discussed during a City Council meeting and that it is more
appropriate to be discussed during the Planning Commission setting. He added that he is here to help and these are
his suggestions, but if the Planning Commissioners feel there is an urgency great enough where the City Council should
act on it he will support it. He said if the Planning Commission has reservations as he suggests that it is best to just
have staff come back. He asked the Planning Commission for their comments or recommendations.
Vice -Chair Tang stated he is comfortable with this item returning to the Planning Commission in two weeks.
Commissioner Eng stated she also seconds that recommendation.
16
Chair Dang addressed Community Development Director Kim and asked if the urgency warrants it enough to have an
emergency meeting in a week and if that would help him. He said the Planning Commissioners schedules will have
to be checked for availability, but he can attend if necessary.
Community Development Director Kim replied no it would not help and explained that in order to make the next City
Council meeting noticing will have to be completed within a few days, so time will not permit this. He added that this
item may need to be continued to the following City Council meeting in July.
Commissioner Herrera asked if this item can go forward to the City Council with the added
exceptions/recommendations made by the Planning Commission this evening, so they can decide. She said this way
it will not have to come back to the Planning Commission in two weeks.
City Attorney Thuyen stated that he originally suggested that the Planning, Commission adopt the recommendation of
staff but also modify it to suggest additional alternative definitions for the "Boarding House and Rooming House", and
this way it would not create any significant delays. He stated itseems 'after reading the Municipal Code that the
Planning Commission has to forward a recommendation one way.or another to the City Council on this item and that
would be his suggestion.
Chair Dang suggested that if the Planning Commission is comfortable they can spend a little more time trying to come
up with a definition that can be presented to the City Council. He added this is the best solution to help the Community
Development Director and Code Enforcement to address this item.
Commissioner Eng asked if staff had
concerns discussed this evening.
from the'Plannina Commission to summarize the
Commissioner Herrera commented that she believes staff has enough information
Community Development Director Kim stated he does, but he requested the recommendations be repeated again
specifically to make certain they are included in the recommendations.
Commissioner Herrera stated City Council will be able to decipher once they receive all the information is presented to
them.
Vice -Chair Tang stated speaking for himself; if this item is voted on this evening, he does not feel comfortable voting
yay or nay without seeing the language. He stated if he is going to make a recommendation to the City Council to
adopt this update in the Zoning Code he personally would like to see the language.'
Chair Dang recommended that the Planning Commission do both and come up with the language that is acceptable to
recommend to the City Council
Vice -Chair Tang stated if itis something that can be done now, but he thought this would take more research,
and deferred this to the City Attorney.
Commissioner Eng asked if the Planning Commission is trying to decide whether they want to make a recommendation
to move forward with the Ordinance with the concerns that the Planning Commission addressed or are they trying to
say that they will be more comfortable for staff to come up with more refined wording with the definition.
Chair Dang stated because it is timeline constrained, the Community Development Director Kim would like it packaged
ready for City Council. He added he is acceptable to attempting revising the definitions this evening, so it may
get presented to the City Council. He stated at that point if City Council wishes to change it, they have the sole power
to do it, but at least the Planning Commission gets to get their version of the definition presented to the City Council.
17
Community Development Director Kim stated he would like to suggest the summarized version of the
definition proposed for the "Boarding house and rooming house". He added as presented, ""Boarding House and
Rooming House" means a dwelling unit where sleeping rooms are rented to individuals and the suggestion from
Commissioner Eng was to add "beds" to after the words "sleeping rooms". He said there was a second suggestion
from the public and addition to that where this definition is expanded to say "sleeping or non -sleeping rooms, garage
space, or portions thereof are rented for lodging purposes", so that is a broader definition and he is comfortable with
that.
