Loading...
PC - Item 4A - Minutes 4-16-18 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 16, 2018 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Dang in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 8838 E.Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Dang INVOCATION—Vice-Chair Tang ROLL CALL—Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Lopez,Vice-Chair Tang and Chair Dang STAFF PRESENT—City Attorney Thuyen, Community Development Director Kim, City Planner Valenzuela, Associate Planner Hanh,and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Kane Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Resident Michael Cardenas, stated he is not the property owner and his brother is, but this is a very considered plan and agrees that it should be voted in. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 18-01 — The State of California enacted bills that established new regulations pertaining to the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs)within the jurisdiction of local agencies, and rendered the City of Rosemead's existing Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance (Ordinance No. 931 — Second Dwelling Unit Section) null and void. However, per Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(1), a local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned to allow single-family or multifamily use. The proposed Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 18-01) would amend Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code relating to ADUs. The proposed amendment would adopt new standards for ADUs, in accordance with the provisions of Section 65852.1 and Section 65852.2 of the Government Code, and would provide clarity and consistency for the regulation of ADUs throughout Title 17 (Zoning)of the Rosemead Municipal Code. RESOLUTION 18-07—A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 979 FOR THE APPROVAL OF MCA 18-01, AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT NEW REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION-That the Planning Commission: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-07 with findings,a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 979 for the approval of MCA 18-01. 1 Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report and power presentation. Accessory Dwelling Units - Key Topics discussed were: 1. Owner-Occupancy 2. Off-Street Parking Requirements for ADU's 3. Consistency with Zoning Code-Accessory Structures vs.Second Dwelling Units. Chair Dang thanked staff and asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked in regards to the owner-occupancy requirement, does it apply at the time of the submitted application. Associate Planner Hanh replied if the project is approved before final clearance of the permit, a covenant must be recorded. Commissioner Eng asked if an owner of a property currently has a single-family home and it is a rental,and they want to apply for an ADU, does the main dwelling have to be owner-occupied. Associate Planner Hanh replied that either the accessory dwelling unit or the main dwelling will have to be owner- occupied. Commissioner Eng asked so it is either one or the other, but not both. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked how will the recorded transfer of the property and covenant time frame requirement be enforced or monitored. Associate Planner Hanh replied unfortunately, there is not enough staff to monitor every property. He explained the covenant would be recorded and if the property is sold, it would be required to disclose this to the new property owner on the title. Commissioner Eng stated so there is no way of verifying that has been done after the transaction has been made. She asked if it could be included in the code that if the property is sold,that either the buyer or seller, confirm to the City that they are aware of this covenant and that they adhere to it. Associate Planner Hanh replied the City of Rosemead does not require pre-purchase inspections, so unfortunately, this cannot be done. Commissioner Eng stated this is not a pre-purchase inspection; this would just be a statement by the property owner that they will comply with the requirement. Community Development Director Kim stated that the covenant itself is assurance that during an appropriate amount of time that the owner will abide or promise to maintain one of the units for residency. Vice-Chair Tang stated what Commissioner Eng is trying to get to is that if there is currently a property that has an ADU and that owner tries to sell it, is the new owner required to enter into the covenant that is owner-occupied, or would they be informed of that. Community Development Director Kim stated they would be informed as part of the due diligence process when you pull the title report. He said when you make your purchase, you get the title report and you look at all the 2 encumbrances that come tied with the property, so that covenant actually carries to the new property owner for a fixed number of years. He explained to think of it as an affordable housing project and the initial developer records a covenant that a certain unit remains affordable for 45 to 50 years or what not. So that covenant carries regardless of how many times that property transfers and it carries over for that X amount of years. He added once the term has been met, it is dropped off,and released. Vice-Chair Tang asked if the new owner will have to sign anything different from the covenant to acknowledge it. Community Development Director Kim replied no,the original owner executes the covenant and the covenant carries over to the new owner,virtually