Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC - Item 6A - Regulation Vacant Lots Ordinance Discussion
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: GLORIA MOLLEDA, CITY MANAGER •� DATE: JULY 23, 2019 SUBJECT: REGULATING VACANT LOTS ORDINANCE DISCUSSION SUMMARY 0 This item is presented to the City Council at the request of Mayor Margaret Clark. She would like to revisit and discuss Ordinance No. 982 — Regulating Vacant Lots. DISCUSSION On March 27, 2018, staff presented a Zoning Code Update Workshop to the City Council and received direction on various zoning updates (PowerPoint Presentation Attachment A). One of the subjects presented during the workshop was the Vacant Lots Ordinance. Staff received direction to move forward on this item and on August 20, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony related to Municipal Code Amendment 18-03 (Vacant Lot Ordinance). This same ordinance was taken to the City Council as a duly noticed and advertised public hearing on September 11, 2018 (Staff Report Attachment B) for first reading. Ordinance No. 982 was approved at its second reading on September 25, 2018 (Staff Report Attachment Q. Since approval of the ordinance staff has communicated and educated owners on the new municipal code requirement. Included in this staff report is a list of all property owners that have been notified and asked to comply with Ordnance No. 982 (Attachment D). In addition, we have also included a list and pictures of properties that have already complied (or are in the process of complying) and installed the white rail fencing and landscaping (Attachment E). Recently, the owners of the old Auto Auction property located at 8001 Garvey Avenue contacted staff and the City Council and asked for an exception to the municipal code — Vacant Lots Ordinance. Staff did meet with them and researched possibilities for an exception; however, the only exception that is allowed in accordance with Rosemead's Municipal Code is as follows: AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.A City Council Meeting July 23, 2019 Page 2 of 2 "8.48.060 - Exemption. Any vacant lot that is undergoing construction or any vacant lot for which a building permit has been issued and has not expired is exempt from the requirements of this section. This exemption does not apply to any extensions, modifications, or changes to a building permit that extend the building permit beyond the initial expiration period provided by this Code. " Furthermore, the Auto Auction site has an existing block "wall" and not a fence. The existing wall has about 5 ft. setback. In order to meet the required 10 ft. landscape buffer, the existing wall would need to be removed anyway. Definitions from Rosemead's Municipal Code: Fence: means a freestanding structure designed to restrict or prevent movement across a boundary or to mark the boundary of an area. Wall: means a physical barrier constructed largely of masonry, brick, concrete, stucco, concrete block, or any combination thereof and intended to make a boundary. If the City Council wishes to move forward with the Auto Auction's request, an amendment is needed to the current Municipal Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is seeking further direction from the City Council. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT Strategy 3: Beautification and Infrastructure — Continue efforts to enhance the condition and general appearance of the City's public infrastructure and the public right-of-way, as well as private properties within the community. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Attachment A: PowerPoint Presentation dated March 27, 2018 Attachment B: City Council Staff Report dated September 11, 2018 Attachment C: City Council Staff Report dated September 25, 2018 Attachment D: List of all Vacant Lot Owners Notified Attachment E: List and Pictures of properties that have already complied or are in process. Attachment F: Mayor Margaret Clark's Letter CA mil ii Film'' a) 4- C: D0 0 0 U Lr; " C Q0 -0 V; a) a) (3) w cu 0 a 0u — a) (3) 0 CT u) o 0) 0 (1) 0 4- V) 0 v v00 D- oU�OU L- C:Q- 0 C) a) C) 0.0 C: E -I-- b 0 > 0 0) C) a) a) 4- 0-0 C) C: . E- E C:— U D D 0) 07 E UE -o- > 23) 2) 0 C) a) a) CT 0 0 a) a) a) N U) 0 (1) 0) 0 C) 0 E E -4- a) 0- u DL 0 0 1 0 -oj E > 0 0 0 0 4- O 0 D- o 0 C: o Ln 0 J) -0 .I.- 0-0 E C: L4-- 6 D- -940- 4T V) > U 0 0 E i-- -+V) - L- o a) 0 40- 0 4- O 0 D- o 0 C: o Ln 0 J) -0 .I.- 0-0 E C: -0-i -940- 4T .50 99^ � \ :z : \. \y � 1% City Council Staff Report dated September 11, 2018 ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: GLORIA MOLLEDA, CITY MANAGER, DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON REGULATING VACANT LOTS = MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 18-03 SUMMARY The proposed Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 18-03) would amend the Rosemead Municipal Code sections relating to the regulation of vacant lots. Currently, vacant lots are required to comply with the same standards as lots that are under construction or being demolished, as set forth in Rosemead Municipal . Code Section 17.68.100. The purpose of regulating vacant lots is to mitigate health, safety, and fire hazards., reduce negative visual and aesthetic impacts, and protect property values. The current standards required by this section are appropriate for lots under construction or being demolished, as such activity is temporary in nature. However, such current standards are not effective in serving the purpose for vacant lots, as they could potentially remain vacant for an extended period of time. The proposed amendment would strengthen the Rosemead Municipal Code in order to address potential blight resulting from vacant lots and would provide consistency in defining vacant lots throughout the Rosemead Municipal Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimoziy; and 2. Introduce for first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 982 (Attachment "A"), approving Municipal Code Amendment 18-03. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (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; minor temporary use of land; and ensure AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.A City Council Meeting Septernber 11, 2018 Pave 2 of 3 maintenance, restoration, and protection 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, 15304(e), and 15308. DISCUSSION On August 20, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Municipal Code Amendment 18-03. Analysis of the proposed amendment is provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report. The Planning Commission Staff Report, Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Item 3C only), and Planning Commission Resolution 18-14 are included in this report as Attachments "B," "C," and "D", respectively. During the Planning Commission public hearing, the Planning Commission and the public commended the City Council for directing staff to develop the Vacant Lot Ordinance. There were a few questions relating to security, dormant construction projects, and the implementation process. Staff was able to provide clarifications to the Planning Commission at the public hearing, After considering all public testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution 18-14, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 982 to approve Municipal Code Amendment 18-03. PUBLIC TESTIMONY The Planning Commission received one written letter which was read into record and discussed. FISCAL IMPACT - None STRA'T'EGIC 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 August 30, 2018, and posting of the notice at the six (6) public locations. City Council Meeting September 11, 2018 Page 3 of 3 Prepared by: C t� it Lily V enzuela, Planning and Economic Development Manager Submitted Ben Kim, D' or of Community Development Attachment A: Ordinance No. 482 Attachment B: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 20, 2018 Attachment C: Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Item 3C only), dated August 20, 2018 Attachment D: Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-14 Attachment A Ordinance No. 9$2 ORDINANCE NO. 982 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS .ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA., AMENDING 'VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 17.68 (FENCES,. WALLS, AND LANDSCAPE SCREENING) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING), AND ADDING CHAPTER 8.48 (VACANT LOTS) OF TITLE 8 (HEALTH AND SAFETY) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING VACANT LOTS WHEREAS, the City -is authorized by Article XT, Section 5 and Section 7 of the State Constitution to exercise .the police power. of the State by adopting regulations to promote public health, public safety and general prosperity; and WHEREAS, Section 38771 of the California Government Code 38771 authorizes the City through its legislative body to declare actions and activities .that constitute a public nuisance; and WHEREAS, Section 17.152.060 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for a Zoning Code Amendment; and WHEREAS,.Sections 65854 and 65855of 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; and WHEREAS, Section 17.152.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to approve amendments to the City's Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, adoption of the Vacant Lot Ordinance amends Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code: and adds "Chapter 8.48 = Vacant Lots", which sets requirements and provisions for vacant lots; and WHEREAS, on August 9, 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 18-03; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2018; the Planning Comm issiori held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of Municipal Code Amendment 18=03 to the City Council;` and . WHEREAS, on September 13, 2018, a notice was published in the Rosernead 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 18-03; and WHEREAS, on September 25, 2018, the City Council held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and. written testimony relative' to Municipal Code Amendment 18- 03; and WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act. 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 ininor.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 2. Findings. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Municipal Code Amendment 18-03, 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 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 Roselnead's residential neighborhoods and to' revitalize underperforming commercial corridors. To ensure that the residential character is maintained, General Plan Policy 1.3 necessitates the City to actively promote the maintenance of properties and building through code enforcement. To ensure that the commercial and industrial districts in the City ate maintained, General Plan Policy 2.6 necessitates the City to rigorously enforce property maintenance. standards for commercial and industrial properties.. The proposed code amendment will provide the City with additional tools to maintain vacant or abandoned properties in all residential, commercial, and industrial zones. This ordinance will protect neighborhoods from negative impacts associated- with vacant buildings and lots. Accordingly, the proposed amendment would improve community aesthetics as . it would require the responsible party- or, designee to submit a Vacant Lot Landscape and Irrigation Plan for review, implement the approved plan, and provide regular, maintenance of the landscaping. In addition, the improved aesthetics would be less intimidating for passing pedestrians, while increased landscaping would. provide additional passive cooling benefits. 2 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, as vacant lots were previously regulated in the Zoning Code under Chapter 17.68 (Fences, Walls, and Landscaping Screening). The proposed amendment is in the public's best interest as it establishes minimum standards of accountability on the responsible patties or other responsible parties of vacant lots in order to protect the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the community. The City has found that vacant lots cause harm to the health, welfare, and safety of the community, including an increase in homeless encampments, criminal activity, litter, graffiti, and depreciating the property value of adjacent and neighboring properties. The proposed amendment would protect the health, safety, and welfare of the City by requiring regular maintenance of the property and promote accountability by requiring vacant lot registration. 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. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. All applicable references to vacant lots have been revised to be consistent with the new standards pertaining to vacant lots. SECTION 3..Code Amendment. Chapter 17.68 of Title 17 is HEREBY AMENDED as follows: Chapter 17.68 FENCES, WALLS, AND LANDSCAPE SCREENING Sections: 17.68.610 Purpose and applicability. 17.65.020 Permit requirements. 17,68:030 Height limitations ! residential development. 17-168.040 Height limitations — commercial, industrial, residential/commercial mixed-use or commercial/industtial mixed-use development. 17.68.050 Retaining walls. 17.68.060 Fencing_ for residential or nonresidential sports facilities. 17.68.070 Determining height. 17.68.080 Prohibited fencing materials. 1-7.68.090. Fencing of. hazardous areas. 17.68.100 Fences on lots that are va6ant, under construction, or being demolished. 17:68.110. Requirement for. construction of a six-fo6t high masonry wall. 3 17.68.010 Purpose and applicability. The following standards are intended to ensure that all fences, walls, and hedges provide the desired privacy, safety, and quality design. The standards are also intended to ensure that fences, walls, and landscape screening do not create a public safety hazard or nuisance. Fences, walls, hedges, shrubs or similar materials used for screening shall be consistent with the following requirements 17.68.020 Permit requirements. A. Residential zones. A .fenee permit shall be required to install new or replacement fencing or masonry walls in any residential zone. No permit shall be required for the planting of - landscape screening. B: Nonresidential zones. An administrative site plan review shall be required to install new or replacement fencing or masonry walls on nonresidential property. No permit shall be required for the planting of landscape screening. 17.68.030 Height limitations - residential development. A. Fences and Walls. 1. in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones no fence or wall located in a rear or side yard shall exceed a Height of six (6) feet. 2. In the R-1, R=2, and R-3 zones no fence or wail located in the required front yard shall exceed a height of four (4) feet. 3. On a reversed corner lot, no fence or wall or located within five (5) feet of the street side or within ten (10) feet of the rear line between the street and the established setback line on the key lot to the rear, shall exceed a height of four -(4) feet. 4. Walls and fences shall be kept in good condition and 'properly maintained. B, Landscape Screening. 