Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-09AGENDA ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION c Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 7:00 P.M. ,aY.iy .ae Arcadia City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MOTION: To read the Resolutions by title only and waive reading the full text of the Resolutions. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - 5 minute time limit per person. All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning any of the proposed items set forth below for consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the Planning Commission with respect to the proposed item for consideration, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections, which you or someone else raises at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. TEXT AMENDMENT NO. TA 09-03 Citywide Draft ordinances (standard and urgency) to amend certain sections of Article VI (Businesses, Professions, Trades and Occupations) and Article IX (Division and Use of Land) of the Arcadia Municipal Code to prohibit the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and other businesses and uses prohibited by local, state or federal law. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval to City Council 2. MODIFICATION APPLICATION NO. MP 09-02 432 N. Old Ranch Rd. - Frank and Suzanne Tomkins (Property Owner) A 12'-9" second-story side yard setback in lieu of 21'-0" required to allow a new 275 square foot, second-story addition to align with the existing second-story (AMC Section 9251.2.3) RECOMMENDATION: Approval There is a ten day appeal period from the date of the decision. Appeals are to be f led by August 7, 2009. CONSENT ITEMS 3. RESOLUTION NO. 1798 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09- 07, the related parking modification, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 09-02 for a new 1,273 square-foot office building at an existing church complex located at 1741 S. Baldwin Avenue and 721 W. Lemon Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Services office at City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626) 574-5423. PC AGENDA 7-28-09 PLANNING COMMISSION Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (626) 574-5423. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting. Public Hearing Procedure 1. The public hearing is opened by the Chairman of the Planning Commission. 2. The Planning staff report is presented by staff. 3. Commissioners' questions relating to the Planning staff report may be asked and answered at this time. 4. The applicant is afforded the opportunity to address the Commission. 5. Others in favor of the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission. (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES) 6. Those in opposition to the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission. (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES) 7. The applicant may be afforded the opportunity for a brief rebuttal. (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES) 8. The Commission closes the public hearing. 9. The Commission members may discuss the proposal at this time. 10. The Commission then makes a motion and acts on the proposal to either approve, approve with conditions or modifications, deny, or continue it to a specific date. 11. Following the Commission's action on Conditional Use Permits and Variances, a resolution reflecting the decision of the Planning Commission is prepared for adoption by the Commission. This is usually presented at the next Planning Commission meeting. There is a five (5) working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. 12: Following the Commission's action on Modifications and Design Reviews, there is a flve (5) working day appeal period. 13. Following the Commission's review of Zone Changes, Text Amendments and General Plan Amendments, the Commission's comments and recommendations are forwarded to the City Council for the Council's consideration at a scheduled public hearing. 14. Following the Commission's action on Tentative Tract Maps and Tentative Parcel Maps (subdivisions) there is a ten (10) calendar day appeal period. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Services office at City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626) 574-5423. PC AGENDA 7-28-09 4. RESOLUTION NO. 1799 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09- 13 and the related parking modification for a 1,244 square-foot restaurant with seating for 48 patrons at 1228 S. Golden West Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt 5. MINUTES OF JULY 14, 2009 RECOMMENDATION: Approve MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION MODIFICATION COMMITTEE AGENDA MATTERS FROM STAFF & UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Services office at City Hall, 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626) 574-5423. PC AGENDA 7-28-09 I-- 1-e Mswc 1. !ff! STAFF REPORT Police Department DATE: July 28, 2009 TO: Arcadia Planning Commission ~pQ FROM: Robert P. Sanderson, Chief of Police T'd By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrato SUBJECT: Consideration and Recommendation to City Council of Text Amendment No. TA 09-03 for a standard ordinance and an urgency ordinance to amend certain sections of Article VI (Businesses, Professions, Trades and Occupations) and Article IX (Division and Use of Land) of the Arcadia Municipal Code to prohibit the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and other businesses and uses prohibited by local, state or federal law. SUMMARY In 1996, the passage of Proposition 215 permitted the possession and cultivation of marijuana for certain medical purposes in California; in 1993, Senate Bill 420 created a State approved voluntary medical marijuana identification card program and established the quantity of marijuana a qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess. However, neither Proposition 215 nor Senate Bill 420 authorize medical marijuana dispensaries and do not require local governments to authorize medical marijuana dispensaries. Additionally, Federal law prohibits the possession and cultivation of marijuana, and the United States Supreme Court has ruled that California's system of limited decriminalization for medical marijuana is susceptible to abuse and has concluded that there is no exemption for medical necessity from the Federal prohibition on the sale and distribution of marijuana, As marijuana dispensaries have proliferated throughout Los Angeles County and other parts of California, and it can be reasonably concluded that such storefront operations are not authorized by law, the proposed text amendment is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Arcadia, as well as to ensure compliance with Federal and State law. The Police Department recommends approval of the text amendment for the attached draft ordinance and urgency ordinance to prohibit the establishment and operations of medical marijuana dispensaries in the City. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION A public hearing notice of Text Amendment No. TA 09-03 was published in the Arcadia Weekly on July 16, 2009. BACKGROUND On September 16, 2008, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 2248 establishing a moratorium on the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. At the October 21, 2008 City Council meeting, the Council extended the moratorium for an additional 10 months and 15 days so that this issue could be studied, especially in light of the City embarking upon a comprehensive update of its General Plan. The moratorium will expire in early September. Federal law prohibits the use, distribution, and possession of marijuana, and the United States Supreme Court recently held in Gonzales v. Raich that -the Federal Controlled Substances Act prohibits local cultivation and use of marijuana under all circumstances. California voter approval of Proposition 215, entitled the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, enabled persons in need of medical marijuana for medicinal purposes to obtain and use it under limited, specified circumstances, which conflicts with Federal law. Additionally, Senate Bill 420, enacted by the California Legislature in 2003, created a voluntary medical marijuana licensing program and established limits on the amount of marijuana that a patient or primary caregiver may possess. The State of California hosted a summit on the issue of medical marijuana dispensaries during the week of April 21, 2009. At this summit, recent information was provided regarding the status of storefront medical marijuana dispensary operations. The consensus of the California State Attorney General, United States Attorney General, United States Supreme Court, and established Federal law is that medical marijuana dispensaries are not true collectives as identified by law and are unprotected and illegal drug-trafficking enterprises. As such, local governments have the option of banning the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries within their jurisdictions. Therefore, staff requested the City Attorney's Office to draft regulations to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Arcadia. In order to have these regulations in place prior to the expiration of the moratorium, an urgency ordinance is necessary. The City Attorney's Office has provided drafts of both a new standard ordinance and an urgency ordinance setting forth amendments to certain sections of Article VI (Businesses, Professions, Trades and Occupations) and Article IX (Division and Use Land) of the Arcadia Municipal Code to prohibit the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and other businesses and uses prohibited by local, state, or federal law. The two ordinances are identical, except for the urgency provisions. The urgency ordinance would become effective immediately upon adoption by the City Council, and the standard ordinance would become effective 31 days after adoption. TA 09-03 July 28, 2009 Page 2of3 PROPOSAL The Police Department is proposing a text amendment to amend various Business Licensing Regulations and Zoning Codes to prohibit the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and related uses. The attached draft ordinances were prepared by the City Attorney's Office and they are compatible with current federal and state laws. The draft amendments provide definitions, standards, denial of license, grounds for revoking any permit, omission or ambiguity resolution process, authority for City Council action, and exclusion of medical marijuana dispensaries from definitions of drugstores and pharmacies. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Development Services Department determined that there is no possibility that the adoption of the ordinances will have a significant effect on the environment. Staff bases its determination on the fact that the amendments to the Arcadia Municipal Code will impose greater limitations on development in the City, and will thereby serve to reduce potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, the ordinances are exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA guidelines. A Preliminary Exemption Assessment and draft Notice of Exemption are attached. RECOMMENDATION The Police Department is recommending approval of Text Amendment No. TA 09-03 and acceptance of the CEQA exemption determination. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should direct staff to convey to the City Council the Commission's recommendations and comments on Text Amendment No. TA 09-03 and the CEQA exemption determination. