This is the time when any member of the public may bring a matter to the attention of the Commission that is within the scope of duties assigned to the Commission. The Ralph M. Brown Act limits the Planning Commission and staff's ability to respond to comments on non-agendized matters at the time such comments are made. Thus, your comments may be agendized for a future meeting or referred to staff. The Commission may discuss or ask questions for clarification, if desired, at this time.

This is the time for the public to comment on any item on the Consent Calendar. As Consent Calendar items are considered routine in nature, they are normally enacted in one motion. The Chairperson may remove a questioned Consent Calendar item for separate action.

You are encouraged by this Commission to express your views on any matter set for public hearing. It is our procedure to first receive the report of the Planning staff, then to ask for public testimony; first from those in favor of the matter, followed by testimony from those in opposition to it, and, if there be opposition, to allow those in favor, rebuttal testimony only as to the points brought up in opposition. To testify on a matter, you need to simply come forward to the lectern at the appropriate time, give your name and address and make your statement. In addition, please sign in on the sheet provided at the podium so it will facilitate preparation of our minutes. Do not be concerned with your possible lack of experience in public hearings. We are interested in what you say, not your level of expertise as a public speaker. After a hearing has been closed, you may not further speak on the matter unless requested to do so by a member of the Commission.

Planning Associate Ron Garcia presented the staff report. During his presentation, Mr. Garcia reviewed matters that were discussed at the study session and told the Commission that these items were addressed in the proposed code amendment.

Joanne Wilner addressed the Commission regarding this matter. She asked for clarification regarding accommodation of tenants during construction and how tenants who choose not to purchase their units will be compensated.

There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the language in the proposed code. Commissioners Rozatti and Redholtz expressed their support of the proposed off-street parking requirements.

In addition, the Commission discussed the rights of tenants who choose not to buy their unit and the payment of their relocation costs. Commissioner Stewart asked about the payment of relocation money to those tenants who decided not to purchase their units. Commissioner Rozatti also expressed her concern with the rights of displaced tenants. After further discussion, the Commission agreed that property owners would have to provide 90 days notice to the existing tenant that they have the option of purchasing their apartment. Further, the Commission decided that once the tenant informed the property owner that they would not be purchasing their apartment, the property owner would then have 30 days in which to provide the tenant with relocation money.

Chairman Sotelo agreed with the other Commissioners that the proposed ordinance addressed their concerns.

Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Stewart, to adopt findings as recommended by staff. Motion carried 5-0.

Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Stewart, to waive further reading of the body of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 08-5271, recommending to the City Council approval of Code Amendment No. 07-04, as amended. Motion carried 5-0.

Chairman Sotelo stated that this action is final unless appealed to the City Council within ten days.

(1)

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53354

RECONSIDERATION OF EXECUTED RESOLUTION CONDITION 5 (j)

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION

APPLICANT: CVP Homes LLC, Pacific Communities

LOCATION: East side of Azusa, opposite Autumn Drive, South of Amar Road

The applicant is requesting a revision to the executed tentative tract map resolution regarding conditions of approval requiring the Homeowner’s Association to provide liability coverage against slope failure.

Planning Director Doug McIsaac presented the staff report. During his presentation, Mr. McIsaac explained the history of the development, as well as the conditions imposed at the time the tentative tract map was originally approved in May 2002. He also explained the difficulty the developer had encountered in securing insurance against slope failure, and the additional cost to potential homeowners who might purchase one of the homes.

David Chambers, representing CVP Homes LLC, Pacific Communities, Joanne Wilner and Royall K. Brown spoke regarding this matter. Mrs. Wilner stated that she felt the City should be indemnified in case of slope failure. She also asked about mitigation measures to deal with possible methane gas in the area. Mr. Brown spoke in support of the revision because the geology of this site was different than other develop sites in the area.

Mr. Chambers told the Commission that the cost of the insurance premium would result in homeowners’ association fees of approximately $400 per month, as opposed to $280 per month. In addition, Mr. Chambers told the Commission that he was concerned that the additional homeowners’ association fees would make the homes unaffordable. He also told the Commission that there had been no slope failure issues encountered during the grading of this property and that geotechnical tests and reports done at the time had indicated that there was not added danger of a slope failure at the site.

There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the stability of the slope, the cost of the insurance policy against slope failure, the additional cost to the homeowners’ association fees, the safeguards taken to prevent the possibility of methane gas build-up, and the responsibility of the developers should there be slope failure. The Commission also considered who would be responsible if there were to be a slope failure beyond the ten-year period that the developer is responsible for.

Commissioners Rozatti and Redholtz expressed their concern that the City would be held responsible if there was a slope failure in the future. They also expressed their reluctance to revise the condition requiring the slope failure insurance.

The remainder of the Commission expressed their concern that the cost of the additional insurance premium might make the homes unaffordable. After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to revise the conditions of approval for this tentative tract map.

Motion by Stewart, seconded by Cervantes, to approve a revision to Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-4738. Motion carried 3-2 (Rozatti, Redholtz opposed).