1. Landscape screening in residential rear or side yards shall not. be subject to a height limit, except for landscape screening on reversed corner lots. On a reversed corner lot, no hedge or other landscape screening material located within five (5) feet of the street side or within ten (10) feet of the rear line between the street and.the established setback line on the key lot to the rear, shall exceed'a height of four (4) feet. 2. Landscape screening located within the required front yard shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet. 3. Landscape screening shall not encroach onto a curb or sidewalk or over a lot line.. n 17.68.040 Height limitation - commercial, industrial, residential/commercial mixed-use. or commercial/industrial mixed-use development. A.' A six (6) foot high solid masonry wall shall be constructed and maintained along any side or rear lot line adjacent to residentially zoned or used property, school or park. The wall shallbe not less than three (3) feet but not more than four (4) feet in height where it is adjacent to a required residential front yard setback. B. Within the C-1, C-3, C4, CBA, and CI -MU zones, walls located within ten (14) feet of any public right-of-way shall not exceed a height of three (3) feet. C, Within the M-1 zone, a solid wall not less than six (6) feet in height and no more than eight (8) feet in height shall be erected along the property line separating the M-1 zone from any residential, zone or, use, school, park or commercial zone. However, the wall shall not be more than four (4) feet in height where it adjoins a front yard setback of any residential or commercial property. D. Any outdoor area used for storage shall becompletely enclosed by a solid, decorative masonry wall and a solid gate not less than six (6) feet in height. The. Community Development Director may approve the substitution of.a fence or decorative wall where such fence or wall provides adequate visual clearance, is structurally adequate, and is equivalent in decorative appearance. In no event shall the height of such storage exceed the height of the wall or fence. enclosing the storage.area. E. Walls 'shall have a decorative color and texture consistent with the architectural style and materials of the commercial or industrial development. Architectural and other treatment of the wall is required. 1. Where new walls are erected in locations visible from a public right-of-way, the use of full dimension caps, pilasters, and changes in wall surfaces (staggering) shall be applied. 2. In locations where walls might invite vandalism or graffiti, landscaping should be provided along the walls. F. Walls and fences shall be kept in.good condition and properly maintained. G. Landscape.sereening shall not encroach onto a curb or sidewalk or over a lot line. 17.68.050 Retaining, walls. . A. Where there is a necessary retaining wall for a lot that is above a sidewalk or at the top, of a curb grade, additional wall height up to three (3) feet may be allowed, subject to a Site Plan and Design Review approval. The maximum height for a combination retaining wall and fence shall be seven (7)' feet. B. The non -retaining portion of the fence or wall combination cannot exceed four (4) feet. C. The retaining portion of the fence or wall combination cannot exceed four (4) feet. 5 D. Extensions above four (4) feet, as measured from the sidewalk, or top of the curb, shall be constructed of wrought iron- or other non -obscuring materials determined to be acceptable, subject to the Site Plan and Design Review application. 17.68.060 Fencing for residential or nonresidenitial sports facilities. To enclose tennis courts or similar sports areas located within the rear lot, fences over six (b) feet in height shall be permitted, provided. that any portion. of the fence or structure which is higher than six (f) feet shall be composed of wire mesh or other material whose vertical service is not more than ten (10) percent solid, unless safety necessitates otherwise. Such.additional wire mesh or similar material shall be subject to site plan approval. 17.68.070 Determining height. A. General. The height of fences, walls, and hedges shall be measured as the vertical distance from the ground elevation or finished grade of the property on which the fence or wall is erected to the highest point of the fence or wall. To allow for variation in topography on a parcel, the height of a fence or wall may vary intermittently up to six (6) inches. E. Difference in grade height between two parcels. Where there is a difference in the ground elevation or finished grade between two (2) adjoining parcels of less than two (2) feet, the height of any fence or wall constructed along the common property line shall be determined by using the finished grade of the highest adjoining parcel. When there is a difference in ground level between two (2) adjoining parcels of two (2) feet or more, the height of the fence shall be determined.by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall consider the physical and visual height impact. on abutting parcels. 17,68:080 Prohibited fenicing materials. A. Residential zones. . The following fencing materials shall be prohibited in all residential zones: barbed or razor wire, electrified wire, chicken wire and similar small -gauge wire or mess product, chain-link fencing, -or other materials hazardous to wildlife. L Exceptions. Chain-link fencing shall be a permitted fencing material for: a. The screening of side yard areas that .are not visible from the public right-of-way and rear yard areas; a.ad c. The temporary screening of lots under construction or being -demolished in accordance with Section 1.7.68.100, 2. All chain-link fences in existence at the time of the adoption of this Part shall be deemed legal non -conforming as set forth in Chapter 17.72 and the properties on which they have . 2 been placed shall be permitted to undertake maintenance, repair, and' replacement consistent with the requirements of that Chapter. B. Commercial, industrial, residential/commercial mixed-use zones, commercial/industrial mixed use. The following fencing materials are prohibited in all commercial, industrial, residential/commercial.- and commercial/industrial zones: barbed or razor wire, electrified wire, chicken wire and similar small gauge wire or mesh product, plastic, and chain-link fencing, or other materials hazardous to wildlife. 1. Exceptions. Chain-link fencing shall be a permitted fencing material for: a. The screening of side yard areas that are not visible from the public night -of -way and rear yard areas; i - - -LINEMEN c. The temporary screening of lots under construction or being demolished in accordance with Section 17.68.100; ,and d. To enclose an area where a solid wall or fence would create a physical hazard (i.e. . the containment of mechanical equipment under an electrical transmission right-of- way). The use -of chain-link fencing in this circumstance is subject to the review and approval of the Community Development .Director. 17.68.090 Fencing of hazardous areas. A fence or wall six (6) feet or greater in height may be required along the perimeter of all areas which, by reasons of conditions of the property or physical hazards,: such as frequent flooding, erosion, excavation, or grade separation, are considered by the Community Development Director to be dangerous to the public health and safety. 17.68.100 Fences on lots that are vaeaunder construction, or being. demolished. A-. For the purposes of this subsection, " v-aefflntl "ender construction" and "demolish" shall. be defined pursuant,to the Los Augeles.County Building "Ti t11 n i ,,s7A�ttrr__or sw uefefe c,YT� 1 not Code as adopted by the City.Q�ff�y . , , Of is by rn" a saga+ health, i..,J 4.A.A.11 property that is vat; under construction; or being demolished shall be totally enclosed around the perimeter by a fence that is a minimum'of six (6) feet in height as measured from adjacent property, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or, other designated officials. B. The required fence shall be adequately constiueted from chain link, lumber, masonry or other approved zzaaterials. The fence shall be entirely self-supporting and shall -not encroach or utilize 7 structures or fencing on any adjacent property without prior written approval of the adjacent owner. C. The fence shall be -installed prior to the initiation of any construction or demolition and shall .be continuously maintained in good condition. D. Signs stating "PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING" shall be posted on the fence E. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a fence or wall as required by any law or regulation of the state of California or any agency thereof. 17.68.110 -Requirement for construction of a six-foot high masonry wall: The City Council finds that there are areas within the City where commercial zones abut residential zones and the construction of a block wall is necessary to protect such residential areas, Any owner, lessee, occupant or agent constructing or causing the construction of any building, building addition, accessory building, or repairs estimated by. the Building Department to have a value of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) or more upon any commercially used and zoned lot adjacent to property zoned and used forresidential purposes shall construct a six-foot high masonry wall along the.property line where the commercially zoned lot has a common or rear lot line with a residentially zoned property, Any person desiring to obtain a modification from the provisions of this section may file with the Planning Commission a written application, citing the reasons for such request. - The Planning Commission shall give the applicant for such modification an opportunity to be heard if he or. she so desires, and thereafter may grant or deny the application for the modification, or may grant the same upon such conditions as the Planning Conunissiori deems necessary for the preservation of the safety, health or property of the general public. Any interested person may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council by filing an appeal -pursuant to Chapter 17.160 (Appeals and Requests for Review) of this code. SECTION 4. Code Amendment. Chapter 8.48 (Vacant Lots) shall be added to Title 8 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 8,48 VACANT LOTS Sections: 8.48.010 Purpose.- 8.48.020 urpose.8:48.020 Definitions. 8:48.030 City Standards. 8.48.040 Iinplementation. 8,48.050 Noncompliance Declared Nuisance. 8.48.060 Exemption.. 8.48.0.0 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate vacant lots_ in the City in order to protect residential and commercial areas. from becoming blighted due to the lack of adequate maintenance and security, and to establish minimum standards of accountability on the responsible parties of vacant lot in order to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the community. 8.48.020 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: "Responsible Party" means and includes any person having legal title to, or who leases, rents, occupies or has charge, control or possession of, any real property in the city, including all persons shown as owners on the last equalized assessment roll of the Los Angeles County Assessor's Office. Responsible parties include persons with powers of attorney, executors of estates, trustees, or who are court appointed administrators, conservators, guardians or receivers. A responsible party of personal property shall be any person who has legal title, charge, control, or possession of, such property. "Vacant Lot' means any property that is either: (1) Unimproved; or (2) Improved with an existing building or structure that is abandoned, vacant and/or unoccupied for.more. than 30 days. 8.48.030 City Standards. A. Unimproved Vacant Lots. 1. Landscaping.. a.. The responsible party of a vacant lot that was never developed or became vacant after pre-existing buildings, structures, or impervious surfaces were removed, must provide a Vacant Lot Landscape and Irrigation Plan, along with the appropriate City fees, t© the Community Development Department for review and approval. b. Upon approval of a Vacant Lot Landscape and. Irrigation Plan, vacant lots must be improved and maintained at all times in accordance with the. approved plan and the following provisions: 1) A minimum ten -foot wide landscape. area must be maintained on all perimeters of a, vacant lot located adjacent to, all streets,. alleys, or other public rights-of- way. 2) Landscaped areas must be. planted with natural, drought -tolerant vegetation consisting of a combination of trees, shrubs, andgroundcover, subject to approval of the Community Development Department: - Such landscape materials must maintain a minimum height of two feet. 0 3) The vacant lot must be improved with an operable automatic irrigation system for the ground cover, which must be installed and maintained in .good condition by the responsible party at all times. . 4) Any dead or dying vegetation, as well as any broken, malfunctioning irrigation ,components, on the lot must be replaced by the responsible party. or designee, within 72 hours of discovery or notification by the. City. The responsible party or designee, must inspect the property at. reasonable intervals and take other steps to reasonably ensure that there are no dead or dying vegetation nor any broken, malfunctioning irrigation components on the lot. 2. Fencing. A four -foot high white rail fence approved by the Community Development Department must be located behind all required perimeter landscaping. All fencing must be provided with a gate to allow access to the. vacant lot for emergency access. If the Public Safety Department or Chief of Police deems it necessary for the, protection of health, safety, or general welfare of the City or surrounding neighborhood, the Community Development Director may increase the height of the required fence up to a maximum of six feet. 3. Maintenance. a. The vacant lot must be maintained free of litter, weeds, graffiti, debris, and. the . stockpiling of any material at all tirues. The, responsible party or designee, must inspect the property at reasonable intervals and take other steps to reasonably ensure that no litter, weeds, graffiti, debris or materials stockpiling collects. or is maintained on the lot. b. All fencing must be maintained in good condition at all times by the responsible party or designee.. Any on-site graffiti must be removed by the responsible party or designee, within 24. hours of discovery or notification by the City. The 'responsible party or designee; must inspect the property at reasonable intervals for any ons -site graffiti and take other steps. to reasonably ensure that there are no on-site graffiti. B. Improved Vacant Lots. . 