it is a disclosure as part of the purchasing process. Commissioner Herrera stated it is on the title. Commissioner Lopez asked if it is for a set amount of time or does the City require it for a period of ten to 30 years and how it works when it comes to a timeline with a covenant. Community Development Director Kim replied the covenant is recorded with specific language of five years or ten years, whatever is deemed to be appropriate. So beginning from the recording date,there will be a fixed duration as to when the covenant is valid for. Commissioner Lopez asked if that is based on the City requirement of five to ten years or who determines the length of time. Community Development Director Kim replied the Planning Commission will make a recommendation and the City Council will determine that. Vice-Chair Tang asked if that time will reset with the new owner or does it carry through. Community Development Director Kim replied no, it does not reset. Commissioner Lopez stated but it can end, in other words, if they buy it and there are only three years left,after three years,then there is no covenant, as far as timewise. Community Development Director Kim replied that is correct and for example, if he was to do an accessory dwelling unit and the covenant is for ten years,then five years down the line, he decides to sell the property, and then the new owner would only have five more years. Commissioner Herrera asked if the new owner could not rent it or only let a family member live there. Community Development Director Kim replied one of the units will have to be owner-occupied. Commissioner Herrera asked what the other unit could be. Community Development Director Kim replied it could be a rental. Commissioner Eng referred to the setbacks and stated the illustration in the staff report says 25 feet, but in the standards table, it is a minimum of ten feet for rear setback. She asked staff if that was correct. Associate Planner Hanh replied that is correct and explained the example that is on page three of the staff report is just a potential situation and is not a catch-all example. 3 Commissioner Eng asked staff if there is a minimum of ten feet for a rear setback for an ADU. She also asked if currently there is a five feet setback requirement for existing accessory structures. Associate Planner Hanh replied it is currently three feet for existing accessory structures. Commissioner Eng asked if that was for the rear setback. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes,for the rear. Commissioner Eng stated a resident called her and expressed concern with privacy due to the reduced setback and that resident would like it be 25 feet. She asked staff what was the thought process in calculating the rear setback of ten feet. Associate Planner Hanh replied that originally if you just strictly follow the accessory structure, it would be three feet, but staff thought it would protect the privacy and be safer if there was a little more buffer between properties. He added that staff thought ten feet would be an appropriate compromise. Commissioner Eng asked if shared car locations are like a park and ride. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Vice-Chair Tang asked for clarification if there can be two ADU units on a lot. Associate Planner Hanh replied one single-family dwelling and one ADU would be the maximum. Vice-Chair Tang asked if an ADU can still be a two-story as a single unit. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Chair Dang thanked staff for the report and stated he has some clarifications. He referred to piggy backing on the covenant and Exhibit "A", and read item number 6. He stated he does not want someone to come in and say they bought this ADU from the prior owner and the prior owner lived here for five years, where the new owner has already satisfied this five year covenant, the new owner should not have to be required to reset the time limit for another five additional years before they can rent it out. Associate Planner Hanh replied they would not have to and the new owner would not have to. Community Development Director Kim stated they wouldn't but the way the covenants are recorded, they are very specific, so they will have a start date and will have a date or year when the covenant is satisfied. He added when the covenant is pulled,staff would look at the dates and see if it is satisfied, so they would not be able to reset it. Commissioner Eng stated it is not an evergreen covenant, so basically staff and City Council's desire is after the project is completed to have it for that period, so if there are any issues, they can be addressed at that time and hopefully during that period the concerns will have been taken care of that had developed. City Attorney Thuyen added this is basically a State law provision that allows the City to determine how it wants to do its owner occupancy requirements. Certain cities have done a perpetual owner occupancy requirement and it is a policy of City Council and staff that this would be a five year covenant, instead. He added that is a policy call, it is not something required by State law, and is something for the City to determine. 