(2)

CODE AMENDMENT INITIATION

MOBILE FOOD CATERERS

The proposed code amendment consists of certain amendments to Chapter 26 (Zoning) of the West Covina Municipal Code related to regulating mobile food caterers within the City.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission initiate a code amendment regarding mobile food caterers and provide comment and direction as appropriate.

Planning Director Doug McIsaac presented the staff report. Mr. McIsaac explained that currently the Municipal Code is silent regarding the regulation of catering trucks. He also told the Commission that, in order to control the manner in which catering trucks are conducting business, staff was recommending the initiation of a code amendment regulating catering trucks.

Frederick Sykes, Phil Moreno and Joanne Wilner spoke regarding this matter. It was the consensus of the speakers that the catering trucks were not operating in a manner that is conducive to business in West Covina. They also expressed their opinions that the lack of regulation from the Los Angeles County Health Department could present a danger to residents. In addition, they all requested that an ordinance controlling mobile catering trucks be adopted.

There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the regulation of mobile catering trucks by the Los Angeles County Health Department, the manner in which they should be allowed to operate, limiting the time that the catering trucks are allowed to stay in one location, the possibility of requiring a conditional use permit to operate a mobile catering truck in West Covina, having the consent of the business owner to sell food items from their location and prohibiting mobile catering operators from setting up tables, chairs and music at locations where they are selling food.

The Commission concurred that a code amendment should be drafted to regulate mobile catering trucks operating in West Covina.

Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Rozatti, to waive further reading of the body of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 08-5272, initiating a code amendment regarding regulations for mobile food caterers. Motion carried 5-0.

(3)

PLANNING COMMISSION AUTHORIZED PLANNING DIRECTOR’S MODIFICATION NO. 08-12

APPLICANT: Tito Ortiz

LOCATION: 3525 East Cortez Street

The project consists of a proposal to construct a 1,120-square foot detached four-car garage that will be used in conjunction with an existing 4,959-square foot single-family home (including a 1,029-square foot covered front-entry and wrap-around porch). The applicant is also proposing to add a 480-square foot covered patio to the rear of the existing home. The project is located on a 15,902-square foot lot in the "Single-Family Residential" (R-1) Zone, Area District III.

Principal Planner Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. During his presentation Mr. Anderson told the Commission that single-story buildings are allowed in the rear setback area and that staff has typically maintained a 15-foot height limit for one-story buildings. However, the applicant requested a garage height of 18.5 feet. Mr. Anderson also told that staff was recommending that the maximum height of the garage be limited to 16.5 feet.

There was a short discussion by the Commission regarding the proposed height. Commissioner Redholtz asked if there was an industry standard and Commissioner Rozatti asked how the proposed height of the garage might affect the surrounding properties.

Tito Ortiz, applicant, told the Commission of his intention to live in the home with his family. He also stated that his father would be living in the home with him and he wanted to provide a place where his father’s antique cars could be parked. He expressed his desire to install a hydraulic lift system so that the cars could be stacked in the garage, which is why he requested the additional height. In addition, he said he wanted the garage to match the existing home on the lot.

There was a discussion by the Commission regarding the proposed height of the structure. Commissioners Cervantes and Stewart both indicated that they had visited the property and were satisfied that the allowing a taller garage would not adversely affect any of the adjacent properties. The Commission also considered the proposed height of the garage and agreed that the 18.5-foot height would not have a negative impact on surrounding properties in the area.

Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Stewart, to approve Planning Commission authorized Planning Director’s Modification No. 08-12, as amended. Motion carried 5-0.

This is the time when any member of the public may bring a matter to the attention of the Commission that is within the scope of duties assigned to the Commission. The Ralph M. Brown Act limits the Planning Commission and staff's ability to respond to comments on non-agendized matters at the time such comments are made. Thus, your comments may be agendized for a future meeting or referred to staff. The Commission may discuss or ask questions for clarification, if desired, at this time.

This is the time when any member of the Commission may bring a matter to the attention of the full Commission that is within the scope of duties assigned to the Commission. Any item that was considered during the public hearing portion is not appropriate for discussion in this section of the agenda. NO COMMISSION ACTION CAN BE TAKEN AT THIS TIME. If the Commission desires to discuss an issue raised by a resident or take an action, the Commission may vote to agendize the matter for the next meeting. The Commission may discuss or ask questions for clarification, if desired, at this time.

Report on the attendance by Commissioners at Planners Institute on March 26-28 in Sacramento.

Chairman Sotelo presented his report on Planner’s Institute, which was held on March 26 through March 28. He mentioned a few matters that were brought to his attention during various workshops.

There was also a short discussion by the Commission regarding the posting of properties with land use applications requiring a public hearing.

This is an oral presentation of City Council matters and actions of the listed meeting which are in the Commission’s area of interest.

-Code amendment to establish an Art in Public Places Commission was adopted. There was a discussion regarding the appointment of two Planning Commissioners to the new commission.

-Discussion regarding possible restructuring of the Art In Public Places in-lieu fee.

-Invitation to Red Cross "Hometown Heroes Celebration," Friday, May 2, 2008 from 12 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. at Pacific Palms, City of Industry.

Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Stewart, to adjourn the meeting at 9:39 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.