1. Vacant lots improved with existing on-site buildings or structures that are vacant, abandoned; .or unoccupied- for more than 30 days,- as determined by the Community Development Director; must be improved and maintained at all times in the same manner as set forth in the "Unimproved Vacant Lots" subsection of this section, however, the Community. Development Director may modify. the. landscaping requirements if the landscaping requirements -are deemed unnecessary or unsuitable for an improved vacant lot. 2. In. addition, such vacant lots must -be maintained as follows: 10 a. . All on-site buildings or structures must be maintained in good condition at all times. Damage to any on-site buildings or. structures must be abated within ten days by the responsible party or designee upon discovery or City notification. An alternative. abatement period may be granted if deemed necessary by the Community Development Director; if the responsible party: 1). Demonstrates that physical improvements towards remedyingthe site or. buildings/structures reasonably require more than ten days; and 2) Submits a written request to. the Community Development Director justifying the requested time extension, and- detailing the scope of work to be completed within such time. b. The vacant lot must be adequately secured at all times to prevent illegal dumping, criminal activity, vandalism, graffiti, onsite loitering, and any and allother attractive nuisances to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. C. Vacant Lots in Conjunction with an Approved Project. Before the City issues a demolition permit on any lot in which the construction of a new building, structure, parking lot, or impervious surface is not scheduled to commence within 30 . days after demolition, the responsible party or designee must submit a Vacant Lot Landscape and Irrigation Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department, along with the appropriate City fees. The Community Development Department may impose any conditions of approval on the vacant lot landscape and irrigation plan to ensure that the lot Will be adequately maintained during the time that it is vacant. Upon approval of the plan, the landscape and irrigation improvements .to the vacant lot, as. specified on the approved plan, Must be completed to the satisfaction of the Cormmunity Development Department, within 30 days after approval of the plans. - 8.48.040 Implementation. A. Allvacant.lots, regardless of how they became vacant, that are existing at the time this section becomes .effective must comply with this section within 60 days after the City provides notice alerting the responsible party or operator of the requirements of Ihis section. For purposes of this section, the responsible party or operator is deemed to have been. provided notice five days after such notice be mailed by first class and certified mail to the owner(s) shown on the last assessment roll of the county. The failure of any person to receive this notice does not affect the validity of any proceedings under this section. A -30 -day time extension may be granted by the Community Development Director for good cause as determined by the Community Development Director. B,. The. responsible party shall complete and submit a vacant lot registration application on a form made available by the Community Development Department within 60 days after the lot becomes vacant or -within 60 days after the effective date of this section, whichever is later. At the time of registration, an annual fee, as established. by resolution of the City Council, shall be paid to defray the cost of administering this section. The Community Development Director shall have the authority to make specific fee exemptions in a casemheie the responsible party 11 has agreed to allow the property to be used and operated for a specific community serving use and specific timeframe approved by the City of Rosemead. 8.48.050 Noncompliance Declared Nuisance. A. Failure to comply with any of the applicable requirements in. this section constitute public nuisances and abatement proceedings may proceed to gain compliance in accordance with the provisions of this section. B. Failure to comply with the City Standards or any other applicable requirements in this section may result in any combination of the following actions by the City of Rosemead: 1. The City of Rosemead may take action to bring the property into compliance, as set forth in this section, which may include, but not limited to, maintaining the cleanliness of the property, installing fencing, and/or rehabilitating the existing landscaping. The responsible party or designee shall submit full payment to the City of Rosemead forr the cost of all work completed by the City of Rosemead. The amount of such payment will be provided on an invoice to the responsible party by the City of Rosemead. 2. Any fees or costs not paid, when due may be specially assessed against the property involved. If the fee - or invoice amount is specially assessed against the property, said assessment may be collected and shall be subject to the. same penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency, as provided for ordinary real property taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of real property taxes are applicable to the special assessment. 3. The City of Rosemead may cause a notice of lien to be recorded against the property. The notice of lien shall, at minimum, identify the record owner or possessor of the property, set - forth the last known address of the record owner or possessor, a description of the real property subject to the lien, and the amount of the fees or costs assessed against the property. C. The City may pursue. any other remedies or. enforcement action(s) provided in the Municipal Cade, 8.48.060 Exemption. Any vacant lot that is undergoing construction or any vacant lot for which a building permit has been issued and has not expired is exempt from the requirements of this section.. This exemption does not apply to any extensions, modifications, or changes to a buildingpermit that extend the building permit beyond the initial expiration period provided by this code. SECTION 5. Construction'. This -Qrdivance 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 mi a manner that. facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance. 12 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. The City Council hereby declares that, should any provision, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance or any part thereof, be rendered or :declared invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such decision or action shall not affect the validity of the remaining section or portions of the Ordinance or part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have independently adopted the remaining provisions, sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words of this Ordinance irrespective of the fact that any one or more provisions, sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases,,or words may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 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 September 11, 2018. ATTEST: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: . Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney . . Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 13 Steven Ly, Mayor Attachment B Planning Commission Staff Report Dated August 20, 20 18 ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION. STAFF REPORT TO: THE 'HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: AUGUST 20, 2018 SUBJECT.- MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 18-03 SUMMARY The proposed Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 1803.) would 'amend the Rosemead Municipal Code sections relating to the regulation of vacant lots. Currently, vacant lots are..required to comply with the same standards as lots that are under construction or being demolished, as set forth in Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.68:100. The purpose of regulating vacant lots is to mitigate health, safety, and fire hazards, reduce negative visual and aesthetic impacts, and protect property values. The-current'standards required, by this section are appropriate for lots .that under.. construction or being demolished; as such activity is temporary in nature. However, such.current standards are. not effective in serving the purpose.for vacant lots, as'they could potentially remain vacant for an extended. period of time. The proposed amendment would strengthen the Rosemead. Municipal Code in order to address potential blight result'in'g from vacant lots and would provide. consistency in defining vacant lets. throughout. the Rosemead Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quallty Act (CEQA) .(California Public: Resources Code §§. 21000, et seq,; "CEQA") and CEQA regulations ,(14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000. et sect.). because it establishes rules and procedures to permit operation of existing facilities; minor temporary use of land; and ensure maintenance, restoration', and protection of the environment, This Ordinance, therefore, does not have the pgtential to cause significant effects on. the environment.. (14 California :Code of Regulations §§- .5060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3).) Furthermore; this Ordinance is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under 14 Cal. Cbde' Regs. §§ 15301,15304(e), -and 15308. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the. Planning Commission: 1. Conduct a public. hearing and receive public testimony; and Planning Camrnission Meeting August 20, 2018 Nge 2 of 24 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-14 with findings (Exhibit "A"), a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 982 (Exhibit "B") for the approval of MCA 18-03, DISCUSSION Background According to Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.68.100, currently all properties that are vacant, under construction, or being demolished shall be totally enclosed around the perimeter by a fence that is a minimum of six feet in height asmeasured from adjacent property; subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or other designated officials. In addition; the required fence shall be adequately constructed from chain-link, lumber, masonry or other approved materials; the fence shall be entirely self- supporting and shall -'not encroach or utilize. structures or fencing on any adjacent property without prior written approval of the adjacent owner; and signs stating "PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING" shall be posted on the fence. The current standards. are appropriate for lots that are under construction or. being demolished;. as such activity is temporary in nature. However, such standards are not. effective for vacant lots,as they could. potentially remain vacant.for an extended period of -time. Proposed Standards: The purpose of the Vacant Lot Ordinance is to .regulate vacant lots in the. City in order -to protect. residential and commercial areas from becoming blighted due to. the lack of adequate maintenance and security and to establish standards of accountability on - responsible parties . of vacant .lots to . protect the health, welfare, and:. safety of the community. The proposed Vacant Lot Ordinance will amend Chapter 17.'.68 (f=ences, Walls; .and Landscape Screening). and add 'new Chapter 8'.48 (Vacant Lots) to the Rosemead- Mun.lcipal Code.specifically-for Vacant Lots. The salient terms of the said. new Chapter 8.48 are as follows: ® Defining." Vacant:Lots" as either unimproved or improved with an existing building or structure that is abandoned,. vacant and/or unoccupied for more than.30-days. ®_ Improving vacant lots with a ten400t wide landscape buffer with irrigation along property lines -fronting streets, alleys, or.other public rights of way.: ® Improving vacant lets with a four -foot high white rail fence behind the perimeter landscape. buffer. Requiring registration of vacant lots by the responsible party. Planning commission Meeting August 20, 2018 Page 3 of 24 Ongoing maintenance requirements by the responsible party. Noncompliance. may result in declaration of public nuisance in which the City may take remedial actions and seek reimbursement'of costs. Health, Safety, and Fire Hazards Lots that are under construction or being demolished would have regular activity from the applicant and inspection from the City. In doing so; health, safety, and fire hazards are more likely to be addressed, whereas vacant lots are typically dormant in activity. As such, any potential hazards are more likelyto go unnoticed. The proposed recommended . standards would require the responsible party or designee to be responsible for regular maintenance of the lot. Visual and Aesthetic Impacts The. required fencing would provide sufficient screening to reduce negative visual and aesthetic impacts .through the completion .of the construction and/or demolition. Unlike vacant lots, which may remain vacant. for an extend period of time, a timeframe for completion is inherently built into a project involving 'construction and/or demolition. Building permits for construction and demolition expire after 180 days of inactivity. For a building permit to remain active,.the applicant must request and passu building inspection before, the 180-day.period is over. Due to the limited timeframe of a building permit, it would not be necessary to require a responsible party to implement long-term measures Vacant lots, however, may potentially remain vacant for. extended periods, as there may be definite..timeframe for development or -activity-. The fencing described above would provide screening, but could have an adverse visual and aesthetic appeal of the surrounding neighborhood.. The recommended . standards would reduce thei negative visual and -aesthetic -impacts on the. neighborhood until the lot is developed. property Values The. Jack of upkeep and maintenance of the landscaping, fencing, and structures, if applicable, : on -a vacant lot may be injurious to the property values of the surrounding neighborhood. The recommended standards would help protect property values in .the surrounding neighborhood by requiring : regular maintenance of -the lot, aesthetically appealing fencing, and enhanced landscaping. City Council Workshop On March 27, 20181the City. Council held a duly noticed workshop to discuss the effects of vacant lots and provided input on .how to regulate vacant. lots: Thee following 'is a summary of the: primary topics: Fencing - Requiring adequate fencing is imperative as it serves as'a barrier between the public right -of -way -and the .private property. fn addition, due to the Planning Commission Meating August 20, 2018 Page 4 of 24 indefinitely timeframe of vacant lots, maintenance .of aesthetically appealing fencing would prevent negative aesthetic and visual impacts over extended periods. Vacant Lot Registration � Requiring vacant lot registration allows staff to track the progress 'of. vacant lots and would hold responsible parties accountable for. the improvement and maintenance of the vacant lot. Rosemead Municipal Code. Sections The following Rosemead Municipal Code Chapters would be amended and added with the approval of MCA 18-03: AmendinO Rosemead Municipal Code Chatter 17,68 (Fences, Walls and Landscape Screening) of Title 17 (Zoning) The standards listed in this section would be revised to :remove verbiage pertaining to vacant lots. Adding Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 8.48 (Vacant Lots) to Title 8 (Health and Safet The new- vacant lot standards would be included in the Rosemead Municipal Code. as Chapter 8.48 of Title 8. and are drafted based.on the City Council's input provided at the workshop held on March 27, 2018. -- MUNICIPAL CODE. REQUIREMENTS Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.1.62.060; 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 goals, policies; andob]ectives.of the General Plan. It is a goal of the. Land Use Element of the General Plan ,to enhanceand maintain the quality and character of Rosemead's `residential neighborhoods and to revitalize underperforming commercial corridors. To ensure that the residential character is maintained, General -Plan .Policy 13. necessitates the. City to actively promote, the maintenance of.properties and buildingthrough code enforcement.. To ensure that the commercial and industrial districts in the City are maintained, General Plan Policy 2.6 necessitates the City to -rigorously, enforce property maintenance standards for commercial and industrialproperties:.. The proposed code arriendment will provide the City with additional tools to maintain vacant or abandoned properties in, all residential, commercial,- and industrial zones. This. ordinance will protect neighborhoods from negative: impacts. associated with vacant buildings and lots. Accordingly, the proposed amendment would improve community. aesthetics as it would require the responsible party or designee to Planning Commission Meeting August 20, 2018 Page 5 of 24 submit a Vacant Lot Landscape and Irrigation Plan for review, implement the approved plan, and provide regular maintenance of the landscaping. In addition, the improved, aesthetics would be less .intimidating for passing pedestrians, while increased landscaping would provide.additi.onal passive cooling benefits. 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 vacant lots were previously regulated in the - Zoning Code under Chapter. 