Chair Deng stated he likes the recommendation from the public except he would
thereof" because "sleeping or non -sleeping room" is broad already and "rented for
that first half is acceptable to him. He stated the reason why he did not mention
sofa is not a bed, so obviously they would use the sofa to sleep, but the lodging pt
a living room with three sofas', and if they rent it out, this would catch it and the pre,
the second half, "two or more separate rental agreements or leases', and if the
e: off "garage space or portions
Jing purposes to individuals", so
is because a living room with a
es would catch that. He added
definition would not. He stated
more, particularly with the example of Vice -Chair Tang with one lease and four or five frii
quick summary, "Boarding house or rooming house means a dwelling unit where sleeping
rented for lodging purposes to individuals with rental agreements or leases, either written or
not an owner, agent or rental manager is in residence'.
Vice -Chair Tang stated he still did not feel comfortable with that
Chair Dang requested Vice -Chair Tang make a suggestion on what he
Vice -Chair Tang stated if "two or more separate rental, agree
he asked if that would then qualify as a boarding house. He
one property that rents out a property that still would qualify
still too broad.
is left out it will catch
scenario. He read a
in -sleeping rooms are
or imolied. whether or
struck out and in that same example
o people and two separate leases in
then.
Chair Deng stated lust the four words, "two or more separate", would be struck out.
Community Development Director Kim; replied yes, that qualifies as a boarding house, so then you go into the use
section where boarding house is prohibited.
Vice-ChairTang asked what if in this case for instance if there are two situations and the first is that situation "A" rents
a property with one lease to a family of five and then situation "B" rents out this property with two friends with two
separate leases for a year.,
Chair Dang asked Vice -Chair Tang if this definition will help a family of one lease a house.
Vice -Chair Tang replied that what he is trying to say is that family that is renting it out is obviously not considered a
boarding house and his latter definition is considered a boarding house and he thought that is what they were trying to
avoid.
Chair Deng stated that the way this is written is they want to define what causes a boarding house so his second
scenario catches that.
Vice -Chair Tang stated he thought they were trying to say it is alright to have two friends that want to rent a property
with two separate leases because they do not know each other and it doesn't make sense to put them under one
lease. He asked if it is being said it is not alright:
Chair Deng replied that is a boarding house.
Ix
Community Development Director Kim stated if the home is rented out and there are multiple leases on a piece of
property then it would be a boarding house, which would be prohibited. He added if it is a family of five then all their
limitation is the 30 days or less and that would be prohibited.
Vice -Chair Tang referred to if the "two or more rental agreements" verbiage is taken out.
Community Development Director Kim stated it has the verbiage, "sleeping room or non -sleeping room are rented for
lodging purposes to individuals with rental agreements or leases", then that would be considered boarding house,
which would be prohibited in residential zones.
Vice -Chair Tang stated that still didn't make sense to him because that
Chair Dang stated that is why it is a boarding house.
Community Development Director Kim stated if they subleased it then it would be
Chair Deng explained in another section of the Zoning Code, it will say that
2, and R-3 zones.
Vice -Chair Tang asked where will it state
Community Development Director Kim stated
be struck out.
Vice -Chair Tang stated if that is struck:
Chair Dang stated if that person suble,
Commissioner Eng stated the point of
property is rented out with more than o
Community Development Director Kim
in the definition.
Commissioner Eng recommended that
Chair Dang statedif a property is ren
marriage, that is a boarding house.
Community Development Director Kim
leases and
it to can still sublease it.
house is prohibited in the R-1, R -
they had "two or more" and it is being recommended to
doesn't, it is still a boarding house.
is that we,,,are trying to define what a boarding house is, so if a
it would be a boarding house and that is why the two or more leases is
states more than one lease.
with one lease to more than one individual that is not related by blood or
stated itis actually defined somewhere else and that is a definition of a family.
City Attorney Thuyen stated this issue may be resolved if they change the number of rental agreements to more than
two and change it to three or four and that may address Commissioner Dang's issues.
Chair Deng stated he said if it is even one then it is a boarding house.
Vice -Chair Tang stated that is why he is having a problem with this because even if you just have one lease then it can
become a boarding house. He adds that does not make sense to him because one lease is not a boarding house.