4 • Vice-Chair Tang stated to add on to that question, did Community Development Director Kim say the City did have the capability to reset the number of years or did he say they did not. Community Development Director Kim stated he will have to ask for verification, but he does believe the City has the ability to if the City Council chooses too. He said that language will have to be finely written and it would be difficult. City Attorney Thuyen stated it may be difficult practically to have something unless the City develops a separate department that monitors these transactions and tries to guarantee that every new owner complies with that five year requirement. His understanding usually is unless it is specifically called out in the covenants, it is whatever the initial terms are, and it just might be practicably hard to enforce if you were to try to have every subsequent owner redo a covenant in a City program with some dedicated staff to monitor it. Community Development Director Kim stated the City does not have an inspection requirement for the sale of a property, so it would be impossible to implement this. He added the City would not know when properties are being sold. Chair Dang apologized for the confusion and he thought it was something else. He stated from what he understands, the owner after he builds the ADU, will execute this covenant, and the covenant obligates a owner to live there for five years. He stated if he purchases a property with a main dwelling and goes ahead and develops an ADU and execute a covenant, he could still sell it to another individual, that individual would be encumbered to live there for five years,and he would not necessarily live there. Commissioner Lopez stated it would not be for five years, it would be for the remainder of the five years. Chair Dang questioned if he did not live there at all and it was an investment property to just develop the project, in that particular scenario,would the future owner be encumbered to live there for five years. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes, that is a possibility because the owner at the time would have to occupy the home. Chair Dang asked so whoever develops it would have to live there. Staff and Planning Commissioners all agreed that the owner would have to live there, not necessarily the developer. Commissioner Eng stated that one of the units/dwellings needs to be owner-occupied, that is the whole point of this covenant. She stated that she appreciates the flexibility of not having the requirement in perpetuity, but her thing is that they need to think of how to protect owner-occupied homes and residents in the City. She stated you can see a lot of cities are having perpetual owner-occupied for ADU's and that is because of the concern for upkeep, property value, and the quality of life. She added five years is good but after five years, currently Rosemead has 50%owner- occupied or maybe 60% rental property. She stated as a City with prominently more rental properties, it costs us money to maintain and upkeep. She stated the owner-occupied component is good, but she does not know about the five years. Is the five years better than none, but it is a policy decision, and hopefully we can give it some thought still. Her main concern is that they need to have some protection in there for owner-occupied properties. Vice-Chair Tang stated he shares the same concerns and will comment more during the public comment session. City Attorney Thuyen stated this portion of this item is better for staff clarification if there is public comment on this issue, and after it is received, it can be deliberated on again as a commission on specific policy preferences on this item. 5 Chair Dang stated there are property owners that have currently applied or completed ADU's and asked if their projects are vested and they are not subjected to these new ordinances. Associate Planner Hanh replied that is correct. Chair Dang asked if projects that have submitted plans and are waiting for planning review are those also vested under old. Associate Planner Hanh replied that is correct. Commissioner Lopez asked if this is currently in effect. Associate Planner Hanh replied no. Commissioner Lopez asked if anything that comes in after the effective date will be subject to this. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Chair Dang stated as a clarification the State has its own ADU and the local jurisdictions are following it. Since the City did not pass something,this is our first draft. Associate Planner Hanh explained this is the first draft following the ADU laws. City Attorney Thuyen stated the purpose for this item today is for the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council to adopt a local ordinance, until then the State regulations would apply, but once the Planning Commission has the opportunity to deliberate and give some recommendations. The City Council would then consider the adoption of the ordinance and then after it is adopted it will take about 30-days for that ordinance to take into effect. Vice-Chair Tang asked what the main differences are between what the City had in existing and what is being proposed this evening. He stated before the lot minimum size was 6,000 and now there is no minimum. Associate Planner Hanh replied there is no minimum now and other main changes are that parking requirements are more lenient and the setbacks are also more lenient. Vice-Chair Tang asked for confirmation that this is what is included in the new proposal. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Vice-Chair Tang questioned if the property owners that are waiting in the queue would want to take advantage of the upcoming changes. Associate Planner Hanh replied that the State requirements are more lenient than these and those property owners are probably happier following those regulations than with the new upcoming regulations. Vice-Chair Tang asked if the State is more lenient. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Chair Dang thanked staff and opened the Public Hearing. He invited speaker request Michael Cardenas to the podium. 