17.68 (Fences, Walls, and Landscaping Screening). The proposed amendment is in the public's best interest as it establishes minimum standards of accountability on the responsible parties or other responsible parties of vacant lots in order to protect the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the community. The City has found that vacant lots cause harm to the : health, welfare, and safety of the. community, including an increase' in homeless encampments, criminal . activity, litter, graffiti, and depreciating the property value of adjacent and neighboring- properties: The proposed amendment would protect the health., safety, and welfare of the City by requiring regular maintenance of the property and promote accountability by regufring.vacant lot registration. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of [the].Zoning Code. 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, "si'milar, matters related to public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed amendment is, internally consistent with other. applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. All applicable references to vacant lots have been revised to be consistent with the new standards pertaining to vacant lots. PUBLIG 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 on six public locations: Planning Commission Meeting August 20, 2018 Page 6 of 24 Pre area : Reviewed a ubmitted by: Lily` alenzuela Ben Kim Planning & Economic Development Manager Dim . of Community Development EXHIBITS: A: Planning Commission Resolution No. 18-14 B. Draft Ordinance No, 982 Attachment C Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 20, 2018 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 20, 2018 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to. order at 7:00 pm by Vice -Chair Eng in the City Hall Council Chambers. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.— Commissioner Lopez INVOCATION— Commissioner Herrera ROLL CALL- Commissioners Rang, Herrera, Lopez, Vice -Chair Eng ABSENT - Chair Tang STAFF PRESENT — City Attorney Thuyen, Community p Development Manager Valenzuela, Associate Planner Hanh, Lockwood. 11 EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights 9 PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDI None 3. A. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning & Economic Commission Secretary PDS $oidia Inc. has submitted a Design Review application to amity dwelling with an attached three -car garage. Rosemead plyes :any dwelling unit that equals or exceeds 2,500 square feet t#o a'riscretionary Site Pian and Design Review by the Planning t is. also `proposing to construct a separate 2,776 square feet arages. However, the proposed duplex is reviewed as an Review and ' is not subject to the Planning Commission's dew as each unit is under 2,500 square feet in living area. The Place (APN: 5287.030.058), in the Light Multiple Residential and PC RESOL1" I..ON 18,-:12`'A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF : ROSEEAD, CCU TY. OP LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 17- 05, PERMITTING ANEW 2,975 SQUARE FEET SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT WITH AN ATTACHED THREE -CAR GARAGE AND A SEPERATE 2,776 SQUARE FEET DUPLEX WITH TWO ATTACHED TWO CAR GARAGES..THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8056 EMERSON PLACE (APN: 5287-030-058), IN THE LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL AND AUTOMOBILE PARKING (R-2 AND P) ZONE, STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission. ADOPT Resolution No. 18.-12 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 17-05, subject to the 31 conditions. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report: 1. Commissioner Lopez made a.motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, ADOPT Resolution No. 18-12 with findings and APPROVE Design Review. 17-05, subject to the 31 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, and. Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a vote of 4:Al ,a`and 0 Noes and explained the. 10 -day appeal process. -` B. DESIGN REVIEW 18-02 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 18-15 - Vanna;=Pl ung`h69,su mitted a resign Review and Minor Exception application to construct a new detachedsirigle-family; lwelling with an attached . two -car garage on the rear portion of the.lot, and construct an attached two -car garage and patio to the front existing legal nonconforming single-family dwelling. The total floor area of lite new rear single- family dwelling would be %235 square feet, whi)e tf e`front single-family dwe.lIing wi[I remain at 1,588 square feet. Any dwelling unit to be constructed th#t;equals or, exceeds 4500 square feet of developed living area shall be subject to a Discretionary Site Plarisnd Design Review. The project: site is located at 9541 Guess Street (APN: 8593-003-016), within the Si glee Famlly Residential (R-1) zone. PC RESOLUTION 18-13 - A RESOLUTIO1 RO.SEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, 5 02 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 18.15, PERMITT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTR THE LOT, AND CONSTRTION°OF AN AT' NC EXISTING LEGAL,NOCONFOAWING SING AT 3541 GUESSSTREET (APN: 8593.003.01 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF OF.,GALIFOF41hik-APPROVING. DESIGN REVIEW 18- iE CONSTRUCTION.OF A NEW 3,235 SQUARE FEET } TWO C -WG— ARAGE ON THE REAR PORTION OF I fWO-CAR GARAGE AND PATIO TO THE FRONT MILY DWELLING. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE, STAFF RECOMMENDATION itts,recommended that"the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 18-13 with findings and APPROVE Des[gn'Relew 18.02 and Minor Exception 18.15, subject to the 32 cor}ditions Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff; r..eport. Commiss1orser Lopez made a mut on, seconded by Commissioner Herrera to ADOPT Resolution No. 18-13.with findings and APPROVE Design Ilevlew"I8-02 and Minor Exception 18-15, subject to the.32 conditions. Vote.resulted in: Ayes: beng, Eng, Herrera, and. Lopez . Noes: done Abstain: None Absent: Tang Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes and 0 Noes and explained the 10 -day appeal process. C. MUNICIPAL CODE 18-03 - The proposed Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 18-03) would amend the. Rosemead.Municipa) Code sections relating to the regulation of vacant lots: Currently, Vacant.lots are required to comply with the same standards as lots that are under construction or.being demolished, as set forth.in Rosemead. Municipal Code.Section 17.68.100. The purpose of regulating vacant lots is to mitigate health-, safety, and fire hazards, reduce negative visual and aesthetic impacts, and protect property values. The minimal standards required by this section are appropriate for lots that under construction or being demolished; as such activity is temporary in nature. However, such minimal standards are not effective in serving the purpose for vacant. lots, as they could potentially remain vacant indefinitely. The proposed amendment would strengthen the Rosemead Municipal Code to more effective combat potential blight resuiting.from vacant lots and would provide consistency in defining vacant lots throughout the Rosemead Municipal Code. PC RESOLUTION 18-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING ,,C.O IMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,STATE OF CALIFORNIA -`#COMMENDING THATTHE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 982 F=OR THE APPROVAL Of` MCA 18-03, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 17.68 (FENCES, WALLS, AND -L-Ai 6SCAP.;'S.GREENING) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING), AND ADDING CHAPTER 8.48 (VACANT LOTS) :OF TITLE 8 (HEALTH AND. SAFETY) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING VACANT10TS STAFF RECOMMENDATION - That the Planni Conduct a public hearing and receive public 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resol City Council adopt Ordinance No. S Planning & Economic Development Manager Vice -Chair Eng asked if there .wereanygia'esi Commissioner Lopez.ask d.`9.taff If fences ajrf Planning & Economic Develop_inei have chain IiriEc;fences, which has Com miss pner'Lopez asked if -the Planning & Economic DevelopE case, and it:takes a lot for staff to Commissioner Lopez: fined and the City call owners to understand ission: are. being kept up. a resolution recommending that the for vacant lots. power point presentation. :the Municipal Code currently requires that vacant lots Iger Valenzuela replied no, so therefore, it becomes a Code Enforcement the property owner to redo their fence. once is adopted will this change. He added, currently, property owners can get to it up, butit is not stopping them. He,asked how can the City get the property doge. . Community. Development- Director Kim replied that what is being added -is a vacant lot registry. and that is the first step. Staff has identified all the.vacant lots in the City, has done that inventory, and has -a current list.- He added, so if City.Council authorizes the code amendment;.staff will initiate with the vacant lot inventory; give notice to the vacant lot owners that the new ordinance is in place, and certain improvements will have to be done. He stated there..is also the enforcement measure, which is becoming stronger: He stated language is being added to the code, where should the property owner or the responsible party hot maintain those vacant lots, -then additional enforcement measures, for example, the City would go in remedy the situation, and send the invoice to the responsible party. . Commissioner Lopez commented that was a good answer. 3 Ccmmissioner Herrera asked if ultimately a lien would be placed on the property. Community Development Director Kim replied there are several ways to do that. The way he is most.famIliar with and believes to be most efficient, is an assessment that is placed on the property tax bill annually. He added so it would go to the City Council, Clty Council places an authorization for the Cityto place a tax on whateverthe assessment may be, they would forward that information to the County Tax Assessor, and they automatically place it on the bill, which becomes an automatic payment. Commissioner Dang referred to the picture of the white picket fence in the power point presentation and asked if. a current property owner of a vacant lot has a chain link fence and it is secured, tJtis;:or inance would.remove the chain link fence and it would be replaced with the white picket fence. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes. Community Development Director Kim stated there is a little discreton'also, if it becomes a:$ecurity problem, then they can require additional height on the property. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela explained that if there, is a security issue acid the property owner needs to extend the fence to six feet, the Community Deue(opment l)icector will have the ability to approve it. Community Development Director Kim explaine, 40at the reason for that1s4 the property becomes a continued issue, a dumping issue, and where it is only necessarythataddItional height or additional measures are necessary, then it will be implemented. Commissioner Dang stated that if -you put a two -foot fence and ifth f& are p.eople`doing all this illegal dumping at night; what would the remedy be. He added Community Development Director kW*'larified that they will have the option of putting the six-foot fence back ' Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated that is correct. Commissioner topez referred to the six to' eight foot wide fence and asked if.there will be other types allowed because aneopenness of the`fence shown would. not stop to it. He`asked if tighter fences would be allowed other than just the White picket fence. Planning .Economic DevelopmeInt. Manager Valenzuela replied there Is no specific detail. Staff Is just requiring a white rail type fence. She said s# aff%:cbntacted the City of Monterey Park and they explained that this type of fence Works for the' i.`_a'ntl.staff hopes this will work for the City of Rosemead as well. Commissioner Dang stated theyIlke the white picket fence, the landscaping, the green buffer zone between the pedestrian and white picket fe6ce'but the vacant lot is quite often dry, and asked if there is a mechanism that will deal with the dust. Vice -Chair Eng stated that she believes Commissioner Dang's question is in. regards to landscaping and asked for clarification:if there was something in the staff report that requires irrigation: Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela commented yes; there is. Gommissioner Dang stated the irrigation is the green part, but inside the picket fence it is barren land,with-dust; he asked if there isa dust mitigation perimeter within the ordinance. 4. Community Development Director Kim replied dust mitigation is not addressed because it is not a primary issue and . not the intent of this ordinance. He stated currently the properties are vacant and that condition does not really change. He added what is being addressed is the fencing and buffering. requirement. He said if there is a site that is extensive and large enough requiring landscaping throughout the entire property is difficult and provided an example property on Valley Boulevard in Rosemead. He stated it would be infeasible to require landscaping for that entire property. Commissioner Dang stated that he thought maybe that is why they put the green screen there. Community Development Director stated that might be more for the visual. Commissioner Herrera referred to the power point presentation slide; stated,ftiebuffering area looks like grass, and asked if it was. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes,;;,:;. Commissioner Herrera asked how that would be maintained and,.. erect. Planning& Economic Development Manager Valenzuela rep(ied;:there will be:.i J gatlon. Commissioner Herrera stated irrigation will need to be installed anis commbrted that will be quite an expense. Community Development Director Kim stated the intent Is to. have a p6i&e._.impact to the community in regards to visual blight. He added there is a cost factor to this because there. is a fencing cast, an installation cost for fencing and irrigation; the landscaping, and the maintenance cost as well pecause the grass does need to be mowed and maintained. He added the overall benefit -to. the community will be'signTficant Commissioner Herrera asked if tEe property)owner would ;ave the option to say no, do not do it, they have their own people to do it, and then do _itieir own way: Community Development Director Kim replied that.the property owner will actually be responsible to do this and the City will only property ownerdoes not'comply Commissioner Herrera askbd tt looks.9,` or will they have tdb Community, Development Direc Commissioner Herrera asked if Community Dove[ because some citi be in compliance will the property owner just.have to maintain the property to where it it to repliedthis will be the standard. be the only standard and the property owners will have to do this themselves. `Kim replied yes, and asked staff if alternative landscaping measures were put in do have low impact water -efficient landscaping, if they should choose to. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied that was left pretty open because a landscaping plan will have to -be submitted to staff. She added staff will review these on a case by case'basis. Commissioner Herrera asked how and if an irrigation system will be installed if it is an undeveloped vacant lot. Community Development. Director Kim replied yes,.and explained they would have to tap into the main, install a water meter, and ri.n-ihe irrigation system. 