19
Chair Dang questioned if he has five friends and they are all paying him to write the check because the lease is under
his name, is that considered one agreement. He stated that is what you want to prohibit.
Vice -Chair Tang stated that is alright because what if it is a family.
Chair Dang stated that the word family is defined in the Zoning Code.
Vice -Chair Tang stated that he has friends for example, that there are four people living together, there is one lease,
and what is being said that would qualify as a boarding house, which then would be prohibited.
Chair Deng replied yes.
Vice -Chair Tang commented but that is not what they are trying to get to.
Commissioner Herrera stated the obligation is only to the two people the leaser and
Vice -Chair Tang stated he is going in the direction of what the City Attorney recommended that if there are more than
two leases then it is considered a boarding house.
City Attorney Thuyen stated that Commissioner Dang was trying to say you do not need a number limitation because
you are eliminating by categorizing it based on the rooms being leased out. He added what Commissioner Tang is
saying is that you should have a number of limitations to avoid the roommate situation, and both of you are approaching
it similarly but phrasing the definition a little differently. He added that Chair Deng is looking at this as each sleeping
room.
Vice -Chair Tang stated that is correct and he is looking at the dwelling unit
City Attorney Thuyen stated if there is going to be more than one sleeping room leased, then that's when this gets
triggered and you have sleeping rooms leased separately, verses when Vice -Chair Tang speaks about it you want to
make sure you different roommate situations could at least operate under this situation. He added this can work but it
is just a method of how the Planning Commission wants to articulate the definition.
Vice -Chair Tang stated that this is either going to be defined in a macro level or a micro level and the micro level is
where you are regulating the actual rooms or you are regulating it on based on dwelling units. His perspective is when
you are looking at single-family residences where are looking at dwelling units we are not looking at rooms. He added
these are sinole-family residences. ,
Chair Dang gave an example of if he owned a five -bedroom home where all of his kids have left to go to college, so
the bedrooms are vacant. He would like to go on Craig's List and he needs to rent the rooms to five people, he wants
to collect money from Just one person so there is one lease. He added customer A gives him a check for a month but
customer A collects money from his four friends and in that example asked if that a boarding house.
Community Development Director Kim replied it would be because as defined there is language that covers that section
where it says "either written or implied", so the whole control measure or boarding house is written or not written. He
added it comes down to if there is multiple leases on that property implied or not implied, written or not written, and if
rooms are rented out, or there are multiple agreements, then it would be considered a boarding house. He stated with
that broad definition and if the Planning Commission is agreeable, they could tweak this language with that broad
definition, and come up with a definition to cover that. That would give staff the ability to seek remediation when they
have instances where staff knows a home is being rented out for multiple tenancies.
20
Chair Dang stated that is why he is recommending the words "two or more" to be struck out, because it will give staff
more of a defense. He added it can be left in, but that is his intent of why he recommends it be struck out.
Community Development Director Kim asked if "two or more" be removed and replaced with "multiple agreements
either written or oral or implied".
Chair Dang stated it will still mean the same thing, but as a Director and he feels, it is a more of a powerful tool to keep
that in then he is agreeable and if it makes things easier.
Community Development Director Kim replied it will because then he can say there is more than one, whether it is
written or not written, implied, or by oral.
Chair Dang agreed and stated is supportive.
City Attorney Thuyen stated it would be also be helpful if they go
said Code Enforcement is complaint driven and would only real
issue. The City would then investigate and based on this defni
boarding house use and at their discretion decide to enforce it or
Chair Dang requested that the Community Development
Planning Commission has proposed.
Community Development Director Kim read, I
sleeping or non -sleeping rooms are rented for to
written oral or implied, whether or not an owner,
Chair Dang stated he is comfortable with that.
Vice -Chair Tang stated that, he is still a little uncc
Community Development Director Kim stated if
house or a rooming house rental.
Chair Danq stated there is a definition for family
Community
fh the general Code
ised when resident'
would determine or
definition again
ement process. He
there is may be an
fere is an improper
the editing the
house or rooming house means a dwelling unit where
3s to individuals with rental agreements or leases, either
at manager is in residence
h that because what if a family rents it out.
a home he would never consider that a boarding
in the Zoning Code.
would be for just a rental of a residence of a family.
friends rent it.
stated it has been well- documented on what a family is.
City Attorney Thuyen stated the State has been very loose on how you can define a family because there are so many
different alternative family arrangements.
Vice -Chair Tang reiterated what if it is two friends and that would in essence qualify as a boarding house.
City Attorney Thuyen read the current definition of family in the Zoning Code and he is not sure if the intent of this is to
attack roommates who share relationships like that and is really to address separate rental agreements with random
strangers that rent rooms.
21
Community Development Director Kim stated if two friends were renting a home, they would never say that is a boarding
house.
Vice -Chair Tang suggested that maybe it should say "rental agreements, leases or subleases", because in essence
that is what they are trying to tackle.
Community Development Director Kim agreed and staff can add that.
Chair Dang requested another reading and if the Planning Commission has no further discussion asked for a motion.
City Attorney Thuyen stated he would like to go through this one more time with the Community Development Director.
He read: `Boarding house or rooming house means a dwelling unit, where sleeping or nonsleeping rooms are rented
for lodging purposes, or to individuals, with rental agreements, leases or subleases, either written or oral or implied,
whether or not an owner, agent, or rental manager is in residence". He added that way it can be addressed or
identifying sleeping room or nonsleeping rooms that are rented to individuals based on separate leases.
Vice -Chair Tang stated he agrees and commented there
Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if they all
Development Director Kim.
Community Development Director Kim read; I
rooms or nonsleeping rooms are rented for
subleases, either written or oral or implied, wl
added there are no further changes to the folic
Chair Dang stated he agrees
Planning
Chair Dang stated he notioi
that the term "dwelling", be
you will want to use a dwell
City Attorney Thuyen
City Attorney stated the new
with modifications to Boardin
and
a dwelling.
more reading from the Community
house or rooming house means a dwelling unit, where sleeping
purposes, to individuals with rental agreements, leases or
not an owner, agent, or,xental manager is in residence". He
if they also agreed.
"Short-term rental" definition, read it and requested
explained that apartments are in the R-3 zone and
definition for a dwelling unit.
stated staff can add that.
dation that is subject for a motion is adoption of the recommendation of staff
rooming house and Short-term rentals as discussed as dwelling unit.
Chair Dang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to Adopt PC Resolution 18-10 - A resolution
of the planning commission of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of California,
recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 980 for the approval of MCA 18.02, amending Title
17 (zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code to Adopt new regulations for short term rental of residential
homes and boarding houses and with the recommendations discussed by the City Attorney.
Roll Call Vote resulted in:
Ayes:. Dang, Eng, Herrera, and Tang
Noes: None
22
Abstain: None
Absent: Lopez
Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes and 0 Noes,1 Absent
and this item will be presented to the City Council for future consideration.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. PC MINUTES 4-16.18
Chair Dang requested a correction be made to PC Minutes 4.1
last two sentences. He requested it be edited to state, "He stated it is at
requirements and it is at the local level that we are trying to not be too resi
then you may have to answer to the State. He added auditing may be involy
have requirements a lot more restrictive than the State"
Chair Deng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Vote resulted in:
Ayes:
Dang,Eng,
Noes:
None
Abstain:
None
Absent:
Lopez
Community Development
5. MATTERS FROM ST
None
6.
the
Tang
iage 8, paragraph 8, in the
level that is mandating these
ause if you are too restrictive,
it awkward at the local level to
PC Minutes 6-4-18 with the correction.
the vote of 4 Ayes and 0 Noes.
CommissionerEng stated the Rosemead Chamber of Commerce hosted an event two weeks ago regarding
Real Estate and four cities participated, E1 Monte, Rosemead, San Gabriel, and West Covina. She stated staff
participated at the event and pitched the Auto Auction site to the listing agent,
stated it was ivery nice event.