6 Resident Michael Cardenas stated he is speaking on behalf of his foundation and this is simply for clarification. He referred to the term piggy-backing and explained that someone uses this as a marketing tool to sell a house, stays there a year, and says you take this, you get four years, and then you are in. He asked what if it is used as a marketing tool and is piggy-backing going to be allowed, say an owner uses it for two years, uses it as a marketing tool, and sells it to the next owner for three years. He asked if this is going to happen and if there is going to be any piggy-backing. City Attorney Thuyen informed Mr. Michael Cardenas that this portion of the item is to go ahead and address all of his concerns to the Planning Commission. Resident Michael Cardenas replied he will do this in list form and move on. He referred to the three-foot setback to the rear and asked if that is hard and fast because some houses do not have that three foot setback, they are currently in compliance with prior existing. He stated his constituency at this point is the"Mission Community Church UMC" and the "Sky View Church" which is attached to them on the same campus. He asked what effect will that have on their parking situation and are there any other restrictions that are on there that is stronger than the current State law and of course County law. He stated those are his questions and thanked the Planning Commission for their time. City Attorney Thuyen stated the Chair may direct those concerns to staff and if they have a response they may go ahead and provide them. Chair Dang asked staff if they had a response to the piggy backing question. Associate Planner Hanh replied as discussed before the five years if approved as is, he explained that the first property owner would live in the dwelling for two years then the following property owner would only have to live there for three years. Chair Dang thanked staff and stated the second question was in regards to the three-foot setback. Associate Planner Hanh replied that if this is approved the rear setback would be ten feet, it would not be allowed at three feet, and if an existing structure is already there and they want to convert it to an ADU, they will not have to abide to the ten feet and can maintain the existing setback. Chair Dang stated the third question is not relevant to this Agenda item. Associate Planner Hanh agreed. Chair Dang asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak or comment on this item. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing. He asked the Planning Commission if they had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Lopez stated all has been discussed and this will now be sent to the City Council for their approval to mandate it. Commissioner Eng stated she would like to discuss the owner-occupancy period. She said the fact that the City has one is good and she wonders if it is enough to protect the owner-occupied properties. 7 Vice-Chair Tang stated he has to support the comments that Commissioner Eng made earlier about the value of having owner-occupied contingent upon these properties in Rosemead. He stated you lead to say there are 60% rental and 40% home ownership and as a community we have been trying to increase home ownership and he understands that the ADU laws are meant to address housing needs in many communities across LA County and further. He added for the City of Rosemead,we already lack housing for folks that want to be homeowners and there is a lot of value that adds to that within the community and that is the very essence on why City Council has directed staff to put an owner-occupied component to this. He expressed this is a valuable discussion to have amongst the Planning Commission to think about five years is sufficient for that, or do they to have a perpetuity, or another set of numbers. He expressed that five years might be too short for that because they have noted the advantages of having the owner-occupancy is that it leads to well-maintained properties and may contribute to a sense of a community. He said once that owner-occupancy frame lapses is that you do not get those advantages anymore and the City Council acknowledges that and it is worthwhile as a Planning Commission to have that discussion. Chair Dang asked staff if they had any input. Associate Planner Hanh stated if it would make the Planning Commission more comfortable at the workshops, the City Council did mention the time frame at five to ten years. He added staff can revise the ordinance to the City Council for ten years if the Planning Commission finds that more suitable. Commissioner Eng stated in drafting the City of Rosemead ADU Ordinance she is sure staff asked neighboring cities to see what their parameters are. She asked what are the neighboring cities doing in terms of owner-occupied and if they are in perpetuity. Associate Planner Hanh replied the neighboring cities that did pass a new ADU are in perpetuity, and there was not a year limit. Vice-Chair Tang asked if there was discussion from the City Council during the workshop of owner-occupancy in perpetuity. Associate Planner Hanh replied during the workshop City Council wanted to provide flexibility for residents and property owners,so they thought having five to ten years was reasonable. Chair Dang referred to the Los Angeles County and stated he does not believe they have any recorded covenant, so he thinks the whole aim of this State Assembly Bill is to provide for housing. He stated talking to developers and to people at the State level they prefer not to have condos, not have ownership, and they actually prefer rentals. He added it is just the