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the July 28 public hearing, please contact Chief Bob Sanderson at (626) 574-5185 or rsandersonO-ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Bob Sanderson, Chief of Police Attachments: Draft Ordinances Preliminary Exemption Assessment Draft Notice of Exemption TA 09-03 July 28, 2009 Page 3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. U D p ~ V AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF ARTICLE VI (BUSINESSES, PROFESSIONS, TRADES AND OCCUPATIONS) AND ARTICLE IX (DIVISION AND USE OF LAND) OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AND OTHER BUSINESSES AND USES PROHIBITED BY LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. WHEREAS, on November 5, 1996 the voters of the state of California Approved Proposition 215, which enacted the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, codified at California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5. The Compassionate Use Act permits possession and cultivation of marijuana for certain medical purposes under limited and specified circumstances; and WHEREAS, in 2003 the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 420 ("SB 420"), which added Article 2.5 ("Medical Marijuana Program") to Division 10, Chapter 3, of the California Health and Safety Code, to clarify the scope of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. SB 420 created a state approved voluntary medical marijuana identification card program, established the quantity of marijuana that a qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess, and provided for additional immunities from state criminal marijuana laws. SB 420 also allows cities and other governing bodies to adopt and enforce rules and regulations consistent with SB 420; and WHEREAS, the Medical Marijuana Program does not authorize medical marijuana dispensaries and does not require local governments to authorize medical marijuana dispensaries; and WHEREAS, nothing in either the Compassionate Use Act or the Medical Marijuana Program contains an affirmative mandate that cities allow or permit medical marijuana dispensaries within their city limits; and WHEREAS, the Federal Controlled Substances Act (21 USC §§801, et seq.) classifies marijuana as a "Schedule I Drug," which is defined as a drug or other substance that has a high potential for abuse, that has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and that has not been accepted as safe for its use under medical supervision; and WHEREAS, Section 841 the Controlled Substances Act (21 USC §841) makes it unlawful for any person to cultivate, manufacture, distribute or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense marijuana. The Controlled Substances Act ORANGEMPRIESW8487.1 © M a ~ I D N R V contains no statutory exemption for the possession of marijuana for medical purposes; and WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), confumed the validity of the Federal prohibition of marijuana cultivation, sale and distribution and the application of Federal Law in California, notwithstanding the possible medicinal uses of marijuana and the limited authorization for sale and distribution of marijuana created by California state law, noting that California's system of limited decriminalization for medical marijuana is susceptible to abuse, and confirmed that California's medical marijuana laws are superseded by Federal Law to the extent that they conflict with Federal Law; and WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001), concluded that there is no exemption for medical necessity from the Federal Law prohibition on the .sale and distribution of marijuana; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2008, the City Council of the City of Arcadia enacted Ordinance No. 2248, a forty-five day interim moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Arcadia; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65090 and 65858, on October 21, 2008, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider extending the interim moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries, received and considered oral and documentary evidence on this issue, and adopted Ordinance No. 2249, extending the Moratorium for an additional 10 months and 15 days; and WHEREAS, the interim moratorium is set to expire on September 16, 2009; and WHEREAS, following the adoption of the interim moratorium established by Ordinance No. 2248, as extended by Ordinance No. 2249, the City Council, the City Attorney's Office, and City Staff, with input from the City Police Department and other law enforcement professionals, have studied the public health and safety issues relating to, and adverse secondary effects associated with, the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and the zoning, regulation or control of medical marijuana dispensaries; and WHEREAS, during the interim moratorium, City Planning staff, working in conjunction with the City Attorney's office, also reviewed the ordinances and reported the regulatory experiences of several California cities with a long and documented history of public health and safety problems and adverse secondary effects associated with the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries; and WHEREAS, other cities with medical marijuana dispensaries have reported an increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic and noise, increased loitering around dispensary locations, increased incidents of burglary, and increased complaints from neighbors regarding operation of the dispensaries; and ORANGEMPRIEST158487.1 M M a ~ ~ 2 M M I ffV WHEREAS, other California cities that have permitted the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries have also experienced an increase in crime, such as burglary, robbery and sale of illegal drugs in the areas immediately surrounding such dispensaries; and WHEREAS, the California Police Chiefs Association has compiled an extensive report detailing a number of the negative secondary effects associated with medical marijuana dispensaries; and WHEREAS, medical marijuana dispensaries negatively impact the health, safety and welfare of the community because of the potential for increases in illegal drug use and sales, robbery of dispensaries and dispensary operators, employees and clients; loitering, falsely obtained identification cards, and other increases in criminal activity related to the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries; and WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5(b)(2) expressly provides that nothing in the Compassionate Use Act shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for non-medical purposes; and WHEREAS, persons residing in City of Arcadia who are entitled to possess and use medical marijuana under the Compassionate Use Act have adequate access to dispensaries within other areas of Los Angeles County which provide medical marijuana to qualified patients; and WHEREAS, after studying various alternatives for the regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries, considering testimony from members of the public, and reviewing the legal status of medical marijuana dispensaries under applicable law, the City Council finds that adoption of a ban on the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to allow various and diverse uses of land, operations and businesses within the City of Arcadia; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that certain uses of land, operations and businesses may be prohibited under state law or Federal law; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to ensure that all uses, operations and businesses within the City are permitted under both state and federal law, in order to protect the health and welfare of residents of and visitors to Arcadia; WHEREAS, existing City ordinances and regulations, other than the interim moratorium established by Ordinance No. 2248 and extended by Ordinance No. 2249, do not expressly address the zoning regulation or control of medical marijuana dispensaries; and ORANGEMPRIEST158487.1 © ~ J ~ 7 3 WHEREAS, there are currently no existing medical marijuana dispensaries in the City, and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2009, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65854 and 65855, the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia conducted a duly noticed public hearing and recommended that the City Council amend the Arcadia Municipal Code by amending various sections of Articles VI and IX to prohibit in all zones medical marijuana dispensaries and other uses that are illegal under either state or federal law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission based its recommendation to adopt the amendment on the findings set forth above and a finding that adoption of the amendment is exempt from compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on , 2009, pursuant to Government Code Section 65866, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at which all persons wishing to testify in connection with the amendment were heard and the amendment was comprehensively reviewed; and NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: (NOTE: additions are highlighted in bold italics and deletions are highlighted in st-Fikeout) SECTION 1. FINDINGS. The findings set forth in the recitals above are hereby adopted by the City Council and are incorporated by reference into this Ordinance. SECTION 2. Section 6153 of Article VI of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Business Permit & License Review Board) is hereby amended to read as follows: "6153. STANDARDS. The Board may refuse to approve the issuance of a permit whenever in its reasonable judgment such issuance will be materially detrimental to the public health, morals, safety or general welfare. A permit may be refused if it is determined that the applicant or applicants, agents have, in the conduct of the same or any similar business, activity, or enterprise, been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation or conduct detrimental to the public welfare which includes operations or activities that do not comport with the peace, health, safety and convenience of the public such as (a) operation of a business prohibited by local, federal or state law (b) allowance of activities that are or become a public nuisance which includes the disruptive conduct of business patrons whether on or immediately off the premises where such patrons disturb the peace, obstruct traffic, damage property, engage in criminal conduct, violate the law and otherwise impair the free enjoyment of life and property." OMNGEMPRIEST\58487.1 © M I ~ 7 4 N M I ~ V SECTION 3. Section 6212.1 of Article VI of the Arcadia Municipal Code (License Issuance) is hereby amended to read as follows: "6212.1. SAME. VIOLATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED. Neither the payment of a license fee required by the provisions of this Chapter, nor its acceptance by the City and the issuance of the license to any person, shall entitle the holder thereof to continue or carry on any business in or on any building or premises designated in such license in the event that such building or premises are situated in a zone or locality in which the conduct of such business is in violation of any law (whether federal, state or local) or provision of this Code, nor shall the same authorize the conduct or continuance of any business which for any reason is in violation of any law (whether federal, state or local) or provision of this Code, nor affect or render valid any violation of any zoning regulation of the City, nor authorize the erection of an advertising sign in a residential zone." SECTION 4. Section 6216.6 of Article VI of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Licenses - General Provisions) is hereby amended to read as follows: "6216.6. DENIAL OF LICENSE. Subject to appeal pursuant to Section 6216.8, the License Officer may refuse to issue a license under this Article if it is determined that the applicant or applicant's agents have, in the conduct of the same or any similar business, been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation or conduct detrimental to the public welfare which includes operations or activities that do not comport with the peace, health, safety and convenience of the public such as (a) operation of a business prohibited