Loading...
PC - Item 4A - Minutes 5-20-13Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 20, 2013 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Ruiz in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herrera INVOCATION - Commissioner Hunter ROLL CALL - Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Vice -Chair Hunter, and Chair Ruiz ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, Acting Associate Planner Trinh, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedures and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Mitsuo (Mike) Sawada, resident, stated he is the Vice - President of the Hidden Pines Homeowners Association which is located next to the Valley Plaza. He expressed concern with constant traffic on Hidden Pines Place (a private street) since the Valley Plaza development. He expressed concern with traffic, 30 -40 vehicles, turning into their private street everyday and stated it is worse on the weekends; He added the vehicles are making U -turns on their private street causing damage to lawns and breaking sprinklers. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS MODIFICATION 13 -01 • Diamondhead, LLC has submitted a Modification application, requesting to modify condition of approval number 37 of Design Review 03.104 (Modification) to permit 10,000 square feet of restaurant and fast food use and 15,500 square feet of retail or office use within the shopping center'` currently under construction at 8526 Valley Boulevard, which is located in a C -31) (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. PC RESOLUTION 13 -06 .'A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING MODIFICATION 13.01, TO MODIFY CONDITION OF APPROVAL NUMBER 37 TO PERMIT 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT AND FAST FOOD USE AND 15,500 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL OR OFFICE USE WITHIN THE SHOPPING` CENTER LOCATED AT 8526 VALLEY BOULEVARD. Staff Recommendation Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 13.06 with findings and APPROVE Modification 13 -01 subject to the forty (40) conditions, including the modifications to conditions 1, 32, and 37 and new condition 40. Acting Associate Planner Trinh presented the staff report. Chair Ruiz asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng thanked staff for providing the prior Conditions of Approval for this site. She requested that in regards to major modifications it would be helpful if prior background information is included such as Staff Report's and Minutes to help with the understanding of past Planning Commissioner's decisions. She stated that this will help the current Planning Commission decisions and make sure that adequate considerations have been made. She addressed the City Attorney, Greg Murphy, and asked since this project is still in construction and the use is being modified are CEQA guidelines correctly being applied. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, replied when he reviewed this project he believed that the CEQA guidelines are correctly being applied. He stated even though construction is on- going, there is no real expansion of use of beyond what is existing; and what is existing is what has been permitted and what is currently underconstruction. He stated the fact that the construction is not finished did not impair Section 15301. Commissioner Eng asked Greg Murphy, City Attorney, in regards to CEQA; is square footage considered and not the use because the original use was for retail and office space. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, replied in this case the change of use under CEQA that would trigger a full scale review or would trigger the need for something other than an exemption is a major change of use on a lot. He stated, for example, going from low- density residential to manufacturing or going from agricultural to residential. Here you have a commercial use and it will continue to be a commercial use, the fact that the specifics of it are going to change really doesn't trigger anything above the exemptions as outlined in the guidelines. Commissioner Eng asked what the current FAR'for this zone is. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied it is 35 %. Commissioner Eng referred to the site plan and asked if the FAR is 42 6 /6 for this project. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied yes, Commissioner Eng stated that the staff report indicates there are three parcels, but when she looked at the site plan she only saw two and a notation about a lot combination pending and asked staff to explain. Community Development Director Ramirez asked Commissioner Eng if she is referring to the staff report or the site plan. Commissioner Eng explained she is comparing the information from the staff report to the site plan and read the portion of the staff report under the' Property History and Description" as reference. Chair Ruiz explained that the three parcels on the site plan are numbered 15, 16, and 17. Commissioner Eng asked if the three parcels are owned by the same owner. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied no, and explained two parcels are owned by one owner and the other parcel is owned by another owner. Commissioner Eng asked for clarification on parcel ownership. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied Parcel Number 15 is owned by a different owner. She added Diamond Head LLC, own Parcel's 16 & 17. 2 Chair Ruiz asked if Parcel Number 15 is where McDonald's is located and asked if there is a wall or gate dividing the parcels. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Commissioner Eng referred to the site plan and Parcel Number 15 and asked what the notation of "lot combination pending" means. Assistant Associate Planner Trinh replied that question can be deferred to the applicant and explained that the applicant is not combining the lots and it may be a typo. Commissioner Eng referred to Buildings A and B and asked if they are both intended for Restaurant Use. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if more than one restaurant is being considered. Acting Associate Planner replied that can be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Eng stated when calculating the FAR, McDonald's was also included and asked if the total square footage dedicated for restaurant use is 13,378 square feet and is that about 46% of the gross floor area. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Commissioner Eng stated this question may be for the applicant but she would like to get a sense of why having another restaurant use is important to this project. She asked staff what was the prior parking standard that was used in the parking analysis for this project. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied in "2005" the applicant proposed retail and office use so it is one (1) space per two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor space. She stated for McDonalds it was one (1) space per one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area Commissioner Eng referred to the 153 planned parking spaces and asked if that included the McDonald's parking spaces. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Commissioner Eng read Condition of Approval number thirty -five (35) from the Staff Report and asked once the buildings are developed will this'mean the parking reciprocal will go both ways. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied yes, and explained the agreement states all three parcels will share the parking. Commissioner Eng stated according to the site plan, each of the two building's will have 13 units and there will be a total of 26 tenants. She added if each of the tenants have two employees, then it would take up 52 parking spaces leaving only 101 parking spaces for customers. She expressed concern and recommended the Planning Commission take that into consideration. She asked if the 3 ft. wall that is shielding the residences on the Hidden Pines Drive (Building B) from lights take into account lights from SUV's because the site plan shows a regular vehicle. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied the lighting was previously approved with the project and explained that is why the lighting was not reviewed with the use of this project. Commissioner Eng expressed that there is a nexus and explained that a restaurant use is more intense and will have more activity. She expressed concern because there will be late hours and if the restaurant is in Building A or B she would like to make sure the Planning Commission will be able to mitigate the impacts for the Hidden Pines Lane residents. She asked where the HVAC equipment will be located. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied the mechanical equipment will be on the rooftop shielded by a parapet. Commissioner Eng asked if there is a signage program proposed. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied a Master Sign Program has not been approved yet. Commissioner Eng asked if there are plans to have one. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied the applicant is working on it.` Commissioner Eng stated there are trees proposed for this development and asked if Public Works had been consulted in regards to the trees. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked what type of drainage plan is being proposed. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied the drainage plan was approved previously with the original project and was not being reviewed tonight. Commissioner Eng asked if Public Works is working on this. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied both the Public Works and the Building Department worked on it and already approved it. Commissioner Eng referred to the entrance on Valley Boulevard and explained there is an opening that leads to the wash and there is a similar opening on Walnut Grove Avenue. She asked if the openings will be secured for safety concern& Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied that question may be deferred to the applicant. Chair Ruiz thanked'Commissioner Eng for her questions. Commissioner Eng stated that this project was started in "2003" and is pleased that there has been progress towards completion. Chair Ruiz stated it is important to complete this development but there have been some major concerns that have been brought up by the community and Commissioner Eng that the Planning Commission should address. Commissioner Herrera stated she has concerned with the openings to the wash also and what the aesthetics of the development will look like for the community. 11 Vice -Chair Hunter referred to the Conditions of Approval, dated July 18, 2005, and read number thirty -seven (37). She asked why at that time no restaurant and food uses were being permitted in Building A and B but they are now. Chair Ruiz stated they are not permitted and explained it is up to the Planning Commission to allow the restaurant use. He explained that the initial project may have not wanted restaurant use and only wanted retail /office use. He added the Planning Commission in "2005" had their reasons for writing this Condition of Approval and the applicant is now requesting restaurant use. Vice -Chair Hunter asked is there a reason why it is being considered now Community Development Director Ramirez stated it is an allowed use andrit`is'not known why this Condition of Approval included. Commissioner Eng addressed Chair Ruiz and stated Commissioner Herrera was on the Planning Commission in "2005" and asked her if she recalled why this Condition of Approval