State's way of trying to address the housing shortage in California. He said whether or not we like it as individual property owners that is the main focal driving point of the State Assembly Bill. He stated it is the State level that is mandating these requirements and it is at the local level that we are trying to not be too restrictive, because if you are too restrictive, then you may have to answer to the State. He added auditing may be involved, making it to awkward at the local level to have responses a lot more restrictive that the State. Commissioner Lopez stated that housing is very expensive now across the board in Southern California. He understands why the State would be using more rentals because it is difficult for anyone to come up with 20 to 30 percent down payment to purchase a home. He added it is easier for people to get into a home if it is a rental property. Community Development Director oversees Code Enforcement as well and sometimes property maintenance issues do come up and sometimes it is easier dealing with rental properties because the owners are generating revenue from these properties. He added when City starts citing it is going to the property owner. The property owner sees it more like a business, so violations that may exist in terms of property maintenance the City tends to get good responses on fixing what those violations are. He added it doesn't necessarily mean just because the property is 8 • owner-occupied, there is going to be better maintenance. Sometimes you have the property owner that has been there for a long time and it is simple for them to maintain the property and sometimes for other reasons they choose not to. It is not necessarily 100%that owner-occupied properties are better maintained than rental properties. Vice-Chair Tang addressed Community Development Director Kim and stated that is valuable feedback but one of the things he considers is the essence of their community. Typically owner-occupied people are more vested in their communities because they plan to buy and live in that house for a longer duration of time compared to someone that is renting a property. He understands the intent behind creating ADU's and the excess ability for ADU's because we need more housing,but he thinks it is upon them on the local level to determine how we want to implement this policy as it relates to our community and in this case we are not necessarily restricting ADU's we are saying if you are going to have an ADU then provide more housing for somebody that you can rent it out to as long as you live in the front or a multi-family housing in both units you are still providing that housing but in a way that still maintains the essence and character of the community that we want to build. He added it is not necessarily rather we want ADU's or not but we really don't have a choice. It's about how we define how this ADU is going to work for the City. City Attorney Thuyen stated this item is to get the Planning Commission's opinion and recommendation as to what should be in the final ordinance that is considered and adopted by the City Council. If there are comments that the Planning Commission would like to incorporate as part of their recommendation, then they can suggest that as the will of the Planning Commission. Vice-Chair Tang stated as a property owner,any property owner in Rosemead would love to see this. He said you can build an ADU and within five to ten years or whatever the time frame is, you can sell it and market it as a house with an ADU and sell it for more,therefore increasing the prices of homes as it was alluded to. He added if you make it owner-occupied then you are going to get the right person that is probably going to live there awhile plus they will have an ADU that they can rent out. He stated based on his comments that he probably would lean on supporting towards an owner-occupancy and perpetuity following the neighboring cities. Chair Dang stated the question is whether the covenant is to ask the property owner to do five years or ten years or perpetuity. Commissioner Lopez stated the way it is worded doesn't matter if they sold it they just have to follow up on the final years. It does not mean that they have to stay there even though owner-occupied just means that they put up the ADU and if they decide to sell the new owner just has to follow up with how many years are left. He said after that it doesn't mean anything other than they have accomplished what they want to start and then they are open to rentals on both. Commissioner Eng addressed Commissioner Lopez and expressed that Commissioner Tang's idea is not to have a limit on one of the units being owner-occupied. She explained currently with the proposed ordinance it is required that within five years when the application is approved, that one of the units will be owner-occupied for five years. She said staff is sharing with the Planning Commission that the neighboring cities have put together an ordinance for this but they don't have that time limit. Commissioner Lopez stated it does not matter whether there is a time limit because it only means that there is a time. That time could expire no matter what whether if that person buys it today or buys it in five years. He agrees that there shouldn't be a time because it really doesn't really matter. The covenant only means you are agreeing to stay there for five years and anything after that it is open to anything you want to do. Chair Dang started to refer to Commissioner Tang's comment. Vice-Chair Tang stated his recommendation is to make it permanently and that there is no expiration. 