by local, federal or state law (b) allowance of activities that are or become a public nuisance which includes the disruptive conduct of business patrons whether on or immediately off the premises where such patrons disturb the peace, obstruct traffic, damage property, engage in criminal conduct, violate the law and otherwise impair the free enjoyment of life and property." SECTION 5. Section 6312.2 of Article VI of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Issuance & Denial - New Permits) is hereby amended to read as follows: "6312.2. COUNCIL ACTION. The Council may, after investigation of said application and of said proposed business, grant or refuse to grant a permit therefor. The Council shall have the right to and shall refuse any such permit if it shall find and determine that the granting of the same or the conducting of the business for which a permit is requested will be injurious, detrimental or harmful to the public peace, health, safety, morals or welfare of the City or the inhabitants thereof, or if the application is found to contain false or misleading statements on behalf of or by the applicant. The Council may refuse to issue a permit under this Article if it is determined that the applicant or applicants agents have, in the conduct of the same or any similar business been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation of ORANGE\WPRIEST\58487.1 D W I M M p~ conduct detrimental to the public welfare which includes operations of activities that do not comport with the peace, health, safety and convenience of the public such as (1) operation of a business prohibited by local, federal or state law (b) allowance of activities that are or become a public nuisance which includes the disruptive conduct of business patrons whether on or immediately off the premises where such patrons disturb the peace, obstruct traffic, damage property, engage in criminal conduct, violate the law and otherwise impair the free enjoyment of life and property. The action of the Council in granting or refusing a permit shall be final." SECTION 6. Section 6314 of Article VI of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Permits - Suspension & Revocation) is hereby amended to read as follows: "6314. GROUNDS. The Council may revoke any permit issued by it under the provisions of this Chapter upon any ground upon which such permit could or should have been denied in the first instance, or whenever the Council is satisfied that the conduct of any such business does or will in any manner endanger, threaten or jeopardize the public health, safety, morals, peace or welfare or that the same has been conducted in an illegal, improper or disorderly manner or that such permit was obtained upon false or misleading statements or representations of or on behalf of the applicant. The Council may revoke if it is determined that the applicant or applicants agents have, in the conduct of the same or any similar business, been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation or conduct detrimental to the public welfare which includes operations or activities that do not comport with the peace, health, safety and convenience of the public such as (a) operation of a business prohibited by local, federal or state law (b) allowance of activities that are or become a public nuisance which includes the disruptive conduct. of business patrons whether on or immediately off the premises where such patrons disturb the peace, obstruct traffic, damage property, engage in criminal conduct, violate the law and otherwise impair the free enjoyment of life and property." SECTION 7. Section 9213 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Zoning - Omission or Ambiguity) is hereby amended to read as follows: "9213. OMISSION OR AMBIGUITY. If any "use" is for any reason omitted from the lists of those specified as permissible in each of the various zones herein designated, or if ambiguity arises concerning the appropriate classification of a particular use within the meaning and intent of this Chapter, or if ambiguity exists with reference to matters of height, yard requirements or area requirements as set forth herein and as they may pertain to unforeseen circumstances, it shall be the duty of the Planning Commission to ascertain all pertinent facts concerning said use and by resolution of record set forth its findings and the reasons therefor. Such findings and resolutions shall be referred to the Council and, if approved by the Council, thereafter such interpretation shall govern. ORANGEMPRIESW8487.1 v I Il l I ~ 7 6 M L1 I 1 V Notwithstanding the above, Medical Marijuana Dispensaries that are unlawful under Federal or state law shall not be treated as permitted or conditionally permitted uses in any zone of the City of Arcadia, and shall not be determined to, be an "omitted" or "ambiguous" use pursuant to this Section." SECTION 8. Section 9220.45.1.2 is hereby added to Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Zoning - Definitions) and shall read as follows: "9220.45.1. MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY. Any facility or location where medical marijuana is made available and/or distributed by or to one or more of the following: a primary caregiver, a qualified patient or a person with an identification card in strict accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq. A "medical marijuana dispensary" shall not include the following uses, as long as the locations of such uses are otherwise regulated by this Code or applicable law: a clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter I of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential hospice or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, as long as such use complies strictly with applicable law including, but not limited to, Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq. " SECTION 9. Paragraph (13) of Section 9260.1.3 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Zoning - Uses permitted in CPD-1 zone) is hereby amended to read as follows: "9260.1.3. PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. Professional offices for the following uses: (13) Pharmacies (not including Medical Marijuana Dispensaries) ORANGEMPMESW8487.1 M M (1 ` f U 7 Dl~~lff~' SECTION 10. Paragraph (17) of Section 9261.1.2 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Zoning - Uses permitted in C-O zone) is hereby amended to read as follows: "9261.1.2. PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. Professional offices for the following uses: (17) Pharmacies for only the filling of prescriptions and the sale of sickroom supplies. (not including Medical Marijuana Dispensaries)." SECTION 11. Section 9262.1.13 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Zoning - Uses permitted in C-1 zone) is hereby amended to read as follows: "9262.1.13. SAME. Drugstores (not including Medical Marijuana Dispensaries)." SECTION 12. Paragraph (13) of Section 9264.2.6 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Zoning - Uses permitted in CBD zone) is hereby amended to read as follows: "9264.2.6. RETAIL USES. (13) Drugstores (not including Medical Marijuana Dispensaries) SECTION 13. Section 9285.6.2.8 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Zoning - Permitted Home Occupations) is hereby amended to read as follows: "9285.6.2.8. SAME. SAME. POTTED PLANTS. R-O, R-M, R-1, R-2, R-3. However, this shall not permit Medical Marijuana Dispensaries as a Home Occupation." 8 0RANGE\WPRIEST\58487.1 M M I M M & U4 SECTION 14. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect thirty- one (31) days after its adoption. SECTION 15. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (Chapter 3 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations), the City staff determined that there is no possibility that the adoption of this ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. The City staff bases its determination on the fact that this amendment to the City's Code will impose greater limitations on development in the City, and will thereby serve to reduce potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. It is therefore exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review pursuant to Title 14, Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations. B. The City Council has reviewed City staff's determination and,, based on the whole record before it, finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that this determination of exemption reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. City staff is hereby directed to file with the County Clerk a notice of exemption within five (5) working days of the adoption of this Ordinance. SECTION 16. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 17. CERTIFICATION. The City Clerk shall certify the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be entered in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a minute passage and adoption thereof in the records of the meeting at which time the same is passed and adopted; and shall, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption thereof, cause the same to be published as required by law, in a local newspaper of general circulation and which is hereby designated for that purpose. ORANGE\WPRIEST\58487.1 DP MI~V 9 ORDINANCE PASSED AND APPROVED on this day of , 200 C A -n- ayo ATTEST: 1 & [T U City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: F ~ I n nD d -C Ci y A n ORANGE\WPRIEST\58487.1, J , 10 Du lS LLLfffULL LLJJ I, , City Clerk, City of Arcadia, California, certify that the foregoing Ordinance was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the , of , 200_, and was adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: M G~1A f~V - City Clerk ORANGE\WPRIEST158487.1 I J~ nA V 11 D ORDINANCE NO. 0 AN kT l+1~Y- ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL 'OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CERTAIN SECTIONS OF ARTICLE VI (BUSINESSES, PROFESSIONS, TRADES AND OCCUPATIONS) AND ARTICLE IX (DIVISION AND USE OF LAND) OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AND OTHER BUSINESSES AND USES PROHIBITED BY LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. WHEREAS, on November 5, 1996 the voters of the state of California approved Proposition 215, which enacted the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, codified at California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5. The Compassionate Use Act permits possession and cultivation of marijuana for certain medical purposes under limited and specified circumstances; and WHEREAS, in 2003 the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 420 ("SB 420"), which added Article 2.5 ("Medical Marijuana Program") to Division 10, Chapter 3, of the California Health and Safety Code, to clarify the scope of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. SB 420 created a state approved voluntary medical marijuana identification card program, established the quantity of marijuana that a qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess, and provided for additional immunities from state criminal marijuana laws. SB 420 also allows cities and other governing bodies to adopt and enforce rules and regulations consistent with SB 420; and WHEREAS, the Medical Marijuana Program does not authorize medical marijuana dispensaries and does not require local governments to authorize medical marijuana dispensaries; and WHEREAS, nothing in either the Compassionate Use Act or the Medical Marijuana Program contains an affirmative mandate that cities allow or permit medical marijuana dispensaries within their city limits; and WHEREAS, the Federal Controlled Substances Act (21 USC §§801, et seq.) classifies marijuana as a "Schedule I Drug," which is defined as a drug or other substance that has a high potential for abuse, that has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and that has not been accepted as safe for its use under medical supervision; and WHEREAS, Section 841 the Controlled Substances