Chair Dang thanked the Planning Commissioners for sharing. He stated he would like to commend staff for providing
smaller plans to review and; the color renderings are helpful.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:52 pm.
The next regular Planning Commission meeting is on Monday, June 18, 2018, at 7:00 pm in the Council
Chambers.
23
Sean Dang
Chair
ATTEST:
Rachel Lockwood
Commission Secretary
Attachment D
Planning Commission Resolution 18-10
PC RESOLUTION 18-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.
980 FOR THE APPROVAL OF MCA 18-02, AMENDING TITLE 17
(ZONING) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT NEW
REGULATIONS FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES
AND BOARDING HOUSES
WHEREAS, Section 17.152.060 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the
criteria for a Zoning Code Amendment;
WHEREAS, Sections 65854 and 65855 of the California Government Code and
Section 17.152.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the Planning
Commission to review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding
amendments to the City's Zoning Code;
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2018, a notice was published in the Rosemead Reader
and notices were posted in six public locations, specifying the availability of the proposal,
and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Municipal Code Amendment 18-
02;
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and
advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Municipal Code
Amendment 18-02; and
WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all
testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Rosemead as follows:
SECTION 1. This Ordinance is exempt from additional environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§
21000, et seq., "CEQA") and CEQA regulations (14 California Code of Regulations §§
15000. Et seq.) because it establishes rules and procedures to permit operation of
existing facilities; consists only of minor revisions and clarifications to existing regulations
and specification of procedures related thereto; and consists of actions taken to assure
the maintenance, protection and enhancement of the environment. This Ordinance,
therefore, does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment. (14
California Code of Regulations §§ 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3).) Furthermore, this
Ordinance is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under 14 Cal. Code Regs.
§§ 15301, 15305, and 15308.
D-1
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that
facts do exist to justify approving Municipal Code Amendment 18-02, in accordance with
Section 17.152.060 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan;
FINDING: The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan Land Use
Element Goal 1 to, [M]aintain stable and attractive single-family residential
neighborhoods." Short-term rental and residential homes and boarding houses
adversely affects the characteristics of a residential neighborhood with increase in
traffic, noise and glare. Transient short-term occupancy use, therefore, does not
promote stable character to residential neighborhoods.
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or welfare of the City; and
FINDING: The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, its goal is to protect and
maintain the residential characteristics of neighborhoods.
C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of
[the] Zoning Code.
FINDING: The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Zoning Code
in that the Ordinance defines and establishes guidelines for short-term rental of
residential homes, and boarding and rooming houses which were silent and
undefined. The amendment ensures that short-term transient uses are prohibited
in residential zones in order to protect the residential characteristics of established
neighborhoods.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS City Council
adoption of Ordinance No. 980 for the approval of Municipal Code Amendment 18-02, for
the amendment of Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code regarding short-
term rental of residential homes and hoarding houses.
SECTION.4. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on June 4, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES:
DANG, ENG, HERRERA, AND TANG
NOES:
NONE
ABSTAIN:
NONE
ABSENT:
LOPEZ
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall
transmit copies of same to the Rosemead City Clerk.
Iia
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 4th day of June 2018.
Sean Dang, Chair
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 4th day of June
2018, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
DANG, ENG, HERRERA, AND TANG
NONE
NONE
LOPEZ
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
RM
Attachment E
Written Public Comment Letter
\
\
_
f
}
■
ATTACHMENT E
\
\\
{
()
|
)!
.
\/
!�
/
:
{{
/ u
!\
m
0
)[
:&
0a
�)
§�La
)i
)§
}{
\m
0
~c
)(
/$
-
\\
}j
\
)
*r
B }
2 \
)0
/j
_
\
!!
/
/)
El ]u
m.
m01
\\
/\
E){
\
}
!;f
:
�E
{\
)/
2Lu
_-
_
|
} »
°-
))
k
/((
\
�
12
�`
\
\\)
��
00
\/
)2
0.0
5=
.ca
22