Loading...
PC - Minutes - 01-21-14Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 21, 2014 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7.02 p.m. by Chair Herrera in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Lopez INVOCATION - Community Development Director Ramirez for Commissioner Tang ROLL CALL - Commissioners Dinh, Lopez, Tang, and Chair Herrera ABSENT - Vice -Chair Eng ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, Associate Planner Trinh, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MODIFICATION 13 -06 - Gerard Ngo has submitted a Modification application requesting to modify Design Review 03 -112 (Modification), to permit 20,000 square feet of restaurant and fast food uses and 10,000 square feet of retail and office uses within the commercial shopping center, located at 8508- 8522 Valley Boulevard in the C-31) (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. PC RESOLUTION - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING MODIFICATION 13 -06, TO MODIFY DESIGN REVIEW 03 -112 (MODIFICATION) TO PERMIT 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT AND FAST FOOD USES AND 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL USE WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT 8508.8522 VALLEY BOULEVARD (APNS: 5371 -010 -803 AND 805). Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 14- 02 with findings (Exhibit "A ") and APPROVE Modification 13 -06, subject to the thirty -four (34) conditions outlined in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and contingent upon the Los Angeles County Fire Department's approval of the project. Associate Planner Trinh presented the staff report. Chair Herrera asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. None Chair Herrera stated Vice -Chair Eng is not present this evening but has forwarded her questions. Her first question is how many restaurants are there currently in this shopping center. Associate Planner Tdnh replied currently there are six (6). Chair Herrera for Vice -Chair Eng read by adding 5,000 square foot of restaurant use and by reducing retail use from 15,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet, with new construction for the additional 5,000 square foot restaurant use, and asked if this will change parking calculation standards. Associate Planner Trinh replied for shopping centers all uses are parked at one (1) per two- hundred and fifty (250). Chair Herrera for Vice -Chair Eng asked if future retail space is needed will it need to come back to the Planning Commission for another modification approval. Associate Planner Trinh replied no. Chair Herrera asked for Vice -Chair Eng why a solid roof covering is not being required for trash enclosures, considering there is 5,000 square feet of additional restaurant use, which is a substantial increase, approximately thirty- percent (30%) She also referred to nexus to exits due to impact of increase of intensity use Associate Planner Trinh replied the existing trash enclosures are fully enclosed. Chair Herrera asked for Vice -Chair Eng if the additional 5,000 square foot space for restaurant use will be used by Shaanxi Gourmet. Associate Planner Thin replied the Shaanxi Gourmet Restaurant will occupy an additional 3,912 square feet. She explained that after speaking with the applicant there may be other restaurants that may want to expand and that is why 5,000 square feet was added. Chair Herrera referred to page four (4) of the staff report and read a sentence "For these reasons, it is recommended that the approval of this project is contingent upon the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's approval ". She asked for Vice -Chair Eng why this is not in the Conditions of Approval, Community Development Director Ramirez stated it is listed in Condition of Approval number one (1). Chair Herrera referred to Condition of Approval number six (6) for Vice -Chair Eng and recommended that the word "calendar" be added to "ten (10)" days, to be clear on the time frame. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the City Municipal Code reads "within ten (10) days" and asked City Attorney Murphy if this concern will need to be clarified. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, explained that unless it said business days, or days that City Hall is open, or something else, the presumption under the law is calendar days. He added because it exactly extracts the language under the Municipal Code we would prefer to keep it that way rather than saying something like calendar or sometimes not. Chair Herrera opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Mike Orduno, representative for Mr. Gerad Ngo, explained he previously worked for Southern California Edison and this had been his project and is present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have Commissioner Lopez referred to the Fire Department disapproval and asked what is different currently than when the Fire Department originally disapproved this. Mike Orduno replied there is an existing facility now and in the past Resolution twenty-seven (27) was passed, which prohibited many projects from going through, and since then they do not do retail operations anymore. Commissioner Lopez asked if this project will not go forward until the Fire Department approves it. Mike Ordono replied yes. Commissioner Lopez asked Mike Ordono if they have heard from the Fire Department. Mike Orduno replied that the tenant may have a consultant that is in contact with the Fire Department. Community Development Director Ramirez addressed the Chair and clarified