5 Commissioner Herrera asked if this will all be at the owner's expense. Community Development Director Kiri replied yes, and if the property owner should not wish to maintain a vacant property, the owner is more than welcome to develop their property. Vice -Chair Eng stated to address Commissioner Herrera's concern, most of these vacant lots may have some sort of watering infrastructure in place, they may have had to demo the building that had been there, so she does not foresee this as a major concern, as they are not new undeveloped lots.. She addedmostof the lots may have previously been developed and the water infrastructure has been In place, so the owner will only have to hook it up. She thanked staff and commended.the City Council for taking the leadership in putting this ordinance in place, as it is needed. She asked staff approximately how many vacant lots does the City currently have. Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied approxim4tqly'.53 ; <.. Vice -Chair Eng asked if most of them are located in the north or south -:area. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied they are throughout the Gity Vice -Chair Eng asked staff how the registration of vacant lots by the property nvvner be enforced. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied" a`process `will be Implemented, which is in Chapter 8:48; and letters will be sent out to all the property;owners notifying them:when this is adopted. She stated once the code -has been adopted,.the letter will inform the property owners of the adoptron and they have 80 days to comply with the ordinance. She said at that point; property own-., will fCnow they. have'fo register and submit a plan. Vice -Chair Eng asked what the developed project that has been_ be addressed. Planning & Economic Developn would be considered -as a vack fo analyze them Vice-Chair:Eh-0~recommei , d;:t Comm ss loner Lopez asked wt to cover t[W-.0penses of : irrig ordinance. HeasKed if the City of a vacant;lot is She`statednear her residence there has been a half rie,for a long time, aild'asked if this Will fall into that category or how will those it Manager Vaienzuela replred in those cases if the permits are no longer active. they lot She added they will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and staff would have at because some of those projects should not be just sitting. appgc;`:if.a property owner of a vacant.lot states they do not have the funds anting' grass or sod, landscaping, and fencing to .comply with this new or how will the City address the feedback of the new ordinance requirements. Community Development Director 'm.replied the preview and.discussion for the Planning Commission at this time is for the land issue decision :so t is'speciflc ordinance is being proposed to address a land use concern. He added the economic aspects of it is"go-thbthing staff will have to work with the individual applicants. He stated it was a valid comment and thanked Commissioner Lopez for it, but this is specifically a land use issue and is an impact to the community in terms of aesthetics. Vice -Chair Eng opened the Public Nearingand invited speaker request Brian -Lewin to the podium. Resident Brian Lewin thanked staff for putting this ordinance in place, stated this is something that this is needed, and he is pleased this is finally being done. He expressed that he is concerned with the fencing because he does not know if that type of fencing will be sufficient to keep people out. He stated there is a giant lot on the eastern border of the City on Valley Boulevard that has hada long history of people going in and doing improper things. He statedthat some 6 of those lots would need a significantly higher level of securitythan a six feet tall fence. He recommended considering adding some additional fencing options or clarifying the -fencing options to address those type of concerns. He. said that lot may be unique compared to what some of the other sites are, but he recommended this be considered for some of the big lots. He referred to Section (A)(1) Landscaping and stated. he likes the idea. He asked if this had been. considered, where there is a gas station with a parking lot made of asphalt and -(the City actually owns a lot behind a 7-E[even, which is in progress that is entirely asphalt), in order to be in compliant with this, will the property owner have to dig up the appropriate frontage of asphalt or concrete to install the drought tolerant landscaping.that is required by the ordinance. He stated he is not sure if he is opposed to this, but he recommends it be addressed or considered in some fashion. He referred to 8.48.050 "Noncompliance Declared Nuisance" and especially thanked staff for this and recommended considering a timetable or number of -citations against the property before the City would be entitled to enter the property and take action. He stated he is in favor of doing that because._ori:e'of the issues the City has long had 1s absentee landlords that do not maintain their properties, so you can cite ttie all year, and they are not going to do anything. He stated the City might want to put a progressive enforce merit regiMp Jn there to make it clear on what stage they will do what and to specifically tie it in to the effect of, "Failurea comply shalt constitute a public nuisance . as defined in Chapter 8.44.020 of the code. He stated, as similarly to, that, the fees arid'costq. not -'paid he recommends empathizing the tax lien for the same reason. He stated if a propeity lien input on it, the `Cityi-as properties that has been dormant for 20-30 years and the City may never collect any>money from it. He stated a "#ax.Jien is the best way to go and if that is the option, he suggests they do that. He referred to V[ce-Chair Eng's comment about properties starting .construction and then just stopping- for a long time; -,and there have been many projects.=like that He recommended adding a little more specificity to the exemption iri=8:48.0Gp: rid16hten that up a bit in terms of that ties into building permits and construction projects in terms of when a-p.rdjectlies dormant because a person cannot get funds is it still off this: He questioned if it's still ekempt or at what p6r.tt woauld that [ick in. He said.if somebody gets halfway into the project and the money dries up and theyneed.another six months to a year to get the money, are they still exempt from this code: He stated they should not be; Tt hould-kickIn, and recommended that the language in that provis[on be a little clearer to. determine when and`hbw that happens He thankeGJhe Planning Commission for this and he does have these gtestions:and concerns, but overall this looks goad and he is looking forward to this becoming code; Resident James Berry statO,_he added this has been a problem people will want to live herd." Vice=Chair Eng asked if there w. Vice -Chair Erg closed the. Pub questions for'staff,, would alsolike to thank tle',City Council and Planning Commission for doing this. He in the CityfWa very long time,, this will make things a lot better, and make it so that be a parf ijf the City He thanked the Planning Commission again. e else wishing to -speak on this item, asked if the Planning Commission had any further comments or Commissioner Dang stated he was'follow[ng some of Mr. Lewin's points and one of them was in regards to: the construction site that W_6c C,fta r.. rig brought up. He said.during the course of construction, from -what he understands, each time you call for an inspection it renews a permit for another six months. So the fact that you have no construction activity within six months, it does not mean that there is an expired permit, it .just means theyneed: to call for an inspection one day of. the six months. He added . there are other points he .wants to discuss and asked Community Development DirectorKim for his assistance. Community Development Director Kim stated the first comment was in regards to the type of fencing. He explained that the height might not be tall enough on larger lots from people entering the properties for security purposes. 7 Commissioner Dang stated that the Municipal Code maximum for fencing is at six feet and if you put anything higher than six feet it becomes a fortressing effect and if it is taller, it will not prevent someone from getting in. He added they would just get a bolt cutter and snip the fence to get in and walk right through. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela. stated that it is typically at six feet but the Municipal Code does state a minimum of six feet. She added anything over six feet does not -work anymore. Commissioner Dang stated structurally there are some issues too, and explained you have to drive the.foundation and things like that. Ne added with the temporary footings when the fence gets'very tall it will not work, you will have to start driving concrete foundations with something more permanent, and it will be a 7a cost effect. Community Development Director Kim stated another one of .Brian Lewin's comjert was in reference to commercial properties and the landscape requirement. Commissioner Dang stated that Brian Lewin mentioned a property tL at. has a gas stat'ign that has asphalt, and if the City is going to ask them to tear it out, but if there is astructure like,tfiat, he does not consderthat as vacant. Community Development Director Kim asked so we will not be requiring the landscape buffer, it,. JJI;only require the fencing on the property line. He added that putting in the.buffer rs a hardship artd it will effect either'tele circulation or parking'. Commissioner Dang stated his breakdown of the presentation was to` add some beautification to the cornmercial site and add the white fence element to beautify the cornmerctalsite. - a. Community Development Director Kim stated the 'nett. item was far the. numb 6r,of:.:notices before the City enters the property and does the work. - Commissioner Dang stated the City already has some :Cade. Enforcement protocol's in place, so he does not recommend adding any clarity to -it. Community Development Director Kim stated the`City does have protocols in place and the City -does not want to be challenged if the notices were received. &`not He added the City would implement the current procedures in place. He stated the was also a comment regarding the tax lien and -nota property lien. Commissioner Dang stated the t;x, lien is an .excellent vehicle, so every year they will be paying that lien off opposed to waiting for the property to be`sold.and thst.#irie is garnished. Community Development Director :K'im stated that.is anannual action by the City Council and he is familiar with that process withother cities, so staff will recommend that to the City. Council. Commissioner Dang state 1 Jpdfi:this is an excellent idea and this is an excellent ordinance. Vice -Chair Eng thanked Commissioner Dang and asked if the planning Commission had any further questions or comments. None Vioe-Chair Eng asked.Gommunity Development Director'Kim if the tax lien v4as something that the City of Montebello .uses for their trash services. She asked if the trash bili is collected as part of their property tax bili.. Community Development Director Kim replied that it is this is an abatement type of process, so it is different. 8 Vice -Chair Eng stated Brian Lewin's concern about the fences was not so much about the height, but it was about the type of fences.. She added his issue is how do we address the openness of the fence for security features and to keep the people. from accessing the property. She added that is what Mr. Lewin was alluding to in terms of his concern. Community. Development Director Kim stated there is a homeless issue not only in Rosemead, but also in the San Gabriel Valley, and throughout California. He explained what the homeless does not like is being seen, so if there is a . property -and there are no weeds, there is. no trees, no bushes; and.lf they set up. an encampment, and they are visible they. do not like that. He provided an example from a property in Monterey Park at Atlantic and Garvey and stated it is a sizable piece of property and about seven to eight acres in total size, there are no: homelessness. This is because this is just open, and. even though there is rail fencing, and the fencing is only f*ouf fbat high, the homeless just does not congregate there.. He stated there are different measures for security aside`from just putting up a four -toot high fence or taller: Vice -Chair Eng stated another comment that Brian Lewin brought sit dormant. She stated she appreciates Brian Lewin's comment - enough. Each of those cases should be. looked at separately, a feasibility issue, and that is something that needs to be addrespd those properties are not being able to be completed in a timely ma or questions for staff. None Vice -Chair Eng stated with no further questions ora Commissioner Herrera made a;motion; secom Resolution No. 18-.14 with fnn:gs, ai3solution for the approval of MCA 1$ 03 Vote resulted in: Yes: n: UR.was properties that..are under construction and a �:l#Vhere he is coming from in terms of enough is nd individually, because sometimes it is a financial on a case by case basis to understand the reasons nner. She asked if there were ariyfu . her comments forte'=trtotioh. or e(4pez-to Adopt Planning Commission ng that`tK City Council adopt Ordinance No. 982 Community development Directortfn stated tlie motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes and 0 Noes and this item will, be presented to the City Council at a future hearing. 4.- . CONSENT CALENDAR ;..,.....:'` A. PC MINUTES 8-618; Vice -Chair Eng stated she. has a correction on page 5 and clarified it should state, "She noticed a number of shuttles in front.of the restaurant". Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dang to approve PC Minutes 8-6-18 with the correction to page 5. - Vote resulted In: 9 ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary . Nancy.Eng Vice -Chair 10 Attachment D Planning Commission. Resolution No. 15-1.4 PC RESOLUTION 18-14 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. 982 FOR THE APPROVAL OF MCA 18-03, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 17.68 (FENCES, WALLS, AND LANDSCAPE SCREENING) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING), AND ADDING CHAPTER 8.48. (VACANT LOTS) OF _ TITLE Q.. (HEALTH -.AND SAFETY) OF. THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING VACANT LOTS WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Article.Xl, Section 5 and Section 7 of the State Constitution to exercise the police power of the State by adopting regulations to promote public health, public safety and general prosperity; and WHEREAS, Section 38771 of the California Government Code 38771 authorizes the City through its legislative body to declare actions and activities that constitute.a public nuisance; and 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, adoption of. the Vacant Lot Ordinance amends Chapter 17,68 (F of Title 17 and adds "Chapter 8.48 -- Vacant Lots" of Title 8 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, which sets requirements and provisions for vacant lots; and WHEREAS, on. August 9, 2018, a notice was, published in the Rosemead Reader and notices were posted insix public locations; specifying the availability of the proposal, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Municipal Code Amendment 18- 03; and WHEREAS, on August. 20, 201:8, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of Municipal Code Amendment 1 8-03to the City. Council; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered_ all testimony presented to them in order to mak..e.the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: 1 SECTION 1. This Ordinance is exempt from additional environmental, review' under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQN) and CEQA regulations (1.4 California_ Code of Regulations §§ 15000. Et seq.) because Jt establishes rules and procedures to permit operation of. existing facilities; consists only of minor revisions and clarifications to existing replations 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 exernpt from further CEQA.review under 14 Cal. Code 'Regs. §§ 15301, 153015, and 15308. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Municipal Code Amendment 18-03, 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 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 and to revitalize underperforming corn mercial corridors. To ensure .that the residential character is maintained, General Plan.Policy 1.3 necessitates the City to actively promote the maintenance of properties and building through code enforcement. To ensure that the commercial and industrial districts in the City are maintained, General Plan Policy 2.6 necessitates the - City to rigorously enforce property maintenance standards for commercial and industrial properties. The proposed code amendment will provide the City with additional tools to maintain vacant or abandoned properties in all residential, commercial, and industrial zones. This.ordinance will protect neighborhoods from negative impacts' associated with vacant buildings and lots. Accordingly, the proposed amendment would improve community aesthetics as it. would. require the responsible 'party' -or designee to submit a Vacant Lot Landscape and Irrigation Plan for review, implement the approved plan, and provide regular maintenance., of the landscaping..ln addition, the improved aesthetics would be less intimidating for passing pedestrians. while increased landscaping would provide additional passive cooling benefits. 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, as vacant lots were previously regulated in the Zoning. Code under Chapter 17.68 (Fences, Walls, and Landscaping Screening). The proposed amendment is in the public's best interest.as it establishes 2 minimum standards of accountability on. the responsible parties or, other responsible parties of vacant lots in order to .protect the health, safety, convenience; and welfare of the community. The City has found that vacant lots cause. harm to. the health, .welfare, and safety of the community, including an increase in homeless encampments, criminal activity, .litter, graffiti, and depreciating the property value of adjacent and neighboring properties. The proposed .amendment would protect the. health, safety, and welfare of the City by requiring regular maintenance of the property and promote accountability. by requiring vacant lot registration. G. 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 ordinanca is intended to regulate aesthetics, traffic, parking, public peace, and.other, similar, matters related to public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Zoning -Code. All applicable references to vacant lots have been revised to be consistent with.the new standards pertaining to vacant lots. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS the City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 982 for the approval of Municipal Code Amendment 18-03, to amend Chapter 17,68 (,Fences, Walls, and. Landscape Screening) of -Title 17 (Zoning) and add 8.48 (Vacant Lots) to Title. 8 (Health and Safety) to the Rosemead Municipal Code regarding vacant lots. SECTION 4. This resolution is the result of- an action taken by the. Planning Commission on August 20, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: DANG, ENG, HERRERA, LOPEZ NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: TANG 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 201h day of* August 2018 Nancy Eng, Vice -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 20th day of August 2018, by the following vote: AYES: DANG, ENG, HERRERA, LOPEZ NOES:.. NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: TANG Ben Kim, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: . Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney Burke;. Williams &Sorensen, LLP City Council StaffReport datedSe25, ptemberr TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: GLORIA MOLLEDA, CITY MANAGER "�' "I DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 982 — SECOND READING AND ADOPTION. ON REGULATING VACANT LOTS AND MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 18-03 SUMMARY On September 11, 2018 the City Council conducted a public hearing and introduced Ordinance No. 982 by title, amending chapter 17.68 of the Rosemead Municipal Code relating to the regulation of vacant lots. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 982 by title only, entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 17.68 (FENCES, WALLS, AND LANDSCAPE SCREENING) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING), AND ADDING CHAPTER 8.48 (VACANT I.,OTS) OF TITLE 8 (HEALTH AND SAFETY) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING VACANT LOTS FISCAL IMPACT - None PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item. has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Submitted by: Ericka Hemandez, City Clerk Attachment A: Ordinance No. 982 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.0 Attachment A Ordinance No. 982 ORDINANCE NO. 982 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEME AD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 17.68 (FENCES, WALLS, AND LANDSCAPE SCREENING) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING), AND ADDING CHAPTER 8.48 (VACANT LOTS) OF TITLE 8 (HEALTH AND SAFETY) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING VACANT LOTS WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Article X1, Section 5 and Section 7 of the State Constitution to exercise the police power of the State by adopting regulations to promote public health, public safety and general prosperity; and WHEREAS, Section 38771 of the California Government Code 38771 authorizes the City through its legislative body to declare actions and activities that constitute a public nuisance; and WHEREAS, Section 17,152.060 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the criteria for a Zoning Code Amendment; and 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; and WI-TEREAS, Section 17.152.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to approve amendments to the City's Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, adoption of the Vacant Lot Ordinance amends Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code and adds "Chapter 8.48 — Vacant Lots", which sets requirements and provisions for vacant lots; and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of Municipal Code Amendment 18-03 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 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 18-03; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2018, the City Council held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Municipal Code Amendment 18- 03; and WHEREAS, the City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination; 1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act. This Ordinance is exempt from additional environmental review under the California Environi-nental 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. Reg s. 2. Fin -dings. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Municipal Code Amendment 18-03, 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 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 and to revitalize underperforming commercial corridors. To ensure that the residential character is maintained, General Plan Policy 1.3 necessitates the City to actively promote the maintenance of properties and building through code enforcement. To ensure that the commercial and industrial districts in the City are maintained, General Plan Policy 2.6 necessitates the City to rigorously enforce property maintenance standards for commercial and industrial properties. The proposed code amendment will provide the City with additional tools to maintain vacant or abandoned properties in all residential, commercial, and industrial zones. This ordinance will protect neighborhoods from negative impacts associated with vacant buildings and lots. Accordingly, the proposed amendment would improve community aesthetics as it would require the responsible party or designee to submit a Vacant Lot Landscape and Irrigation Plan for review, implement the approved plan, and provide regular maintenance of the landscaping. In addition, the improved aesthetics would be less intimidating for passing pedestrians, while increased landscaping would provide additional passive cooling benefits. 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, as vacant lots were previously regulated in the Zoning 2 Code under Chapter 17.68 (Fences, Walls, and Landscaping Screening). The proposed amendment is in the public's best interest as it establishes minimum standards of accountability on the responsible parties or other responsible parties of vacant lots in order to protect the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the community. The City has found that vacant lots cause harm to the health, welfare, and safety of the community, including an increase in homeless encampments, criminal activity, litter, graffiti, and depreciating the property value of adjacent and neighboring properties. The proposed amendment would protect the health, safety, and welfare of the City by requiring regular maintenance of the property and promote accountability by requiring vacant lot registration. 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. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code. All applicable references to vacant lots have been revised to be consistent with the new standards pertaining to vacant logs. SECTION 3. Code Amendment. Chapter 17.68 of Title 17 is HEREBY AMENDED as follows: Chapter 17.68 FENCES, WALLS, AND LANDSCAPE SCREENING Sections: 17.68.010 Purpose and applicability. 17.68.020 Permit requirements. 17.68.030 Height limitations residential development. 17.68.040 Height timitations — commercial, industrial, residential commercial mixed-use or commercial/industrial mixed-use development. 17.68.050 Retaining walls. 17.68.060 Fencing for residential or nonresidential sports facilities. 17.68.070 Determining height. 17.68.080 Prohibited fencing materials. 1.7.68.090 Fencing of hazardous areas. 17.68.104 Fences on lots that are under construction, or being demolished. 17.68.110 Requirement for construction of a six-foot high masonry wall. 17.68.010 Purpose and applicability. The following standards are intended to ensure that all fences, walls, and hedges provide the desired privacy, safety, and quality design. The standards are also intended to ensure that fences, walls, and landscape screening do not create a public safety hazard or nuisance. Fences, walls, 3 hedges, shrubs or similar materials used for screening shall be consistent with the following requirements. 17.68.020 Permit requirements. A. Residential zones. A fence permit shall be required to install new or replacement fencing or masonry walls in any residential zone. No permit shall be required for the planting of landscape screening. B. Nonresidential zones. An administrative site plan review shall be required to install new or replacement fencing or masonry walls on nonresidential property. No permit shall be required for the planting of landscape screening. 17.68.030 Height limitations - residential development. A. Fences and Walls. 1. In the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones no fence or wall located in a rear or side yard shall exceed a height of six (6) feet. 2. In the R-1., R-2, and R-3 zones no fence or wall located in the required front yard shall exceed a height of four (4) feet. 3. On a reversed corner lot, no fence or wall or located within five (5) feet of the street side or within ten (10) feet of the rear line between the street and the established setback line on the key lot to the rear, shall exceed a height of four (4) feet. 4. Walls and fences shall be kept in good condition and properly maintained. S. Landscape Screening. 1. Landscape screening in residential rear or side yards shall not be subject to a height limit, except for landscape screening on reversed comer Iots. On a reversed corner lot, no hedge or other landscape screening material. located within five (5) feet of the street side or within ten (10) feet of the rear line between the street and the established setback line on the key lot to the rear, shall exceed a height of four (4) feet. 2. Landscape screening located within the required front yard shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet. 3. Landscape screening shall not encroach onto a curb or sidewalk or over a lot line. 17.65.040 Height limitation - commercial, industrial, residential/commercial mixed-use or commercial/industrial mixed-use development. A. A six (6) foot high solid masonry wall shall be constructed and maintained along any side or rear lot line adjacent to residentially zoned or used property, school or park. The wall shall be 11 not less than three (3) feet but not more than four (4) feet in height where it is adjacent to a required residential front yard setback. B. Within the C-1, C-3, C-4, CBD, and CI -MU zones, walls located within ten (10) feet of any public right-of-way shall not exceed a height of three (3) feet. C. Within the M-1 zone, a solid wall not less than six (6) feet in height and no more than eight (8) feet in height shall be erected along the property line separating the M-1 zone from any residential zone or use, school, park or commercial zone. However, the wall shall not be more than four (4) feet in height where it adjoins a front yard setback of any residential or commercial property. D. Any outdoor area used for storage shall be completely enclosed by a solid, decorative masonry wall and a solid gate not less than six (6) feet in height. The Community Development Director may approve the substitution of a fence or decorative wall where such fence or wall provides adequate visual clearance, is structurally adequate, and is equivalent in decorative appearance. In no event shall the height of such storage exceed the height of the wall or fence enclosing the storage area. E. Walls shall have a decorative color and texture consistent with the architectural style and materials of the commercial or industrial development. Architectural and other treatment of the wall is required. 1. Where new walls are erected in locations visible from a public right-of-way, the use of full dimension caps, pilasters, and changes in wall surfaces (staggering) shall be applied. 2. In locations where wails might invite vandalism or graffiti, landscaping should be provided along the walls. F. Walls and fences shall be kept in good condition and properly maintained. G. Landscape screening shall not encroach onto a curb or sidewalk or over a lot line. 17.68.050 Retaining walls. A. Where there is a necessary retaining wall for a lot that is above a sidewalk or at the top of a curb grade, additional wall height up to three (3) feet may be allowed, subject to a Site Flan and Design Review approval. The maximum height for a combination retaining wall and fence shall be seven (7) feet. B. The non -retaining portion of the fence or wall combination cannot exceed four (4) feet. C. The retaining portion of the fence or wall combination cannot exceed four (4) feet. D. Extensions above four (4) feet, as measured from the sidewalk, or top of the curb, shall be constructed of wrought iron or other non -obscuring materials determined to be acceptable, subject to the Site Flan and Design Review application. 5 1.7.68.060 Fencing for residential or nonresidential sports facilities. To enclose tennis courts or similar sports areas located within the rear lot, fences over six (6) feet in height shall be permitted, provided that any portion of the fence or structure which is higher than six (6) feet shall be composed of wire mesh or other material whose vertical service is not more than ten (10) percent solid, unless safety necessitates otherwise. Such additional wire mesh or similar material shall be subject to site plan approval. 