Act (21 USC §841) makes it unlawful for any person to cultivate, manufacture, distribute or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense marijuana. The Controlled Substances Act ORANGEMPRIES7\58502.1 D U U I ~ V M M I ~ V contains no statutory exemption for the possession of marijuana for medical purposes; and WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), confirmed the validity of the Federal prohibition of marijuana cultivation, sale and distribution and the application of Federal Law in California, notwithstanding the possible medicinal uses of marijuana and the limited authorization for sale and distribution of marijuana created by California state law, noting that California's system of limited decriminalization for medical marijuana is susceptible to abuse, and confirmed that California's medical marijuana laws are superseded by Federal Law to the extent that they conflict with Federal Law; and WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001), concluded that there is no exemption for medical necessity from the Federal Law prohibition on the sale and distribution of marijuana; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2008, the City Council of the City of Arcadia enacted Ordinance No. 2248, a forty-five day interim moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of Arcadia; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65090 and 65858, on October 21, 2008, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider extending the interim moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries, received and considered oral and documentary evidence on this issue, and adopted Ordinance No. 2249, extending the Moratorium for an additional 10 months and 15 days; and WHEREAS, the interim moratorium is set to expire on September 16, 2009; and WHEREAS; following the adoption of the interim moratorium established by Ordinance No. 2248, as extended by Ordinance No. 2249, the City Council, the City Attorney's Office, and City Staff, with input from the City Police Department and other law enforcement professionals, have studied the public health and safety issues relating to, and adverse secondary effects associated with, the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and the zoning, regulation or control of medical marijuana dispensaries; and WHEREAS, during the interim moratorium, City Planning staff, working in conjunction with the City Attorney's office, also reviewed the ordinances and reported the regulatory experiences of several California cities with a long and documented history of public health and safety problems and adverse secondary effects associated with the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries; and WHEREAS, other cities with medical marijuana dispensaries have reported an increase in pedestrian and vehicular traffic and noise, increased loitering around dispensary locations, increased incidents of burglary, and increased complaints from neighbors regarding operation of the dispensaries; and ORANGE\WPRIES7158502.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 M M Qf~V WHEREAS, other California cities that have permitted the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries have also experienced an increase in crime, such as burglary, robbery and sale of illegal drugs in the areas immediately surrounding such dispensaries; and WHEREAS, the California Police Chiefs Association has compiled an extensive report detailing a number of the negative secondary effects associated with medical marijuana dispensaries; and WHEREAS, medical marijuana dispensaries negatively impact the health, safety and welfare of the community because of the potential for increases in illegal drug use and sales, robbery of dispensaries and dispensary operators, employees and clients; loitering, falsely obtained identification cards, and other increases in criminal activity related to the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries; and WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5(b)(2) expressly provides that nothing in the Compassionate Use Act shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for non-medical purposes; and WHEREAS, persons residing in City of Arcadia who are entitled to possess and use medical marijuana under the Compassionate Use Act have adequate access to dispensaries within other areas of Los Angeles County which provide medical marijuana to qualified patients; and WHEREAS, after studying various alternatives for the regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries, considering testimony from members of the public, and reviewing the legal status of medical marijuana dispensaries under applicable law, the City Council finds that adoption of a ban on the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to allow various and diverse uses of land, operations and businesses within the City of Arcadia; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that certain uses of land, operations and businesses may be prohibited under state law or Federal law; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to ensure that all uses, operations and businesses within the City are permitted under both state and federal law, in order to protect the health and welfare of residents of and visitors to Arcadia; WHEREAS, existing City ordinances and regulations, other than the interim moratorium established by Ordinance No. 2248 and extended by Ordinance No. 2249, do not expressly address the zoning regulation or control of medical marijuana dispensaries; and ORANGEMPRIEST\58502.1 D D M a 3 M M pffV WHEREAS, there are currently no existing medical marijuana dispensaries in the City; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2009, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65854 and 65855, the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia conducted a duly noticed public hearing and recommended that the City Council amend the Arcadia Municipal Code by amending various sections of Articles VI and IX to prohibit in all zones medical marijuana dispensaries and other uses that are illegal under either state or federal law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission based its recommendation to adopt the amendment on the findings set forth above and a finding that adoption of the amendment is exempt from compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, on , 2009, pursuant to Government Code Section 65866, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at which all persons wishing to testify in connection with the amendment were heard and the amendment was comprehensively reviewed; and WHEREAS, the proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries within the City of Arcadia presents a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare in that such facilities are illegal under Federal law and result in the adverse secondary effects outlined above; and WHEREAS, due to the expiration of Ordinance No. 2249, there is an urgent need for the adoption of regulations prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries; and WHEREAS, consequently, the City Council finds that this urgency ordinance is required for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: (NOTE: additions are highlighted in bold italics and deletions are highlighted in stfikeeut) SECTION 1. FINDINGS. The findings set forth in the recitals above are hereby adopted by the City Council and are incorporated by reference into this Ordinance. SECTION 2. Section 6153 of Article VI of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Business Permit & License Review Board) is hereby amended to read as follows: "6153. STANDARDS. The Board may refuse to approve the issuance of a permit whenever in its reasonable judgment such issuance will be materially detrimental to the public health, ORANGEMPRIEM8502.1 I j" N ~ ~ V 4 DG3pff~ morals, safety or general welfare. A permit may be refused if it is determined that the applicant or applicants, agents have, in the conduct of the same or any similar business, activity, or enterprise, been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation or conduct detrimental to the public welfare which includes operations or activities that do not comport with the peace, health, safety and convenience of the public such as (a) operation of a business prohibited by local, federal or state law (b) allowance of activities that are or become a public nuisance which includes the disruptive conduct of business patrons whether on or immediately off the premises where such patrons disturb the peace, obstruct traffic, damage property, engage in criminal conduct, violate the law and otherwise impair the free enjoyment of life and property." SECTION 3. Section 6212.1 of Article VI of the Arcadia Municipal Code (License Issuance) is hereby amended to read as follows: "6212.1. SAME. VIOLATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED. Neither the payment of a license fee required by the provisions of this Chapter, nor its acceptance by the City and the issuance of the license to any person, shall entitle the holder thereof to continue or carry on any business in or on any building or premises designated in such license in the event that such building or premises are situated in a zone or locality in which the conduct of such business is in violation of any law (whether federal, state or local) or provision of this Code, nor shall the same authorize the conduct or continuance of any business which for any reason is in violation of any law (whether federal, state or local) or provision of this Code, nor affect or render valid any violation of any zoning regulation of the City, nor authorize the erection of an advertising sign in a residential zone." SECTION 4. Section 6216.6 of Article VI of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Licenses - General Provisions) is hereby amended to read as follows: "6216.6. DENIAL OF LICENSE. Subject to appeal pursuant to Section 6216.8, the License Officer may refuse to issue a license under this Article if it is determined that the applicant or applicant's agents have, in the conduct of the same or any similar business, been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation or conduct detrimental to the public welfare which includes operations or activities that do not comport with the peace, health, safety and convenience of the public such as (a) operation of a business prohibited by local, federal or state law (b) allowance of activities that are or become a public nuisance which includes the disruptive conduct of business patrons whether on or immediately off the premises where such patrons disturb the peace, obstruct traffic, damage property, engage in criminal conduct, violate the law and otherwise impair the free enjoyment of life and property." ORANGEMPRIESTl58502.1 © 5 M M I ffV SECTION 5. Section 6312.2 of Article VI of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Issuance & Denial- New Permits) is hereby amended to read as follows: "6312.2. COUNCIL ACTION. The Council may, after investigation of said application and of said proposed business, grant or refuse to grant a permit therefor. The Council shall have the right to and shall refuse any such permit if it shall find and determine that the granting of the same or the conducting of the business for which a permit is requested will be injurious, detrimental or harmful to the public peace, health, safety, morals or welfare of the City or the inhabitants thereof, or if the application is found to contain false or misleading statements on behalf of or by the applicant. The Council may refuse to issue a permit under this Article if it is determined that the applicant or applicants agents have, in the conduct of the same or any similar business been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation of conduct detrimental to the public welfare which includes operations of activities that do not comport with the peace, health, safety and convenience of the public such as (1) operation