9 Commissioner Lopez confirmed that Vice-Chair Tang is recommending that someone that owns a home to live in that home, no matter who buys it and if someone else that buys it has to live in that home too. Vice-Chair Tang replied yes, and that second unit can be used for a rental, multi-family use, or whatever use the owner deems it. He expressed that in order to take advantage of these advantages listed in sense of the community, they need to increase the stock of home ownership in the community, and right now they are outweighed from home ownership and the rental perspective. He added having rentals may be just as beneficial, but home ownership and when you have someone living there in their own home is more vested in their community, Commissioner Lopez asked if it can be done, is it possible to ensure that no matter what happens a homeowner needs to be living there. He added that anyone currently can buy a home and rent it out if they choose to. Commissioner Herrera stated that there is no way to police this and an investor may not be able to buy it now unless they say they are going to live there. Commissioner Lopez stated he loves the idea but he does not know if it will work. He added most people do buy homes elsewhere and rent them out. He expressed that he does agree with Vice-Chair Tang and it would be nice if the homeowner lived there along with the ADU. Commissioner Herrera agreed and commented it is nice to have it owner-occupied, because they have pride in home ownership and in the community. Vice-Chair Tang stated if it is a challenge to enforce,then in many cases a lot of the City's codes are hard to enforce unless somebody complains or Code Enforcement gets wind of it, but at least it is down in the books. That way, if a property has a lot of problems, then Code Enforcement can go and speak with the owner and if the owner is not there, then you know the owner is not living there. He also added that Code Enforcement can start a code case. He said if they are rentals and there are no problems or complaints, then it is alright, but if there are problems at least then Code Enforcement can go back and refer to the policy that the City had established. Commissioner Lopez stated that no one will really know unless there is a complaint. Commissioner Herrera asked if there is a covenant issue that is out of compliance who will enforce it, will Code Enforcement do something about it. She added the only way you will know about it is when you take the title on it and it will be on the title report covenant. Commissioner Eng stated if it is recorded it will come up on the title report. Commissioner Herrera stated the only one that will be concerned will be the buyer and they will ask questions while reading the covenant. Commissioner Eng commented that some may comply and some may just read it and say alright. Commissioner Herrera reiterated that an investor won't even be able to buy it because they will have to live there and they buy it to rent it out. She added this will be hard to enforce. Commissioner Lopez stated it is worth a try and recommended sending it to the City Council. He added it will be up to the City Council to approve. Commissioner Herrera asked if this will be a disclosure item when they go to sell the home and investors will not be able to buy these. 10 • Vice-Chair Tang stated there is nothing preventing investors from buying them,they will just invest and have to live in them. Commissioner Herrera stated but will they live in them. Vice-Chair Tang stated if they are consistent with the neighboring cities and establish policies then someone like a real estate agent would know to tell their clients that most of the cities are requiring homes to be owner-occupied unless the ADU is discontinued. Commissioner Eng referred to Chair Dang's comment that the County does not having an owner-occupancy requirement and the intent of the State statute is to address housing. She commented that doing this may or may not create more housing and until jurisdictions come up for more leniency for multi-housing these ADU's may have a small dent on meeting the housing needs. She added that staff has stated that the City Council would go up to ten years,she is comfortable with that, and recommended that the Planning Commission propose that the owner- occupancy requirement to ten years. Chair Dang stated that when he talks about the Los Angeles County, what we do not know is if some of the neighboring cities are part of County. He pointed out areas that are and stated that the City of Rosemead is in fact surrounded by County properties. He added real estate value is very expensive already and even getting a fixer up home you are looking at$600,000 to $650,000 if the parcel size is a little bigger. He said if you are going to attract these types of investors they are going to be quality investors and they are not going to be looking to just flip the property. They are going to buy it, renovate the main home, and put up another $100,000 or more to add an ADU. He added these types of investors typically are not going to let renters destroy their homes especially a brand new one. He stated he hears some of the comments from the Planning Commission in the higher density properties tend to exhibit more Code Enforcement issues, law enforcement issues, but these types of developments are attracting high quality investors and they won't allow that type of deterioration to their homes. He said if there is some sort of deterioration to the property regarding landscaping, up-keeping, anyone can pick up the phone and call Code Enforcement. He explained that Code Enforcement will reach out to the owner so the concerns can be addressed. He recommended