17.68.070 Determining height. A. General. The height of fences, walls, and hedges shall be measured as the vertical distance from the ground elevation or finished grade of the property on which the fence or wall is erected to the highest point of the fence or wall. To allow for variation in topography on a parcel, the height of a fence or wall may vary intermittently up to six (6) inches. B. Difference in grade height between two parcels. Where there is a difference in the ground elevation or finished grade between two (2) adjoining parcels of less than two (2) feet, the height of any fence or wall constructed along the common property line shall be determined by using the finished grade of the highest adjoining parcel. When there is a difference in ground level between two (2) adjoining parcels of two (2) feet or more, the height of the fence shall be determined by the Comn-iunity Development Director. The Community Development Director shall. consider the physical and visual height impact on abutting parcels. 17.68.080 Prohibited fencing materials. A. Residential zones. The following fencing materials shall be prohibited in all residential zones: barbed or razor wire, electrified wire, chicken wire and similar small -gauge wire or mess product, chain-link fencing, or other materials hazardous to wildlife. 1. Exceptions. Chain-link fencing shall be a permitted fencing material for. a. The screening of side yard areas that are not visible from the public right-of-way and rear yard areas; and b. The temporary screening of lots under construction or being demolished in accordance with Section 17.68.100. 2. All chain-link fences in existence at the time of the adoption of this Part shall be deemed legal non -conforming as set forth in Chapter 17.72 and the properties on which they have been placed shall be permitted to undertake maintenance, repair, and replacement consistent with the requirements of that Chapter. B. Conunercial, industrial, residential/commercial mixed-use zones, commercial/industrial mixed use. The following fencing materials are prohibited in all commercial, industrial, residential/commercial, and commercial/industrial zones: barbed or razor wire, electrified wire, chicken wire and similar small gauge wire or mesh product, plastic, and chain-link fencing, or other materials hazardous to wildlife. 1. Exceptions. Chain-link fencing shall be a permitted fencing material for: a. The screening of side yard areas that are not visible from the public right -of way and rear yard areas; b. The temporary screening of lots under construction or being dernolished in accordance with Section 17.68.100; and c. To enclose an area where a solid wall or fence would create a physical hazard (i.e. the containment of mechanical equipment under an electrical. transmission right-of- way). The use of chain-link fencing in this circumstance is subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 1.7.68.090 Fencing of Hazardous areas. A fence or wall six (6) feet or greater in height may be required along the perimeter of all areas which, by reasons of conditions of the property or physical hazards, such as frequent flooding, erosion, excavation, or grade separation, are considered by the Community Development Director to be dangerous to the public health and safety. 17.68.100 Fences on lots that are under construction, or being demolished. For the purposes of this subsection, "under construction" and "demolish" shall be defined pursuant to the Los Angeles County Building Code as adopted by the City. A. All property that is under construction, or being demolished shall be totally enclosed around the perimeter by a fence that is a minimum of six (6) feet in height as measured from adjacent property, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director or other designated officials. B. The required fence shall be adequately constructed from chain link, lumber, masonry or other approved materials. The fence shall be entirely self-supporting and shall not encroach or utilize structures or fencing on any adjacent property without prior written approval of the adjacent owner. C. The fence shall be installed prior to the initiation of any construction or demolition and shall be continuously maintained in good condition. D. Signs stating "PRIVATE PROPERTY, NO TRESPASSING" shall be posted on the fence. E. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a fence or wall as required by any law or regulation of the state of California or any agency thereof. 17.68.110 Requirement for construction of a six-foot high masonry wall. 7 The City Council finds that there are areas within the City where commercial zones abut residential zones and the construction of a block wall is necessary to protect such residential areas. Any owner, lessee, occupant or agent constructing or causing the construction of any building, building addition, accessory building, or repairs estimated by the Building Department to have a value of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) or more upon any commercially used and zoned lot adjacent to property zoned and used for residential purposes shall construct a six-foot high masonry wall along the property line where the commercially zoned lot has a common or rear lot line with a residentially zoned property. Any person desiring to obtain a modification from the provisions of this section may file with the Planning Commission a written application, citing the reasons for such request. The Planning Commission shall give the applicant for such inodification an opportunity to be heard if he or she so desires, and thereafter may grant or deny the application for the modification, or may grant the same upon such conditions as the Planning Commission deems necessary for the preservation of the safety, health or property of the general public. Any interested person may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council by filing an appeal pursuant to Chapter 17.160 (Appeals and Requests for Review) of this code. SECTION 4. Code Amendment. Chapter 8.48 (Vacant Lots) shall be added to Title 8 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 8.48 VACANT LOTS Sections: 8.48.010 Purpose, 8.48.020 Definitions. 8.48.030 City Standards. 8.48.040 Impiementation. 8.48.050 Noncompliance Declared Nuisance. 8.48.060 Exemption. 8.48.010 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate vacant lots in the City in order to protect residential and commercial areas from becoming blighted due to the Iack of adequate maintenance and security, and to establish minimum standards of accountability on the responsible parties of vacant lot in order to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the community. 8.48.020 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: "Responsible Party" means and includes any person having legal title to, or who. leases, rents, occupies or has charge, control or possession of, any real property in the city, including all persons shown as owners on the last equalized assessment roll of the Los Angeles County Assessor's Office. Responsible parties include persons with powers of attorney, executors of estates, trustees, or who are court appointed administrators, conservators, guardians or receivers. A responsible party of personal property shall be any person who has legal title, charge, control, or possession of, such property. "Vacant Lot" means any property that is either:. (1) Unimproved; or (2) Improved with an existing building or structure that is abandoned, vacant and/or unoccupied for more than 30 days. 8.48.030 City Standards. A. Unimproved Vacant Lots. 1. Landscaping. a. The responsible party of a vacant lot that was never developed or became vacant after pre-existing buildings, structures, or impervious surfaces were removed, must provide a Vacant Lot Landscape and Irrigation Plan, along with the appropriate City fees, to the Community Development Department for review and approval. b. Upon approval of a Vacant Lot Landscape and Irrigation Plan, vacant lots must be improved and maintained at all times in accordance with the approved plan and the following provisions: 1) A minium ten -foot wide landscape area must be maintained on all perimeters of a vacant lot located adjacent to all streets, alleys, or other public rights-of- way. 2) Landscaped areas must be planted with natural, drought -tolerant vegetation consisting of a combination of trees, shrubs, and groundcover, subject to approval of the Community Development Department. Such landscape materials must maintain a minimum height of two feet. 3) The vacant lot must be improved with an operable automatic irrigation system for the ground cover, which must be installed and maintained in good condition by the responsible party at all times. 4) Any dead or dying vegetation, as well as any broken, malfunctioning irrigation components, on the lot must be replaced by the responsible party or designee, within 72 hours of discovery or notification by the City. The responsible party or designee, must inspect the property at reasonable intervals and take other steps to reasonably ensure that there are no dead or dying vegetation nor any broken, malfunctioning irrigation components on the lot. E 2. Fencing. A four -foot high with anti -graffiti coating (if feasible) white rail fence approved by the Community Development Department must be located behind all required perimeter landscaping. All fencing must be provided with a gate to allow access to the vacant lot for emergency access. As deemed necessary by Staff for health, safety, or general welfare reasons, a security fence of a maximum. of six (b) feet per approval by the Connnunity Development Director may be required around vacant properties. 3. Maintenance. a. The vacant lot must be maintained free of litter, weeds, graffiti, debris, and the stockpiling of any material at all times. The responsible party or designee, must inspect the property at reasonable intervals and take other steps to reasonably ensure that no litter, weeds, graffiti, debris or materials stockpiling collects or is maintained on the lot. b. All fencing must be maintained in good condition at all times by the responsible party or designee. Any on-site graffiti must be removed by the responsible party or designee, within 24 hours of discovery or notification by the City. The responsible party or designee, must inspect the property at reasonable intervals for any on-site graffiti and take other steps to reasonably ensure that there are no on-site graffiti. B. Improved Vacant Lots. Vacant lots improved with existing on-site buildings or structures that are vacant, abandoned, or unoccupied for more than 30 days, as determined by the Community Development Director, must be improved and maintained at all times in the same manner as set forth in the "Unimproved Vacant Lots" subsection of this section, however, the Community Development Director may modify the landscaping requirements if the landscaping requirements are deemed unnecessary or unsuitable for an improved vacant lot. 2. In addition, such vacant lots must be maintained as follows: a. All on-site buildings or structures must be maintained in good condition at all times. Damage to any on-site buildings or structures must. be abated within ten days by the responsible party or designee upon discovery or City notification. An alternative abatement period may be granted if deemed necessary by the Community Development Director, if the responsible party: 1) Demonstrates that physical improvements towards remedying the site or buildings/structures reasonably require more than ten days; and 2) Submits a written request to the Community Development Director justifying the requested time extension and detailing the scope of work to be completed within such time. 10 b. The vacant lot must be adequately secured at all times to prevent illegal dumping, criminal activity, vandalism, graffiti, on-site loitering, and any and all other attractive nuisances to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. C. Vacant Lots in Conjunction with an Approved Project. Before the City issues a demolition permit on any lot in which the construction of a new building, structure, parking lot, or impervious surface is not scheduled to commence within 30 days after demolition, the responsible party or designee must submit a Vacant Lot Landscape and Irrigation Plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department, along with the appropriate City fees. The Community Development Department may impose any conditions of approval on the vacant lot landscape and irrigation plan to ensure that the lot will be adequately maintained during the tirne that it is vacant. Upon approval of the plan, the landscape and irrigation improvements to the vacant lot, as specified on the approved plan, must be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department, within 30 days after approval of the plans. 8.48.044 Implementation. A. All vacant lots, regardless of how they became vacant, that are existing at the time this section becomes effective must comply with this section within 60 days after the City provides notice alerting the responsible party or operator of the requirements of this section. For purposes of this section, the responsible party or operator is deemed to have been provided notice five days after such notice be mailed by first class and certified mail to the owner(s) shown on the last assessment roll ofthe county. The failure of any person to receive this notice does not affect. the validity of any proceedings under this section. A 30 -day time extension may be granted by the Community Development Director for good cause as determined by the Community Development Director. B. The responsible party shall complete and submit a vacant lot registration application on a form made. available by the Community Development Department within 60 days after the lot becomes vacant or within 60 days after the effective date of this section, whichever is later. At the time of registration, an annual fee, as established by resolution of the City Council, shall be paid to defray the cost of administering this section. The Community Development Director shall have the authority to make specific fee exemptions in a case where the responsible party has agreed to allow the property to be used and operated for a specific community serving use and specific timeframe approved by the City of Rosemead. 8.48.050 Noncompliance Declared Nuisance, A. Failure to comply with any of the applicable requirements in this section constitute public nuisances and abaternent proceedings may proceed to gain compliance in accordance with the provisions of this section. B. Failure to comply with the City Standards or any other applicable requirements in this section may result in any combination of the following actions by the City of Rosemead: 11 The City of Rosemead may take action to bring the property into compliance, as set forth in this section, which may include, but not limited to, maintaining the cleanliness of the property, installing fencing, and/or rehabilitating the existing landscaping. The responsible party or designee shall submit full payment to the City of Rosemead for the cost of all work completed by the City of Rosemead. The amount of such payment will be provided on an invoice to the responsible party by the City of Rosemead. 2. Any fees or costs not paid when due may be specially assessed against the property involved. If the fee or invoice amount is specially assessed against the property, said assessment may be collected and shall be- subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency, as provided for ordinary real property taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of real property taxes are applicable to the special assessment, 3. The City of Rosemead may cause a notice of lien to be recorded against the property. The notice of lien shall, at minimum, identify the record owner or possessor of the property, set forth the last known address of the record owner or possessor, a description of the real property subject to the lien, and the amount of the fees or costs assessed against the property. C. The City may pursue any other remedies or enforcement action(s) provided in the Municipal Code. 8.48.060 Exemption. Any vacant lot that is undergoing construction or any vacant lot for which a building permit has 47 been issued and has not expired is exempt from the requirements of this section. This exemption. does not apply to any extensions, modifications, or changes to a building permit that extend the building permit beyond the initial expiration period provided by this code. 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 C. 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. The City Council hereby declares that, should any provision, section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance or any part thereof, be rendered or declared invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction sdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such decision or action shall not affect the validity of the remaining section or portions of the Ordinance or part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have independently adopted the remaining provisions, 12 sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words of this Ordinance irrespective of the fact that any one or more provisions, sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words niay be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 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 September 25, 2018. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 13 Steven Ly, Mayor 507 BALDWIN AVENUE LLC 9540 VALLEY LLC ANH AU FAMILY TRUST 5390-010-081 8593-002-038 52837018-029 713 W DUARTE RD # G838 1 CORNSILK 2408 SAN GABRIEL BLVD ARCADIA CA 91007-7564 IRVINE CA 92614-7549 ROSEMEAD CA 91770-3648 BESCH, CRYSTAL KAY 5287-038-029 13536 FONSECA AVE LA MIRADA CA 90638-3040 BIG ISLAND PROPERTY LLC 5286-020-001, -002, -003, -004, -017, -018 120 E VALLEY BLVD SAN GABRIEL CA 91776-3500 CORP OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF DANG, JENNY SIEU PUI CHURCH OF, JESUS CHRI 5286-036-024 5389-009-029, -030, -031 13900 RAMONA PKWY 50 E NORTH TEMPLE # 22FLR BALDWIN PARK CA 91706-4164 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150-9001 BND HOLDINGS LLC GWG INVESTMENT LLC 5283-003-007 8593-001-001,-002,-003 2755 WI LLARD AVE 9906 LOWER AZUSA RD ROSEMEAD CA 91770-3210 EL MONTE CA 91731-1131 BRAND RONNA MEE TR ET AL BRAND, RONNA MEE 5282-029-002 5282-029-001, 2419 CREST VIEW DR 2419 CREST VIEW DR LOS ANGELES CA 90046-1406 LOS ANGELES CA 90046-1406 DE HAAN JACOBA CO TR FEMALE LOBSTER LLC 8595-005-003 5389-017-021 9011 GARRETT ST 2402 BARTLETT AVE ROSEMEAD CA 91770-2815 ROSEMEAD CA 91770-3308 HARTFORD HOTEL INVESTMENT KAMIMURA, YUTAKA INC 5283-037-030 5390-018-018 2100 SAN GABRIEL BLVD 729 CARRIAGE HOUSE DR ROSEMEAD CA 91770-3642 ARCADIA CA 91006-2012 KHAW, HENRY LAW, DAVID 5391-013-013 5282-003-021 8233 KEIM ST 540 WORKMAN AVE ROSEMEAD CA 91770-3610 ARCADIA CA 91007-8455 CHEN, JONG YU 5287-017-002 445 HARVARD DR ARCADIA CA 91007-2639 CB AND A INVESTMENTS LLC 5287-035-012, -016, -017, -020, -021 227 W VALLEY BLVD STE 308 SAN GABRIEL CA 91776-3776 BOTTLEMATE INC 8577-009-025,-052 2095 LEO AVE COMMERCE CA 90040-1626 GLENN ROLLER CO INC 5282-011-015 2617 RIVER AVE ROSEMEAD CA 91770-3301 KHAW KHAW AND ALICE TRS 5391-013-014 8233 KEIM ST ROSEMEAD CA 91770-3610 LEONG, DOLLY C 5285-025-021 PO.BOX 6939 ROSEMEAD CA 91770-6939 MEILOON VALLEY LLC 8577-009-039 713 W DUARTE RD # PNM300 ARCADIA CA 91007-7564 LOPEZ JESUS G DECD EST OF MARSHALL VALLEY LLC SAUNDERS, DOUGLAS R 5283-009-027 8594-022-039 5390-009-040,-041,-042,-044 16301 MEADOWHOUSE AVE UNIT 437 3505 HART AVE STE 214 11821 LOUIS AVE CHINO CA 91708-9254 ROSEMEAD CA 91770-2061 WHITTIER CA 90605-3928 METODO INVESTMENTS LLC RAMIREZ, FERNANDO R 5287-036-004, -006, 5287-037-022, -023, SU, JOSEPH 8593-029-010 -024,-051,-054,-055,5287-038-030, 5372-020-046 3509 STRANG AVE -033 8525 VALLEY BLVD ROSEMEAD CA 91770-2156 17700 CASTLETON ST STE 200 ROSEMEAD CA 91770-1639 CITY OF INDUSTRY CA 91748-5700 qoj T AH3AV-0E)-00s-L w,.dn-dod paogaa a1 jolgAgi Ju sues f ®0945 ®A�l3Ae' lAaege6 al zasaian a sues ww AfiaAe' o ap ulp aing3eq ep q zogpd��t p 5 8 aapad q. saBpog sa anbap SAUNDERS, WINIFRED N SALIM, TOUPAN TOMMY WICK, DONALD R 5390-009-046 8592-007-052 5283-003-005 11821 LOUIS AVE 715 S CENTRAL AVE 225 RUBY AVE WHITTIER CA 90605-3928 LOS ANGELES CA 90021-1507 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92662-1127 TSAI, RONALD LIS SING STONER, MERLE C ZHANG, YUAN 5390-009-045 5389-006-036 5286-022-009 2416 DELTA AVE 5135 KAUFFMAN AVE 810 E CAMINO REAL AVE ROSEMEAD CA 91770-3604 TEMPLE CITY CA 91780-3946 ARCADIA CA 91006-4427 XIAO, GUILIN VILLARINI, ROSE ZHONG, CARMEN HAMIN 5372-014-027 5286-014-007 5390-017-042 4500 DELTA AVE 3332 PROSPECT AVE 3627 DURFEE AVE ROSEMEAD CA 91770-1106 ROSEMEAD CA 91770-2237 EL MONTE CA 91732-2913 ZHANG, YUAN YAN,YAN WANG, DANA 5286-022-010 5285-011-044 5289-010-022 810 E CAMINO REAL AVE 7868 GRAVES AVE 2955 LORAIN RD ARCADIA CA 91006-4427 ROSEMEAD CA 91770-3519 SAN MARINO CA 91108-2734 T Wle6P3 dn-dod asodua jaded paaA q a ®9Ls aiepdway a AAeAv asn YAM, JENNY YAN YAM, MAY 5287-020-033,036,038 5287-020-034 421 N PINE ST 421 N PINE ST SAN GABRIEL CA 91775-2332 SAN GABRIEL CA 91775-2332 List and Pictures of properties that have already compliel To date, the following properties have installed or are in the processing of installing the white rail fencing and landscaping. 1. a church. 2. 9735 Valley Blvd. — Vacant lot owned by Meiloon Valley LLC. 3. 9743 Valley Blvd. — Adjacent vacant lot owned by Bottlemate Inc. Where the homeless encampment was before. AFTER 4. 3035 San Gabriel Blvd. — Vacant lot north of San Gabriel & Garvey. Owned by Sunny Chen. 5. 8077 Garvey Blvd. — Vacant lot west of San Gabriel & Garvey. Next to the mobile home park and owned by Sunny Chen. 6. 8002 Garvey Blvd. — Vacant parking lot at Garvey & Falling Leaf where there is a transient problem on the street but not within the lot. The owners have submitted plans for a mixed use project. The white rail fencing is installed and the existing fence was allowed to remain because plans are submitted and the block wall portion is only about 2 foot high with wrought iron fencing on top. Interior of the site is visible through the wrought iron fencing. 7. 7539 Garvey Ave. — Vacant lot at the corner of Garvey Ave. & Prospect Ave. I Dear Colleagues, I am respectfully requesting that we re -visit the Vacant Lot Ordinance. It has come to my attention that the strict interpretation of the ordinance could result in public safety issues for the very large 15 acre property known as the "Auto Auction." They are currently being mandated to not only remove the 6 foot masonry with the bougainvillea (which I and my husband find very attractive) but to comply with the 10 foot buffer zone they would have to remove some of the asphalt now behind the wall. My concern is the safety issue of attracting homeless with accompanying drug issues, as well as being an attraction for children playing skateboarding etc on the asphalt which apparently was an issue with a similar site on -,our eastern border. take full responsibility for enthusiastically supporting the ordinance because, since I live one-half block out of Monterey Park, I see several actual vacant grassy covered lots that look so much better with the vinyl fencing. However, I assumed from the following excerpts from the minutes and the ordinance that there was flexibility built into the ordinance to accommodate various situations. Never in a million years would I have voted for an ordinance that required removal of all types of fencing/masonry walls. As you will see from the various excerpts there were concerns raised by both Council Members and Planning Commissioners and I thought they were addressed to allow for that flexibility. I have presented excerpts of the minutes as well as the ordinances. 1. Exhibit A. At the City Council Meeting of 9/11/2018, Mayor Ly raised concerns about the potential need for a security fence of maximum six feet for health and safety reasons. He inquired,"why the change to this verbiage was not initially included: As deemed necessary by staff, for health and safety or general welfare reasons, a security fence of a maximum of six feet per approval by the Community Development Department may be required around vacant properties." Director of Community Development Kim asserted that the previous verbiage was similar language that staff incorporated to refine and make more specific; stated before the verbiage read `if it was deemed a nuisance by the Police Chief or Public Safety', with this change, it states it does not have to be deemed by those specific entities, but rather by the City." I took this to mean that that meant there are exceptions to the 4 foot vinyl fence allowed. In the next paragraph in response to Council Member Low, Director Kim "stated applicants can request additional fencing up to six feet for security purposes, in addition to the white rail fencing." Since these issues were raised by Council members I assumed that that was what we were voting on. 2. Exhibit B a. the example pictures presented to the council show on the left the railing around an actual absolutely vacant grassy parcel such as I see weekly in Monterey Park. The picture on the right appears mostly vacant but has a six foot chain link fence behind it. Since we don't allow chain link any more but we do even require six-foot high masonry wall in certain circumstances, see sec. 17.68.1 10 "Requirement for construction of a six-foot high masonry wall" where commercial zones zones abut residential zones and the construction of a block wall necessary to protect such residential areas" Exhibit B b. For this reason I am requesting that we allow the six foot wall to remain at the 8001 Garvey property, and if so desired the vinyl fence installed in front of it. 3. a.Exhibit C Planning Commission Minutes 8/20/2018 Commissioner Dang brought up several points. Director Kim "stated the first comment was in regards to the type of fencing. He explained that the height might not be tall enough on larger lots from people entering the properties for security purposes. (This shows that there is acknowledgment that larger lots may have more security issues and need tall barriers.) 3. b. Exhibit C Planning Commission minutes 8/20/2018 Commissioner Dang when referring to a property mentioned that has a gas station that has asphalt, Community Development Director Ben Kim stated "so we will not be requiring the landscape buffer, it will only require the fencing on the property line. He added that putting in the buffer is a hardship.. Since the property at 8001 Garvey has asphalt I would hope we would take similar consideration. 3.c. Exhibit C Planning Commission minutes 8/20/2018 Commissioner Dang "stated that if you put a two -foot fence and if there are people doing all this illegal dumping at night what would the remedy be. He added Community Development Director Kim clarified that they will have the option of putting the six-foot fence back." Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated that is correct" Commissioner Lopez raised the same issue. 3.d. Exhibit C Planning Commission minutes 8/20/2018 p.9 Vice -Chair Eng stated Brian Lewin's concern about the fences was not so much about the height, but it was about the type of fences. She added his issue is how do we address the openness of the fence for security features and to keep the people from accessing the property." 4. a. Exhibit D Code of Ordinances: 8.48.010 - Purpose. "The purpose of this section is to regulate vacant lots in the City in order to protect residential and commercial areas from becoming blighted due to the lack of adequate maintenance and security, and to establish minimum standards of accountability on the responsible parties of vacant lot in order to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the community." Because the purpose includes protection of the health, welfare, and safety of the community" I felt comfortable in voting for the ordinance. 4.b. Exhibit D Code of Ordinances while this refers to `Improved vacant lots" the principle is still there: b. "The vacant lot must be adequately secured at all times to prevent illegal dumping, criminal activity, vandalism, graffiti, on-site looting, and any and all other attractive nuisances to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director." For the above reasons I respectfully request that the council allow the masonry wall to remain and if need be, the vinyl fence installed in front of it. The masonry block wall has been effective in preventing vagrancy and safety issues, as I just confirmed that there have been no police reports on the property in the last 4 years. Sincerely, Margaret Clark, Mayor, City of Rosemead White Rail Fence and Ten -foot Landscape Buffer Exhibit C item 3,r? Cummissioner_Deng referred -to the picture of-the_whits'picket fence in the power point presentation and asked if a current- property owner of a vacant -rot has a chain link fence and it is secured, this Ordinance would.remove the chain " link fence and it would be replaced with the white picketfence. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes. Community Development Director 1,0m slated there is a little discretion also; if -it becomes a security problem, then t` can require additional height on the property. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela explained that if thereis a security issue and the propeq l owner needs to extend ft fence to six feet, the Community Development -Director will have the ability to approve it Community Development Director lGm explainedthat the reasonfor that is ff the property becomes a continued " a dumping issue, and where itis only necessary1hat additional height or addfiona[ measures are necessary, then it be implemented. Commissioner Dang stated that if you put a two -foot fence and if there are peopie-doing all this illegal dumping at what would the remedy be. He-atlded Community Developmenf:Director 1Gm clarfiied thatthy will have the option of putting the six footfence back. Planning & Economic Deveiopment Manager.Valenzuela stated -that is.correct: ' Commissioner Lopez referred to the to eightfootwrde4ence and asked` if there will be othertypes allowed because the openness of the -fence -shown would not stop to ii. He asked'if fighter fences would be allowed other than jus the white pipket fence / Planning. & ;Economic Development. Managei Valenzuela replied there is no specific detail.- Staff is just requiring a white rail 'type -.fence. She said staff contacted the Cityof Monterey Park arid they.explained that this type of fence t works for -them: and staff hopes this will work for the City of Rosemead aswell. txhibit C item 3d Vice -Chair Eng stated Brian-Lewin's concern about the fences was not -so much aboutthe height, but it was about the We of fences. She added his issue is how do we address the openness of the fence for security features and.to keep the neoolefrom accessing the property. -She added that is what Mr. Lewin w- allttdimAajaiemm-&hk-a-l�I' Exhibit D item 4a Code of Ordinances Code of Ordinances 8.48.01 Q Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate vacant lots in the City in order to protect residential and commercial areas from becoming blighted due to the lack of adequate maintenance and security, and to establish minimum standards of accountability on Y the responsible parties of vacant lot in order to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the community. (Ord. No. 982, § 4,9-25-18) Exhibit D item 4b Code of Ordinary -es b. The vacant lot must be adequately secured at all times to prevent illegal dumping, criminal activity, vandalism, graffiti, - on-site loitering, and any and all other attractive nuisances to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.