may have been added. Commissioner Herrera replied she does not recall why that Condition of Approval was added. Vice -Chair Hunter asked Commissioner Herrera if she was on the Planning Commission in "2005 ". Commissioner Herrera replied she could have been but she does not recall. Chair Ruiz asked Commissioner Herrera if the McDonalds was already developed. Commissioner Herrera replied she does not recall if it was or not. She explained that the Condition of Approval may have been included because they were not considering restaurants at that time: Chair Ruiz stated that he is not concerned with parking but he is concerned with the combination of all three lots and allowing the other tenants to park at McDonalds. He stated he is also concerned that by bringing in another restaurant it will create more traffic compared to the office space usage. He asked staff if a traffic study had been done and what type of impact it would be to the community. He asked staff if they had acquired a traffic report from Public Works or the Traffic Engineer., Assistant / Planner Trinh replied the applicant did submit a traffic parking study and it was reviewed by the Joanne Itagaki; Traffic Consultant, and found to meet the parking standards. Chair Ruiz asked if staff received an actual report with the numbers and did they give the proposed or estimated amount of traffic count if this project is approved. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied yes and added the applicant's traffic consultant is present to answer these questions if requested. Chair Ruiz asked staff if she had received this in a document and if it is available at tonight's meeting. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied yes, she does have the document but it is not available tonight. Commissioner Herrera asked Chair Ruiz with proper ingress and egress would that not relieve traffic concerns. Chair Ruiz expressed he is concerned with the ingress and egress. Commissioner Herrera stated that there are three egresses and ingresses located on Walnut Grove, Valley Boulevard, and one at McDonalds. Chair Ruiz expressed that the ingress and egress at McDonalds is very congested. Vice -Chair Hunter stated that may be why restaurant use was not approved previously due to traffic concerns. Chair Ruiz stated he agrees. Commissioner Eng asked staff how the 10,000 square feet for restaurant use was determined Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied that the applicant proposed that number. Chair Ruiz opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to the podium. Corkran Nicholson stated he is present on behalf of the applicant and is the Planning Consultant for Simon Lee & Associates. He added that Simon Lee & Associates (applicant) and the traffic engineer is not present tonight. He added he is present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Eng asked why a restaurant use is important to this project. Corkran Nicholson replied they would like to furtherdiversify and enhance the project and to do so they thought it would be appropriate to add an eating establishment in Buildings A and B. He added the surrounding commercial developments have restaurant establishments. Commissioner Eng asked what type of restaurant they are envisioning (e.g. a chain restaurant, a large restaurant, or two separate restaurants). Corkran Nicholson replied it could be all of the above, it is the flexibility that they desire. Commissioner Eng asked how the 10,000 square feet for restaurant usage was determined. Corkran Nicholson replied he is not aware of the feasibility study and the main concern was on -site parking and circulation. He stated that it was dictated by square footage and to fully comply they have exceeded on -site parking that has been established by the City Code and the review of city staff. Commissioner Eng referred to the site plan dated May 2, 2013 and asked what does the notation of lot combinationpend ng mean. Corkran Nicholson replied the lots will not be consolidated as previously mentioned by the Chair. He reported that there is a proposed driveway reciprocal easement for parking and accessibility to allow all the properties to utilize the parking. He reported McDonalds by itself does not comply with code, so this will aide them also. He stated it is very important to have that reciprocal agreement. Commissioner Eng stated she agrees that the reciprocal agreement is important and is needed. She expressed that she is concerned with the restaurant usage in Building B, which is facing the residential property, and the impact it will have on those residents. She expressed that the fence is only 3 ft. tall and will not shield headlights from SUV's parking. She asked Mr. Nicholson if he had any suggestions or idea's to mitigate that concern. Corkran Nicholson replied mitigation has already been incorporated in the covering of the drainage channel. He explained the parking is not accessible from the residential area and reported that was intentionally done. He added that there is a drawing showing a fence wall detail shown on Al sheet which shows the shielding of the lights. There is also a 12 ft. landscape buffer beyond that parking area, which is shown on the site plan, and added heavy vegetation will also be put in place. Commissioner Eng asked if the 12 ft. distance is between the wash and the property is it the width and not the height. Corkran Nicholson replied yes, it is the width and substantial landscaping can be put in. Commissioner Eng referred to the site plan and expressed concern that there is easy access to the wash on Walnut Grove and asked if there is proposed fencing or security to prevent someone from entering the wash. Corkran Nicholson replied there will be fencing or masonry material that will have to be approved by the Los Angeles County. Chair Ruiz expressed that he has questions and major concerns with the traffic counts but Mr. Nicholson is not a Traffic Engineer so he does not have any questions. Corkran Nicholson stated Chair Ruiz is asking for hard numbers and those numbers were provided in the traffic study. Chair Ruiz stated that was provided to staff but they do not have that the Traffic Study report for us. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that the City Traffic Consultant did review the Traffic Study, which has already been previously approved. Chair Ruiz asked staff if the numbers were correct. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied yes, according to the Traffic Consultant. Chair Ruiz reiterated that he has major concerns with traffic even if the numbers were right and after listening to the community's comments. He thanked Mr: Nicholson for his presentation and comments. Mitsuo Swada (Mike), resident and Vice- President of the Hidden Pines Homeowners Association, expressed concern that if Modification 13-01 is approved, it will create more traffic. He explained that currently vehicles are turning ontotbeir private street by mistake and damaging sprinklers, fences, and lawns. He expressed concern that restaurant usage may also bring, in more traffic_ compared to office /retail use. He added the Hidden Pine residents currently have difficulty exiting onto Valley Boulevard and cannot turn westbound. He showed the Planning Commission apicture of the fencing' separating this site and the Hidden Pines property and expressed the height of the fence is not tall enough. He stated that an invasion of privacy of this property is going to be violated and he is also concerned with security. Chair Ruiz requested the record state that Mike Swada feels this project will be an invasion of his privacy Mitsuo Swada also requested that the Traffic Commission consider installing a "Keep Clear" zone at the entrance of the Hidden Pines site so it may be easier for the tenants of Hidden Pines to make a westbound turn on Valley Boulevard. Chair Ruiz stated that a "Keep Clear' zone is what would need to be requested and can be whether this project is approved or not through the Traffic Commission and Public Works Division. He directed staff to make this request on behalf of Mitsuo Swada. 7 Community Development Director Ramirez informed Chair Ruiz that Mitsuo Swada would have to make that request himself and may speak to the Public Works Director directly to obtain direction on how to address the Traffic Commission Chair Ruiz stated that is why he is making this statement right now, that he is making the request for Mitsuo Swada, so that our staff makes connection with Chris Macarello, so that he can take it to Mitsuo Swada and give him his answers. He addressed Mitsuo Swada and stated he is making this request on the record for him, which is something he can do as the Chair, so that it is noted. He stated this will go down to the Public Works Director so he can send it up to the Traffic Commission. He added we will see what happens because they do not have any jurisdiction over that. Mitsuo Swada stated that if the restaurant usage is approved he is concerned with trash receptacles being left open and creating odor /hygiene concerns which this is another reason why they are, requesting the fencing height be taller. He expressed they currently have these concerns with the Valley Plaza, which is located next door to this site. Brian Lewin, resident recommended that the Planning Commission address the Condition of Approval regarding the reciprocal parking due to concerns in the past regarding parking issues and uses. He stated he did not have access to the plans on -line and requested that staff require a. PDF version of plans from applicants so they may be downloaded and viewed by the residents. He expressed he is concerned with, site lines with the two.new proposed driveways. He referred to the driveway on Valley Boulevard and stated it appears to have a proposed block wall and foliage and expressed concern that there may be a lack of visibility exiting this driveway. He referred to the driveway on the southernmost exit on Walnut Grove Avenue and asked if the building is built up to on the property line on the sidewalk or is there going to be a decorative thing,walkability, or will there be space there. Acting Associate Planner Trinh replied that question can be addressed by the architect. Chair Ruiz stated this can be discussed with the consultant and confirmed that Lewin is asking if this building is up to the property line and how far away is if from the actual curb. Brian Lewin replied it appears it is up to the property line and the sidewalk is very narrow but possibly with the safe route to school sidewalk improvements the sidewalks may get widened. He reiterated his concern of the foliage issue on the other side,. He recommended using a convex mirror for visibility concerns at exits. r. Acting Associate Planner Trinh referred to Mr. Swada's comment regarding the fencing and stated staff has requested'that the developer propose a'4 ft. fence instead of a 3 ft. fence, however it was approved at 3 ft., and the developer does not feel the need to ,raise the height. Chair Ruiz expressed concern that the developer is asking for 10,000 square ft. for restaurant use and is not willing to give the community a 6 ft. wall in return. He expressed that it is not fair. Vice -Chair Hunter stated thafshe'cannot vote on this project tonight and explained there are too many factors to consider such as the parking situation, fencing, and restaurant square footage /usage concerns. Chair Ruiz expressed parking is not a problem to him, but looking at the overall comments made tonight such as the developer not willing to put up a wall to help the community is wrong. He expressed that it is wrong to give the developer what they want and they do not give anything back in return. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated that it sounds like there are two Planning Commissioners that would like to see the traffic study that was done and if three of them would like to give that direction, then the Public Hearing could be Continued to a date certain with the Public Hearing continued open. He added they can receive an additional report from staff, receive additional testimony from the applicant, and the community before reaching their decision. Chair Ruiz stated this will need to be tabled and asked the Planning Commission if they agree. Commissioner Eng stated she would support that and she appreciates the President of the Homeowners Association coming forward and would like to encourage staff to work with the applicant to help mitigate some of the concerns. Chair Ruiz commented the Planning Commission will need to know what type of restaurants are being proposed and currently there are many restaurant down the street and adding more will create a lot more traffic. Vice -Chair Hunter asked if maybe reducing the restaurant usage to 1,000 sq. ft. might help the traffic and parking concerns. Chair Ruiz replied it could possible help. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, addressed the Planning Commission and stated rather than trying to reach a decision, while the Public Hearing is still open, he recommended that, direction be given to staff that they work with the applicant and bring the traffic study as part of the next staff report. He added after speaking with the Community Development Director Ramirez it looks like the second meeting of June would be the appropriate time to set. He asked for a motion to Continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting date of Monday, June 17, 2013, then staff can work with the applicant and bring something back to answer the communities questions and answer the Planning Commission questions as well. Commissioner Eng made a motion to Continue Modification 13 -01 to June 17, 2013. Chair Ruiz checked his calendar and stated he would be able to attend the meeting on June 17, 2013. Vice -Chair Hunter stated she will be on vacation June 17,2013 and will not be able to attend this meeting. Chair Ruiz stated he will be here for the June:17, 2013 meeting. Vice -Chair Hunter reiterated she will not be able to attend June 17, 2013 and will be on vacation. Community Development Director Ramirez stated we can postpone the meeting to the first meeting in June (which will be June 3, 2013) and if it cannot be done by then, it can be postponed again to June 17, 2013. Commissioner Herrera stated she`will be able to attend both of these dates. Chair Ruiz stated he may be able to attend the June 3, 2013 meeting but June is a very busy month for him. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, confirmed that it this item will be Continued to Monday June 3, 2013 and if not ready it will be postponed to June 17, 2013. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Hunter to Continue Modification 13 -01 to the June 3, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None W 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes - March 18, 2013 B. Planning Division Entitlement List Commissioner Eng thanked staff for the minutes and referred to page 15, paragraphs 3 and 4, and recommended that in the future additional detail be provided in the minutes for the public record. She also thanked staff for the Entitlement List. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Hunter approve the Consent Calendar as is. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Hunter, Ruiz No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF None 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS' Commissioner Herrera expressed concern with the property maintenance located on Delta Avenue and Valley Boulevard. She stated there. is graffiti, the green barrier is ripped, the property is a mess and construction is taking too long. Community Development Director Ramirez stated she will check on the status of the CRM that was placed for this location. Vice -Chair Hunter expressed concern with the Southern California Edison property located on Mission Drive and Walnut.Grove'and stated it"is continuously in need of property maintenance. She stated it is always full of weeds and doessnot understand why it is not taken care of by Southern California Edison. Community Development Director,Ramirez stated the Public Works Director is currently working with Southern California Edison on this property.. Chair Ruiz expressed concern that nothing has been done with the property maintenance located on Temple City Boulevard and Valley Boulevard.' He stated it looks like a dump site and asked if the city can clean it up and charge the property owner. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that the Code Enforcement/Public Safety Division have procedures that they follow. She stated a "CRM" has been submitted and staff will follow up on the status. She recommended that Chair Ruiz contact the Public Safety Division directly. Chair Ruiz stated he has contacted Code Enforcement Officer Wayne Co twice and has not received a phone call back from him. 10 Community Development Director Ramirez stated she will contact Sergeant Able Moreno and have him call Chair Ruiz. Chair Ruiz asked Community Development Director Ramirez to give his cell phone number to Sergeant Able Moreno and stated he would talk to him because he will get things done. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, June 3, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. Victor Ruiz Chair ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 11