that Condition of Approval Number one (1) specifically states that this approval has to come from the Los Angeles County Fire Department. She explained staff did send this project to the Fire Department for review and did not receive any feedback from them. She added staff does not anticipate any feedback until it is processed through the Building and Safety Division Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification on how the Planning Commission should approve this if it is pending on the Los Angeles County Fire Department approval. Community Development Director Ramirez explained if the Los Angeles County Fire Department does not approve the project, then the project dies. She explained it would then be up to the applicant to decide if they would like to go through the appeal process to be heard at the City Council level. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification that the Planning Commission is only approving this with the Los Angeles County Fire Department approval. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that is correct. Brian Lewin, resident, asked staff if the Los Angeles County Fire Department approval could have been obtained prior to bringing this before the Planning Commission to save time. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no. Brian Lewin stated that the trash enclosures are fully enclosed but he believes what Vice -Chair Eng was refemng to, is that in the process of updating the Conditions of Approval to the current standards, why were the conditions not updated, because that condition of approval was the old one and recommends that it should have the current wording for that condition of approval. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that this application was submitted prior to the new Zoning Codes going into effect. Brian Lewin asked which application she is referring to. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the application that is being reviewed tonight. Brian Lewin commented that Conditions of Approval are not codes. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff follows the Zoning Codes that are in place at the time the application is submitted. Brian Lewin asked if that was started two years ago, Community Development Director Ramirez replied that it was never in the Zoning Code, it was a policy that the Planning Commissioners requested at their level. Brian Lewin stated that the Planning Commission has been routinely using that Condition of Approval for about two years now. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that if the Planning Commission would like to add that Condition of Approval they may do so tonight, but staff may not do it. Chair Herrera asked staff if the current trash enclosure is enclosed. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Brian Lewin commented from the audience that it is not in the conditions of approval and does not have the standard upgrade. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that this application was submitted under the old code and the old code did not require trash enclosures to be enclosed. She stated the new code does have such a requirement and can any new application received after November 22nd will have that specific language in their conditions. She added anything submitted prior to that date, staff cannot add that condition but the Planning Commission may request for that to be added and if the applicant agrees, then it may be done. Associate Planner Trinh explained that Condition of Approval number twenty -eight (28) states that, "All attached trash enclosures on -site shall be fully enclosed, the walls shall have a smooth stucco finish, and the color shall be comparable to that of the main structure. All trash enclosures shall also have opaque steel self - closing and self - latching doors. All trash enclosures shall be locked at close of business daily." Brian Lewin stated fully enclosed usually means having a 360 degree around it, but not necessarily above it. Chair Herrera commented that it would include the roof cover also. She asked if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Herrera closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Dinh asked where the trash enclosures are located and how many trash containers are there. Associate Planner Tnnh replied the trash enclosure is attached to the building and it looks like it is part of the building. Commissioner Dinh asked if each building has a trash enclosure. Associate Planner Tnnh replied each building has a trash enclosure and they are attached to the building. She stated one trash enclosure is located behind "Tip Top', there is another in between the alley, there are some trash enclosures behind the building (which look like utility rooms), and there is another behind "AJ Hot Point ". Commissioner Dinh asked if there is one for this restaurant due to the expansion Associate Planner Tnnh replied yes Commissioner Tang arrived to the Planning Commission meeting at 7:16 p.m. and apologized if his questions had been asked already. He asked if the Fire Department conducted an inspection in "2009" and "2010" when the Design Review was submitted. Associate Planner Tnnh replied no. Commissioner Tang asked if the Fire Department had objected. Associate Planner Tnnh replied yes, and explained that a third party got involved. She added the third party did the inspections and reviews. Commissioner Tang asked if the third party inspections were shared with the Fire Department and was the Fire Department satisfied with those results and findings. Associate Planner Trinh replied no. Commissioner Tang asked if that would have been sufficient to the Fire Department satisfaction if those findings had been shared and that the construction and development did meet the standards based on the third party review. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the condition of approval specifically states that the applicant will have to receive the County of Los Angeles Fire Department approval and does not reference to a third party. She explained if they do not receive the Los Angeles County Fire Department approval, then it would be up to the applicant to make a filing with the City to see if the City Council would allow that original process to take place again. She stated that is not under review this evening. Chair Herrera asked if the Los Angeles County Fire Department says no, and it goes through City Council can they say yes. Community Development Director Ramirez replied for the project going through no, but an option may be that a third party be hired like in the past. She added that she is not sure what options would be offered to them since that is something the applicant would be seeking from the City Council and this Is not anything staff is prepared to discuss this tonight. Commissioner Tang asked if there is something in the code that it is required to have some type of validation from the fire department or a third party. Community Development Director Ramirez replied through Building and Safety there are certain things that will require fire department approval. Commissioner Dinh asked if the Los Angeles Fire Department does not approve a development like this in the future, and if there is a natural disaster such as an earthquake, does that mean that the Los Angeles County Fire Department will not have any responsibility to that area Community Development Director Ramirez replied she cannot speak on behalf of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Commissioner Tang asked if the Los Angeles County Fire Department gave any justification as to what they were against besides being a development that was being built under the Edison high voltage area. Community Development Director Ramirez replied not that she is aware of and this was done prior to her and Associate Planner Trinh's involvement. Chair Herrera asked if there were any other questions or comments. None Chair Herrera asked for a motion. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tang, to ADOPT Resolution No. 14 -02 with findings (Exhibit "A ") and APPROVE Modification 13 -06, subject to the thirty -four (34) conditions outlined in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and contingent upon the Los Angeles County Fire Department's approval of the project. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: I Community Development Director Ramirez explained the ten (10) day appeal process B. MODIFICATION 13 -07 - Shaanxi Gourmet has submitted a Modification application requesting to modify Conditional Use Permit 11.12, to expand the existing On -Sale Beer and Wine (Type 41) ABC license for Shaanxi Gourmet located in Units 101 and 102 into Units 103 througli within the same commercial building, located at 8518 Valley Boulevard, Units 101.105 in the C -31) (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. PC RESOLUTION - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION 13.07, A REQUEST TO MODIFY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11 -12, FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING ON -SALE BEER AND WINE (TYPE 41) ABC LICENSE FOR SHAANXI GOURMET LOCATED IN UNITS 101 AND 102 INTO UNITS 103 THROUGH 105 WITHIN THE SAME COMMERCIAL BUILDING, LOCATED AT 8518 VALLEY BOULEVARD, UNITS 101.105, IN THE C -31) (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (Al 5371- 010 -803 AND 805). Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 14- 03 with findings (Exhibit "A ") and APPROVE Modification 13 -07 subject to the thirty -three (33) conditions outlined in Exhibit "B" attached hereto contingent upon the Los Angeles County Fire Department's approval of the project. Associate Planner Trinh presented the staff report. Community Development Director Ramirez clarified that there are thirty-three conditions of approval and explained that when looking at the staff report there are two (2) number one's (1's). She stated this will have to be renumbered to show thirty -three conditions of approval. Chair Herrera stated Vice -Chair Eng is absent this evening and she would like to know how many ABC licenses (Type 41) are in this shopping center Associate Planner Tnnh replied there are two (2). Chair Herrera asked for Vice -Chair Eng what is the current sealing capacity. Associate Planner Tnnh currently it is sixty-eight (68). Chair Herrera thanked staff and stated those were the only two questions from Vice -Chair Eng. She asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff. None Chair Herrera opened the Public Hearing and asked if the applicant is present, Community Development Director Ramirez stated the applicant is the same that spoke for Item 3.