of a business prohibited by local, federal or state law (b) allowance of activities that are or become a public nuisance which includes the disruptive conduct of business patrons whether on or immediately off the premises where such patrons disturb the peace, obstruct traffic, damage property, engage in criminal conduct, violate the law and otherwise impair the free enjoyment of life and property. The action of the Council in granting or refusing a permit shall be final." SECTION 6. Section 6314 of Article VI of -the Arcadia Municipal Code (Permits - Suspension & Revocation) is hereby amended to read as follows: "6314. GROUNDS. The Council may revoke any permit issued by it under the provisions of this Chapter upon any ground upon which such permit could or should have been denied in the first instance, or whenever the Council is satisfied that the conduct of any such business does or will in any manner endanger, threaten or jeopardize the public health, safety, morals, peace or welfare or that the same has been conducted in an illegal, improper or disorderly manner or that such permit was obtained upon false or misleading statements or representations of or on behalf of the applicant. The Council may revoke if it is determined that the applicant or applicants agents have, in the conduct of the same or any similar business, been guilty of fraud, misrepresentation or conduct detrimental to the public welfare which includes operations or activities that do not comport with the peace, health, safety and convenience of the public such as (a) operation of a business prohibited by local, federal or state law (b) allowance of activities that are or become a public nuisance which includes the disruptive conduct of business patrons whether on or immediately off the premises where such patrons disturb the peace, obstruct traffic, damage property, engage in criminal conduct, violate the law and otherwise impair the free enjoyment of life and property." ORANGE\WPRIEST158502.1 M M I ~ V 6 M M I ffV SECTION 7. Section 9213 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Zoning - Omission or Ambiguity) is hereby amended to read as follows: "9213. OMISSION OR AMBIGUITY. If any "use" is for any reason omitted from the lists of those specified as permissible in each of the various zones herein designated, or if ambiguity arises concerning the appropriate classification of a particular use within the meaning and intent of this Chapter, or if ambiguity exists with reference to matters of height, yard requirements or area requirements as set forth herein and as they may pertain to unforeseen circumstances, it shall be the duty of the Planning Commission to ascertain all pertinent facts concerning said use and by resolution of record set forth its findings and the reasons therefor. Such findings and resolutions shall be referred to the Council and, if approved by the Council, thereafter such interpretation shall govern. Notwithstanding the above, Medical Marijuana Dispensaries that are unlawful under Federal or state law shall not be treated as permitted or conditionally permitted uses in any zone of the City of Arcadia, and shall not be determined to be an "omitted" or "ambiguous" use pursuant to this Section." SECTION 8. Section 9220.45.1.2 is hereby added to Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Zoning - Definitions) and shall read as follows: "9220.45.1. MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY. Any facility or location where medical marijuana is made available and/or distributed by or to one or more of the following: a primary caregiver, a qualified patient or a person: with an identification card in strict accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq. A "medical marijuana dispensary" shall not include the following uses, as long as the locations of such uses are otherwise regulated by this Code or applicable law: a clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, a residential hospice or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, as long as such use complies strictly with applicable law including, but not limited to, Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq." ORANGEMPRIEST\58502.1 M N I ~ V 7 @ 2 1 17 ~ SECTION 9. Paragraph (13) of Section 9260.1.3 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Zoning - Uses permitted in CPD-1 zone) is hereby amended to read as follows: "9260.1.3. PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. Professional offices for the following uses: (13) Pharmacies (not including Medical Marijuana Dispensaries) SECTION 10. Paragraph (17) of Section 9261.1.2 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Zoning - Uses permitted in C-O zone) is hereby amended to read as follows: "9261.1.2. PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. Professional offices for the following uses: (17) Pharmacies for only the filling of prescriptions and the sale of sick room supplies. (not including Medical Marijuana Dispensaries)." SECTION 11. Section 9262.1.13 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Zoning - Uses permitted in C-1 zone) is hereby amended to read as follows: "9262.1.13. SAME. Drugstores (not including Medical Marijuana Dispensaries)." SECTION 12. Paragraph (13) of Section 9264.2.6 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Zoning - Uses permitted in CBD zone) is hereby amended to read as follows: "9264.2.6. RETAIL USES. (13) Drugstores (not including Medical Marijuana Dispensaries) ORANGEMPRIESTW502.1 M M I ~ v 8 DGipff4 SECTION 13. Section 9285.6.2.8 of Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code (Zoning - Permitted Home Occupations) is hereby amended to read as follows: "9285.6.2.8. SAME. SAME. POTTED PLANTS. R-O, R-M, R-1, R-2, R-3. However, this shall not permit Medical Marijuana Dispensaries as a Home Occupation." SECTION 14, EFFECTIVE DATE. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36937, this Ordinance is designed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Arcadia and becomes effective immediately upon adoption by a four fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. The City Council hereby finds that there is an urgent need to adopt these regulations in order to eliminate the current and immediate threats set forth above. SECTION 15. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION. A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (Chapter 3 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations), the City staff determined that there is no possibility that the adoption of this ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. The City staff bases its determination on the fact that this amendment to the City's Code will impose greater limitations on development in the City, and will thereby serve to reduce potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. It is therefore exempt from California Environmental Quality Act review pursuant to Title 14, Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations. B. The City Council has reviewed City staff s determination and, based on the whole record before it, finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that this determination of exemption reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. City staff is hereby directed to file with the County Clerk a notice of exemption within five (5) working days of the adoption of this Ordinance. SECTION 16. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared unconstitutional. ORANGE\WR1ES115 0 .1 ® M u 85 2 V 9 D M I ~ `u SECTION 17. CERTIFICATION. The City Clerk shall certify the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be entered in the book of original ordinances of said City; shall make a minute passage and adoption thereof in the records of the meeting at which time the same is passed and adopted; and shall, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption thereof, cause the same to be published as required by law, in a local newspaper of general circulation and which is hereby designated for that purpose. ORANGE\WPRIESW8502.1 M M ~ ~ v 10 ORDINANCE PASSED AND APPROVED on this day of , 200 Mayor ATTEST: 7 ; i ~-i Cl-i L u J f1 U~ L~ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: n City Attorney 7 ORANGEMPRIEST158502.1 r J u U i i t I, , City Clerk, City of Arcadia, California, certify that the foregoing Ordinance was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the , of , 200, and was adopted by the following vote: APES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: can City Clerk ORANGE\WPRIEST~58502.1 D11 ff ;Jj 12 gyro PRELUMNARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT Svy ~s (Certificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption) 1. Name or description of project: Text Amendment No. 09-03 2. Project Location - Identify street address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): Citywide 3. Entity or person undertaking project: A. Public Entity: City of Arcadia - Arcadia Police Department B. Other (Private): (1) Contact Name (2) Contact Address 4. Staff Determination: The City, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the City's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)," has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because: a. ❑ The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA. b. ❑ The project is a Ministerial Project. C. ❑ The project is an Emergency Project. d. ❑ The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study. e. ❑ The project is categorically exempt. Applicable Exemption Class: f. ❑ The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption: g. The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis: 15061(b)(3) - No potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. h. ❑ The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency. Name of Lead Agency: Date: June 29, 2009 Staff: Jim Kasama Community Development Administrator Preliminary Exemption Assessment\City\2009 FORM "A" NOTICE OF EXEMPTION p b u D %1, 49 TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors FROM: City of Arcadia Development Services Department or 240 W. Huntington Drive ❑ County Clerk Arcadia, CA 91007 1. Project Title: Text Amendment No. TA 09-03 2. Project Location - Identify street address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): Citywide 3. (a) Project Location - City: Arcadia (b) Project Location - County: Los Angeles 4. Description of nature, purpose, and beneficiaries of Project: Ordinances to change City regulations to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries and other businesses and uses prohibited by local, State or federal law. 5. Name of Public Agency approving project: Arcadia City Council 6. Name of Person or Agency carrying out project: City of Arcadia 7. Exempt status: (check one) (a) Ministerial project. (b) Not a project. (c) Emergency Project. (d) Categorical Exemption. State type and class number: (e) Declared Emergency. (f) Statutory Exemption. State Code section number: (g) X Other. Explanation: 15061(b)(3)•- No potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. 8. Reason why project was exempt: Imposes greater limitations on development. No potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. 9. Contact Person: Jim Kasama Community Development Administrator Telephone: (626) 574-5442 10. Attach Preliminary Exemption Assessment (Form "A") before filing. Date Received for Filing: I--, 1~ % - Sift-tyr a ncy Representative) (Clerk Stamp Here) Title Notice of Exemption\City\2009 FORM `B" A A. 1 t.a Bnu S, 1983 July 28, 2009 S'TAFF REPORT Development Services Department TO: Arcadia Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Lisa Flores, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Modification Application No. MP 09-02 for a new 275 square foot, second-story addition at 432 N. Old Ranch Road. SUMMARY The applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Tomkins requested a Modification to reduce the required 21'-0" second-story side yard setback to 12'-9" to accommodate the construction of a 275 square foot, second-story addition. The proposed addition will align with the existing two-story residence at 432 N. Old Ranch Road. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of MP 09-02, subject to the conditions listed in this report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Frank and Suzanne Tomkins LOCATION: 432 N. Old Ranch Road REQUEST: A 12'-9" second-story side yard setback in lieu of 21'-0" required to allow for a new 275 square foot, second-story addition to align with the existing second-story (AMC Section 9251.2.3). SITE AREA: 20,682 square feet (0.47 acres) FRONTAGE: 105.00' along Old Ranch Road EXISTING LAND USE: The site is currently developed with a 4,066 square-foot, two- story residence with an attached 540 square foot, two-car garage, and a 989 square foot, detached two-car garage and workshop at the rear of the property (permitted by the City in 2000). ZONING: R-O- First One-Family Zone with a minimum lot size of 22,000 square feet GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single-Family Residential at 0-2 dwelling units per acre SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: The surrounding properties are developed with single-family residences that are zoned R-0 22,000 and adjacent to the L.A. County Arboretum. BACKGROUND On May 28, 2009, the Lower Rancho Homeowners Association Architectural Review Board approved the architectural design of the proposed addition. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION Public hearing notice of MP 09-01 was mailed on July 16, 2009 to the property owners, tenants and occupants of those properties that are within 100 feet of the subject property (see attached radius map). Because Staff considers the proposed project exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the public hearing notice was not published in the Arcadia Weekly newspaper. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS This proposal is before the Planning Commission because Section 9251.2.12 of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires that any second story side yard setback modification request for an existing dwelling shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting a modification to allow a 12'-9" second-story side yard setback instead of the required 21'-0". The approval would allow the proposed 275 square foot, second-story addition to be a compatible continuation of the northerly building elevation, and maintain the existing second-story side yard setback and promote uniformity. The proposed addition will be a new master bathroom that consist of a bathtub, shower, two sinks, a toilet, and expansion of the walk-in closet for the existing master bedroom. It is Staff's opinion that the requested modification, if approved, would secure an appropriate improvement to this property and the architectural design will be compatible with the existing residence. MP 09-02 432 N. Old Ranch Road July 28, 2009 - Page 2 CODE REQUIREMENTS The proposed project is required to comply with all other code requirements and policies as determined to be necessary by the Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, Development Services Director, and Public Works Services Director, which are to be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval. CEQA Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Development Services Department has determined that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1(e) of the CEQA. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends approval of Modification Application No. MP 09-02, subject to the following conditions: All City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, parking, water supply and water facilities, sewer facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) measures shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services Director and Development Services Director. Compliance with these requirements is to be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval. 2. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 3. Approval of MP 09-02 shall not take effect until the applicant and property owner have executed and filed an Acceptance Form available from the MP 09-02 432 N. Old Ranch Road July 28, 2009 - Page 3 Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval, and that all conditions of approval shall be satisfied prior to final inspection of the project. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval The Planning Commission should move to approve Modification No. MP 09-02, subject to the conditions set forth above, or as modified by the Commission, based on at least one of the following findings: 1. That the Modification will secure an appropriate improvement of a lot; 2. That the Modification will prevent unreasonable hardship; or 3. That the Modification will promote uniformity of development. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this project, the Commission should move to deny Modification No. MP 09-02, based on the evidence presented and state why the project does not support the above findings. If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the July 28, 2009 public hearing, please contact Senior Planner, Lisa Flores at (626) 574-5445 or by email at Iflores@ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved by: Lisa Floresh Senior Planner Attachments: Aerial Photograph and Vicinity Map Site and Neighborhood Photographs Architectural Plans Public Hearing Notification Radius Map Preliminary Exemption Assessment MP 09-02 432 N. Old Ranch Road July 28, 2009 - Page 4 N (512) 100 0 100 200 Feet R-~ (505) 0 (500) R-0 O MURIETTA DR X Q (468) Q (439) 0 Q V w lij (435) Q ~O S-Z ~O (423) (424) v Q' c y = R-0 (415) ' (416) 0 (406) (401) O "AN SIMEON RD (400) ON ytROrty,' 432 N Old Ranch Road Development Services Department MP 0902 Engineering Division Prepared by R. S. Gonzalez, July 2009 Development Services Department Engineering Division Prepared by: R. S. Gonzalez, July 2009 °Volt It 432 N Old Ranch Road ~ MC 09-02 0 n/ L rVoo, 0 Z N M d~ cu 0 4-J E 0 0 C ' 4 A rjjG1~ w rFj E f, j { fj n o- t fats imil", tslts ~lPd~ :ERIS now 10 riolo u s•a_ 0 ■ ■.--s c Q • Ras R a_R N O Z E 0r T O i V~ ai CD Ln = O ■ 0-0 Q •W Q W O J Z :3 a) = O ry Z 0 tY' 0 Z L0016 V3 VMbV OVOM 14D M TO N 2£7 ! NOi1100V AMO1S aM3 t mss,. • ~'r 37N301S3N SNIHNO1 111 - q Y O v o H o r- N x - c A F a $ N A d 0 X i SIR. , WE' -1 1 Its ME' UP o ml 9 x _ - 1. s 1 a 9 ~y 7 9 • b~ tK ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~b~ 4 sgfie a~~,. ~ da . i . lilt. lit y . ~ 1 1 1_ a --1 = X13 4 d 40.1 it 0 z t J A- M W F d d 8 4 I dd~ 9 N Q rn .T r~ x 0 s t 0 r rI I r OL IL L I k I i a ~T F J W N 4 d t 0 t J A I,.. 3 F ~ vtii i a z 0 G a g a 0 gs X~ N Al i D Y d la Q Y- 1 I l I J a~ l s~ I EO ,o..y e 1 1 d~ ~ l gY~.' '''rf J _ p I I f~U I II f z I I ~I I~ II 11 1 I~ _ II I I~ 11 ~I E II ~~~F ,A-p'F ra~7x A C Y r lW 1 1♦< 3 d PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT (Certificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption) Name or description of project: Modification Application No. MP 09-02 oject Location - Identify street r;address and cross streets or attach a ap showing project site (preferably a SGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical map identified by quadrangle name): 432 N. Old Ranch Road Arcadia, CA 91006 3. Entity or person undertaking project: A. Public Entity: B. Other (Private): (1) Contact Name Frank and Suzanne Tomkins (2) Contact Address 432 N. Old Ranch Road 4. Staff Determination: The City, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the City's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)," has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment because: a. ❑ The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA. b. ❑ The project is a Ministerial Project. C. ❑ The project is an Emergency Project. d. ❑ The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study. e. The project is categorically exempt. Applicable Exemption Class: Section 15301, Class 1 f. ❑ The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption: g• ❑ The project is otherwise exempt on I the following basis: h. ❑ The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency. Name of Lead Agency: Date: Staff: Preliminary Exemption Assessment\City\2009 FORM "A" RESOLUTION NO. 1798 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. CUP 09-07, THE RELATED PARKING MODIFICATION, AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION NO. ADR 09-02 FOR A NEW 1,273 SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE BUILDING AT AN EXISTING CHURCH COMPLEX LOCATED AT 1741 S. BALDWIN AVENUE AND 721 W. LEMON AVENUE. WHEREAS, on February 2, 2009 the Development Services Department received Architectural Design Review Application No. ADR 09-02, followed by Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09-07 on April 28, 2009 by Hope International Church for a 1,273 square-foot office building at property commonly known as 721 W. Lemon Avenue; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on July 14, 2009, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data provided by the Development Services Department in the staff report dated July 14, 2009 are true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: 1. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-07 will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity because the proposed project involves the construction of an office structure not exceeding 2,500 square feet, and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption per Section No. 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use. All yards, spaces, walls, fences, loading, landscaping, parking, and other features are adequate to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. The proposed project complies with all related zoning requirements as set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code. 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. 5. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-07 will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because the land use and current zoning are consistent with the General Plan. 6. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, and that based upon the record as a whole there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-07, the related Parking Modification, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 09-02 for a 1,273 square-foot church office building at 721 W. Lemon Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. The use of the proposed office building shall be limited to general offices and one (1) bible study session on Sundays. 2. The operating hours of the proposed office building shall not exceed 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Sundays. 3. A Parking Modification of 67 spaces in lieu of 250 spaces required is granted for the proposed office building and the existing church buildings. This Parking Modification does not constitute an approval for a general reduction of the parking requirements for the subject property, but rather only for the office building that is herein conditionally approved, and the 2 Resolution No. 1798 J existing church buildings. Uses other than this office building may be subject to a new Conditional Use Permit and/or Parking Modification. 4. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney shall be recorded to develop and hold the entire church complex as one parcel. 5. The office building shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and conditionally approved for CUP 09-07 and ADR 09- 02, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Administrator. 6. The parking lot at 721 W. Lemon Avenue shall be treated with slurry seal to cover all cracks and damages, and restriped with double-striping per City standards. 7. Solid metal gates shall be added to the existing trash enclosure. 8. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 09-07 and ADR 09-02 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in the closing of the office building. 9. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, emergency access, and site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshall, City Engineer, and Public Works Services Director. 10. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding 3 Resolution No. 1798 concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 11. Approval of CUP 09-07 and ADR 09-02 shall not take effect until the property owner(s) and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 28`h day of July, 2009. ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: P. ~C~ Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney Chairman, Planning Commission 4 Resolution No. 1798 RESOLUTION NO. 1799 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09-13 AND THE RELATED PARKING MODIFICATION FOR A 1,244 SQUARE-FOOT RESTAURANT WITH SEATING FOR 48 PATRONS AT 1228 S. GOLDEN WEST AVENUE. WHEREAS, on June 10, 2009, a Conditional Use Permit application was filed by He (Caroline) Yang for a 1,244 square-foot restaurant with seating for 48 patrons; Development Services Department Case No. CUP 09-13, at property commonly known as 1228 S. Golden West Avenue; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on July 14, 2009, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data provided by the Development Services Department in the staff report dated July 14, 2009 are true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: 1. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-13 will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity because the proposed project is a minor alteration of an existing facility and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption per Section No. 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. i~ 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use. All yards, spaces, walls, fences, loading, landscaping, parking, and other features are adequate to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. The proposed project complies with all related zoning requirements as set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code. 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. 5. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-13 will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because the land use and current zoning are consistent with the General Plan. 6. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, and that based upon the record as a whole there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants Conditional Use Permit No. "CUP 09-13 and the related Parking Modification for a 1,244 square-foot restaurant, subject to the following conditions: 1. The business hours of the restaurant shall be limited to 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven (7) days a week. 2. The seating area for the restaurant shall not exceed 48 seats, or the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Building Official and Fire Marshal, whichever is less. 3. A Parking Modification of 383 spaces in lieu of 422 spaces required is granted for the proposed restaurant and existing uses at the shopping center. This Parking 2 Resolution No. 1799 Modification does not constitute an approval for general reduction of the parking requirements for the subject property, but rather only for the restaurant that is herein conditionally approved, and the existing uses at the center. Uses other than this restaurant may be subject to a new Conditional Use Permit and/or Parking Modification. 4. The restaurant shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and conditionally approved for CUP 09-13, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Administrator. 5. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 09-13 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in the closing of the office building. 6. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, emergency access, and site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, and Public Works Services Director. 7. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City 3 Resolution No. 1799 reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 8. Approval of CUP 09-13 shall not take effect until the property owner(s) and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 28th day of July, 2009. Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: , bn r Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney 4 Resolution No. 1799 MINUTES ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 7:00 P.M. e °~••.,.4~•° Community Room of the Police Headquarters, City of Arcadia The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 at 7:00 p.m., in the Community Room of the Police Department Headquarters of the City of Arcadia, at 250 W. Huntington Drive, with Chairman Parrille presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu, and Parrille ABSENT: Commissioner Beranek MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner Hsu to excuse Commissioner Beranek. Without objection the motion was approved. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Baderian, to read the Resolutions by title only and waive reading the full text of the Resolutions. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. OTHERS ATTENDING City Engineer Phil Wray Community Development Administrator Jim Kasama Associate Planner Tom Li Assistant Planner Steven Lee Assistant Planner Tim Schwehr Business License Officer Silva Vergel SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Mr. Kasama said that the following items were distributed to the Planning Commission: 1. 2 letters in regard to item no. 5 2. Memorandum clarifying the parking analysis for item no. 7 3. Additional conditions of approval for item no. 6 TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS - Five-minute time limit per person None M D R A 6 T PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 09-05 754 Fairview Avenue Grand Pacific Communities, Corp. (Manager for the Property Owner) A Tentative Parcel Map for a four-unit residential condominium subdivision. Assistant Planner Steven Lee presented the staff report. Hank Jong, 11819 Goldring Rd., Civil Engineer, indicated that they have read the staff report and are in agreement with all of the conditions. Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor or in opposition to this project. No one else spoke on this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to approve TPM 09- 05, subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu and Parrille NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Beranek There is a ten day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by July 24, 2009. 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 09-06 120 South Second Avenue Howard Tran (Applicant) A proposed Tentative Parcel Map for a two-unit residential condominium subdivision. Assistant Planner Tim Schwehr presented the staff report. Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor or in opposition to this project. Engles Shen, 1111 Corporate Center Drive, Monterey Park, indicated that they have read the staff report and are in agreement with all of the conditions. He stated that the access will be from Bonita. He thought that this was a very creative design and urged the Planning Commission to approve it. PC MINUTES DRAFT 7-14-09 Page No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Baerg to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to approve TPM 2009-06 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu and Parrille NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Beranek There is a ten day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by July 24, 2009. 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 09-01 1512 South Santa Anita Avenue Johnny Ngo (Property Owner) A proposed Tentative Parcel Map for a two-lot, single-family residential subdivision. Associate Planner Tom Li presented the staff report. Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor or in opposition of this project. In response to a question from Chairman Parille, Mr. Li responded that lot 2 has access solely from Santa Anita Terrace. Lot 1 will be accessed from Santa Anita Ave. In answer to a question by Commissioner Baerg, Mr. Li stated that there is a driveway that has direct access from Santa Anita Terrace and that they want to widen the driveway to gain access to lot 2. The public hearing was opened. Hank Jong, 11823 Goldring, indicated that they have been working with Planning and redesigned the project several times before presenting it to the Planning Commission; which they will hopefully approve. The applicant indicated that they have read the staff report and are in agreement with all of the conditions. Maryann Martin, 1504 Santa Anita Terrace, said that she resides to the north of the subdivision and heard about it when they were approached to have a cul-de-sac in their backyard. There is an existing driveway and a planter bed currently in that location and they will need to remove a fairly large portion of that to gain access. It is under easement, but she thought it was unfair and commented that she did not want a cul-de-sac in their backyard. PC MINUTES 7-14-09 Page 3 In rebuttal, Mr. Jong said the cul-de-sac will not be constructed until the subdivision of the north property is completed. There needs to be a dedication of an easement for the possible future development of the cul-de-sac. At that time, the new street would need to be designed. In response to Commissioner Baderian's statement, Mr. Jong said that if in the future they did not want a cul-de-sac, then they may keep their property as it is without pursuing that option. No one else spoke in favor or in opposition to this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. In answer to a question from Commissioner Baerg, Mr. Li said that all property owners within a 300' radius were notified but staff did not receive any concerns from the residents. In response to Commissioner Baerg's question whether staff has considered a safety issue or condition for both property owners to have crossways of access; Mr. Kasama stated that there would be access from a joint driveway at the end of the street; it is similar to having driveways side by side. Chairman Parrille asked if it is, in a sense, a flag lot. Mr. Kasama replied that it is in a sense, and flag lots are not permitted. This is not a flag lot because the access here is through a driveway, and not past another lot. In response to a question from Commissioner Baderian, Mr. Kasama said that a cul-de-sac may only be developed with the approval of property owners of 1504 Santa Anita Terrace. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to approve TPM 09- 01 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu and Parrille NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Beranek There is a ten day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by July 24, 2009. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09-07 & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 09-02 721 West Lemon Avenue & 1741 South Baldwin Avenue Hope International Church (Applicant) A Conditional Use Permit, the related Parking Modification, and Architectural Design Review for a new 1,273 square-foot, church office building at 721 West Lemon Avenue. PC MINUTES 7-14-09 n 4 1 DR A F T Page Assistant Planner Steven Lee presented the staff report. Commissioner Hsu asked whether staff noted a parking shortage upon inspecting the site, to which Mr. Lee replied that on weekdays there are only a handful of cars, and that the parking lot is mostly empty. Commissioner Baderian felt that it might be best to further limit the hours on Sundays to reduce any noise impacts on the neighbors and Mr. Lee replied that the Commission can amend the hours as they wish. Chairman Parrille asked whether there was any attempt to acquire the lot at 1725 S. Baldwin and Mr. Kasama stated that it was recently developed with a new single family residence. Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of this project. Mr. Quan Lee, representative of Hope Church, said that the proposed plan is for a 1,200 sq. ft. new office building for church use for a youth leader's office. Their intent is to design a building that the church leaders can utilize that fits in with the environment while having minimal noise impact. In answer to a question from Commission Baderian, Mr. Quan Lee stated that they would like to have as many hours as possible, which will give them flexibility and allow them to be open during the busiest times for the church. Mr. Steven Lee said the recommended condition of approval is to limit the hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven days a week. These hours are for office use only and not intended for general assembly, as other regulations would then apply. No one else spoke in favor or in opposition to this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. Commissioner Baderian felt to reduce the noise impact, office hours on Sundays should be from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to approve CUP 09- 07 and ADR 09-02, subject to amending the hours of operation on Sundays from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu and Parrille NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Beranek 7-14-09 n DRAFT PC MP age 5 There is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. The resolution will be adopted at a future meeting, and appeals are to be filed within five working days of adoption. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09-08 67 East Live Oak Avenue, Suite 102 Meiling Lin (Applicant) A Conditional Use Permit for a 722 square-foot tutoring center with up to ten (10) students on the ground floor of an existing commercial office building. Assistant Planner Tim Schwehr presented the staff report. In answer to a comment and concern by Commission Baderian, Mr. Schwehr said that he could not confirm whether the office use there closes at 5:00 p.m. He said that there could be some overlapping of time but the hours are normal office hours. Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor or in opposition of this project. Chris Chu, 1431 Ocean Avenue, Santa Monica, representing the applicant and a former student of the school spoke in favor of the proposed use. He stated that there are a number of past and present students and parents in the audience who are here to support and confirm the owner's dedication and to ask Ms. Lin to proceed with helping Arcadia students. He went on to say that the Engineering Division has reviewed this request and found no congestion. If it is determined that there are any concerns, they have the option of implementing various conditions to address any potential issues. The applicant indicated that while the program can begin 30 minutes later to alleviate any congestion, they will have to extend it 30 minutes, which would only make it that much later for students. Frank Chu, 67 E. Live Oak, #201, said that most days they conclude their day by 5:00 p.m. He stated that the tenants on the 1 st floor generally leave by 5:00 p.m. and by that time the only about half of the parking spaces are occupied. His daughters also attend this school, which helped them enormously. Willi Lo, no address listed, who has two daughters that attend the school, said that she has never experienced traffic congestion while dropping off or picking up her children and that there has always been ample parking. Regina Wang, no address listed, but a resident of Arcadia, said that Ms. Li is a good teacher. She helps kids and they appreciate all her assistance. Regarding the traffic and parking, she has never experienced a problem with parking. No one else spoke in favor or in opposition to this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Baerg to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. PC MINUTES 4--09 DRAFT 4--09 Page 6 In response to Commissioner Hsu's question, Mr. Schwehr responded that they have not obtained business license to operate at this site and did not know how long this business has been in operation at this location. They came in for a business license and were informed that they needed a conditional use permit. Mr. Kasama stated that tutoring centers that are one on one do not need a conditional use permit; only a business license. If they are providing group lessons then a conditional use permit is required. In reply to a question by Commissioner Baderian, Mr. Schwehr remarked that he visited the site on several occasions and did not see any problems on El Capitan. He did not think there would be any issues, unless people go down El Capitan and turn around. He added that in addition to the on-site parking, there is also street parking available. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Baerg to approve CUP 09-08 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu and Parrille NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Beranek There is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. The resolution will be adopted at a future meeting, and appeals are to be filed within five working days of adoption. 6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 09-04 1431 South Santa Anita Avenue Dexter Pamela, LLC (Property Owner) A proposed Tentative Parcel Map for a two-lot, single-family residential subdivision Associate Planner Tom Li presented the staff report Mr. Li stated one of the conditions of approval from Engineering is that access from lot 2 has to be from Pamela Rd. instead of Santa Anita. No access shall be granted from Santa Anita. Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor or in opposition of this project. Hank Jong, 11823 Goldring, indicated that they have read the staff report and are in agreement with all of the conditions. He said they will comply with the City's conditions except condition 1 of Engineering, which refers to the preservation of the oak tree. He noted that they will preserve as many trees as possible but it is possible that some may be in the way of the foundation or the driveway and will need to be removed. They will submit a Tree Preservation plan to the City and will comply with the City's replacement plans. In response to Commissioner Baderian's question, Mr. Kasama indicated that staff's condition PC MINUTES gDRAT 7P e 7 no. 1 in the staff report is contradicting with Engineering's condition with regard to trees. The developer would be required to submit a tree preservation plan as well as an arborist's report to determine the health of the trees. Mr. Kasama said that based on the map that was submitted, it appears that the oak tree could be in the public right-of-way. Mr. Wray, City Engineer, said that Engineering will defer to the Planning conditions and said they will remove that condition. Mr. Jong indicated that with the removal of Engineering's condition they were in agreement with the remainder of the conditions. No one else spoke in favor or in opposition to this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. Mr. Kasama said that Engineering's conditions will be incorporated with Planning's conditions. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian seconded by Commissioner Hsu to approve TPM 2009-04 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu and Parrille NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Beranek There is a ten day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by July 24, 2009. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 09-13 1228 South Golden West Avenue (President Square Shopping Center) Caroline Yang (Prospective Tenant) A Conditional Use Permit and the related Parking Modification to convert an existing 1,224 square-foot retail unit into a restaurant with seating for 53 persons. Assistant Planner Steven Lee presented the staff report. Assistant Planner Steven Lee explained a memo which was distributed to the Planning Commission that notes an inaccuracy in the parking analysis in the staff report. The site is currently deficient by 33 parking spaces - not 2 as noted in the report. Approval of CUP 09-13 would increase the deficiency to 39 spaces. However, staff was still recommending approval of the application. In response to a question by Commissioner Parrille, Mr. Lee indicated that originally the application showed seating for 53 but it was later amended to 48 and as a result the parking Pc MINUTES E-1-7`3 ' R A T 7Pge8 requirement; which is based on floor area and not the number of seats, was changed accordingly. Chairman Parrille asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor or in opposition of this project. Caroline Yang, 1228 S. Golden West Avenue, said that they will be open during lunch time so they do not anticipate a parking problem. She commented that there is another similar type of a restaurant but theirs is Japanese style, where as the other one is Chinese. She was not too concerned that these two establishments are very similar and that could hurt their business. No one else spoke in favor or in opposition to this item. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Baderian to close the public hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with no one dissenting. Commissioners Baderian and Parrille were concerned about the number of vehicles vs. available parking. In response to the question from Commissioner Baerg, Mr. Lee said that a retail use would not further increase the parking requirement because the requirement would remain the same, but the proposed use has a higher parking requirement. Mr. Kasama further stated that the only way the parking requirement would be decreased would be if an office use occupied the space. The only way to remove the parking deficiency would be to take away the food court area and the restaurants which have a higher parking requirement. Commissioner Hsu felt that the two restaurants are very similar and they would both be vying for the same clientele, which he felt would not significantly increase the parking need. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Commissioner Baerg to approve CUP 09-13 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baerg, Hsu and Parrille NOES: Commissioner Baderian ABSENT: Commissioner Beranek There is a five working day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution. The resolution will be adopted at a future meeting, and appeals are to be filed within five working days of adoption. Chairman Parrille asked if there was any objection to acting on the consent items with one action. There being no objection, Mr. Kasama read the titles of the items. PC MINUTES C~ 7°®RAFTPg 9 8. RESOLUTION NO. 1796 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 09-12 for a vehicle recovery and storage business comprised of a 20,301 square-foot automobile storage warehouse and a 16,100 square-foot gated outdoor automobile storage yard at 5449 Peck Road. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 1797 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, denying Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 09-10 to operate a tutoring center with a maximum of eight (8) students in a 2,000 square-foot commercial unit at 34 E. Huntington Drive. 10. MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2009 MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Hsu to adopt Resolution Nos. 1796 and 1797, and to approve the Minutes of June 23, 2009. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu and Parrille NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Beranek MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioners Baderian, Hsu and Parrille indicated that they would not be able to attend the August 25 meeting. MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Commissioner Parrille summarized the action taken by the Modification Committee. MATTERS FROM STAFF Mr. Kasama discussed upcoming agenda items. ADJOURNED 8:45 p.m. Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission ge o0 U DRAFT PC MINUTES