that there was not a need for this covenant to extend in perpetuity and five years is acceptable for him. He added again that the City is surrounded by County property and you just don't know it. Commissioner Lopez stated he agreed and expressed that City Council will come up with a number. He said they all look at short term, long term, and in-between, but we are still in the dark zone of everybody out there buying because it is an open market to see what is going on. He added unless there are complaints you won't really see them or know about them, five or ten years, or permanent years are fine. He commented you will not know if there is an issue unless a complaint comes in and then you can deal with it. He stated he is for the five or ten years because it is a black box and you never know what is going to happen. Chair Dang stated if you put in the clause of having it in perpetuity or ten years it makes it unattractive for investors. Commissioner Lopez stated of course it does all it will do is allow a family to build a small dwelling for family and 80% will be for family, but it will be that 20%that you won't see, that you would think is that way. He added it is opening doors for families to not be on the streets that may not be able to buy. He stated whatever the City Council comes up with is fine with him. Chair Dang asked the City Attorney if they can make a motion but recommend that the City Council come up with a number. City Attorney Thuyen replied that part of the role of this Planning Commission is to provide a recommendation and Commissioner Lopez did summarize a few options available and the first one is to go ahead and adopt the recommendation of staff and recommend to the City Council the Ordinance as currently proposed. The second is to 11 go ahead and adopt the recommendation but to also modify it to be ten year period as suggested by Commissioner Eng. The third option is to adopt with the suggestion to modify that period to be in perpetuity as suggested by Commissioner Tang. He stated those are the three options available to the Planning Commission to decide to vote for. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to approve A. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 18-01 — Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-07 with findings a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No.979 for the approval of MCA 18-01. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a vote of five Ayes and 0 Noes with the recommendation as staff presented. This item is scheduled to be presented before the City Council at the next upcoming City Council Meeting. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC MINUTES 3-5-18 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to approve PC Minutes 3-5-18 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Kim stated at the previous Planning Commission meeting it was requested by Commissioner Eng to provide a current Entitlement List. He added that the list provided is not a comprehensive list of all the projects because there are many projects that are currently in the process of discussion, pre-application submittal, where there is quite a bit of coordination between staff and the applicant, but those applications have not formally been submitted. So those do not have a case number or file number. He said the list is provided and he may address any questions that the Planning Commission may have. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Eng thanked staff for providing the Entitlement List. She stated she lives next to an alley and she is a little frustrated because two or three of her neighbors had put out some bulky items in the alley. She added according to her neighbors they have called the trash disposal company and scheduled for a bulky item pick-up, it has been three weeks and it has not been picked up. She stated that she filled in a CRM request and it was still had 12 • not been picked up that morning. She explained they already have issues in the alley which is near an elementary school and broken furniture, bulky items, and trash being dumped by the public. She added the street sweeper has to go around the items and the alley looks like a dump alley. She reported that she contacted the City to contact the waste disposal company and expressed that she is seeing a lot of bulky items left around the City and asked what is going on. Commissioner Lopez expressed he has been seeing a lot of the same thing and explained that Republic Services allows for five bulky items per year. Residents just need to call and request a bulky item pick-up, but he has noticed that there are items left on the street through-out the City, so it may be that they are not calling for bulky item pick- ups. Commissioner Eng stated that this has been for three weeks; she spoke with her neighbors, and requested that they call the disposal company. She said her neighbors stated they did call. Commissioner Lopez commented that something is going on with Republic Services that they are not picking up the items. Commissioner Herrera stated that the street sweeper also goes by and Code Enforcement follows so, they can also note that something is not being picked up. Commissioner Eng expressed concern that currently bulky items are being left throughout the City. Community Development Director Kim stated he has made a note of this and will investigate the concern. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:03 pm. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, May 7,2018,at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. Sean Dang Chair ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 13