(A) and is available to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Chair Herrera asked if there is anyone for or against this project and invited Brian Lewin to the podium. Brian Lewin, resident, stated he did not have any concerns with this site, as there have not been any problems regarding alcohol or crimes reported in the immediate area. He requested that the Planning Commission consider a policy discussion in regards to ABC licenses. He stated the staff report mentions there is a over concentration of ABC licenses in this census tract and in the Target shopping center. He asked if the Planning Commission would consider having a specific policy and explained right now there is a general policy to concentrate the uses, but eventually you are going to get to a point that you have to consider do you want to have more in that particular census tract. He stated he is not asking this be considered at this moment, but in the future for potential applicants. He suggested using a ratio or the number system which the City of Pasadena uses. He stated as a resident he would appreciate if there was a specific policy. Chair Herrera asked if this is based on incidents also. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated Mr. Lewin brings up a very good point and explained the over concentration takes in account the census tract that could be land vdthin the City of Rosemead, land that is outside of the city, and on some other census tracts. He stated that ABC looks at a census tract and says a certain number of ABC licenses are allowed per census tract and if you want to go above that, it is up to the local jurisdiction to make up a policy decision and rather than spreading the alcohol licenses around the city, they like to cluster them around certain areas. He referred to the comparison made to the City of Pasadena and explained that for a period of time they promoted the concentration of ABC licenses in some areas, and then evolved into capping them in the very same areas because at the start they wanted as many restaurants and alcohol serving places as they could to be in an entertainment area He added as soon as the entertainment area was developed, they then wanted to see that limited and wanted other uses mixed in as well He slated those are issues the Planning Commission may consider and also for the City Council to consider because they go to the overall economic development of the City and the council's policies or long range planning that it would do because it is land use planning and it is something to be considered in the future . Commissioner Tang asked which unit the new retail area will be in Associate Planner Tnnh replied Unit 101. Commissioner Tang asked what they will be selling. Lisa Guan, representative of the owner Shaanxi Gourmet, replied the retail area will be selling souvenirs. Commissioner Tang asked if the alcohol will be served in the retail area. Lisa Guar, representative of the owner Shaanix Gourmet, replied no and that the ABC license moved to Units 103- 105. Community Development Director Ramirez stated there is a Condition of Approval in the staff report stating they cannot serve alcohol in the retail area. Chair Herrera asked if there were any other questions or comments for this item. None Chair Herrera closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Dinh asked if there is a security guard on the premises currently. Associate Planner Tnnh replied yes. Commissioner Dinh asked if the Security Guard hours will remain the same. Associate Planner Tnnh replied yes. Commissioner Dinh referred to the Floor plan of the restaurant and pointed out that the kitchen is way in the back and that seating is up to the front. She asked how is it possible for a person to bang the food out and is it necessary to have all that office storage area or could it be part of the restaurant or can it be used for something else. Associate Planner Tnnh replied the applicant would like to keep everything existing to remain and the owner does not want to move the kitchen due to the cost. She also pointed out that there are openings that lead from the kitchen to the storage and dining area. Commissioner Dinh asked what the storage area is used for. Lisa Guan replied it is used for restaurant supplies. Chair Herrera pointed out that Condition of Approval number nineteen (19) references to the securry guard question. She asked the Planning Commission if there were any other questions or comments. None Chair Herrera asked if the Planning Commission would like to make a motion. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to APPROVE Modification 13.07 subject to the thirty -three (33) conditions outlined in Exhibit "B" attached hereto contingent upon the Los Angeles County Fire Department's approval of the project. (Number of Conditions of Approval modified to thirty-three (33) by the Planning Commission on 1- 21 -14) Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: Eng Community Development Director Ramirez explained the ten (10) day appeal process. 4. CONSENTCALENDAR Community Development Director Ramirez stated there are no items on the Consent Calendar this evening. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez stated there are two (2) items she would like to remind the Planning Commission of (1) She reminded them that there is a Joint Workshop between the City Council, Planning Commission, and Traffic Commission and gave the date, time, and location to review the Strategic Plan for the years 2014 -2015; and, (2) She reminded them of the Lunar New Year Festivity and gave the date, time, and location of the event. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Lopez asked for an update on the illegal business sign located on Garvey Avenue. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that a "Cl was submitted to have Code Enforcement investigate and she has not received an update. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, February 3, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. ana Herrera Chair ATT ST: ,���% 0 rte!' � // Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary