Loading...
PC - Minutes - 08-15-16 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 15, 2016 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Lopez at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers,8838 E.Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-Commissioner Herrera INVOCATION-Vice-Chair Dang ROLL CALL-Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Tang,Vice-Chair Dang and Chair Lopez STAFF PRESENT-City Attorney Murphy,Community Development Director Ramirez,City Planner Valenzuela,Assistant Planner Lao,and Commission Secretary Lockwood 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Murphy presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE) None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DESIGN REVIEW 16-06 - Starbucks Coffee Company has submitted a Design Review application requesting to convert a former Taco Bell with drive-through into a Starbucks with drive-through, located at 9403-9415 Valley Boulevard (APNs: 8592-009-007 and 008). The scope of work within this proposal includes interior remodel and upgrades, exterior renovations, new outdoor patio with seating, parking lot improvements, new landscaping, new trash enclosure, and replacement of signage throughout. Per Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC)Section 17.28.020(A)(1), in the Design Overlay zone, Design Review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form,texture, color,exterior facade,or landscaping. The subject site is located in the C-31D- 0 (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay)zone. PC RESOLUTION 16-15 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 16- 06, TO CONVERT AND UPGRADE A FORMER TACO BELL WITH DRIVE-THROUGH TO A STARBUCKS WITH DRIVE-THROUGH. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 9403-9415 VALLEY BOULEVARD(APNS: 8592-009-007 AND 8592-009-008), IN A C-31D-0 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 16- 15 with findings(Exhibit"A"), and APPROVE Design Review 16-06,subject to the 26 conditions. City Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report. Chair Lopez asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if they will be replacing the roof. 1 City Planner Valenzuela replied yes Commissioner Eng asked if the HVAC will be on the roof-top. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes, and it will be screened. Commissioner Eng stated the building will look a little more elevated. She also asked if the applicant wants to keep the existing free-standing sign. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant will also have signage on the building. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng stated with all the newness will the free-standing sign be necessary and if the City is transitioning towards monument signs. City Planner Valenzuela explained that it is an existing permitted free-standing sign with only a face-change being proposed. Commissioner Eng commented that the free-standing sign is not necessary and may take away from all the niceness. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions for staff. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Representative Alicia Zaayer gave a brief summary of what the proposed project will include and stated she is present to answer any questions. Chair Lopez asked if the Planning Commission had any questions. Commissioner Eng thanked the applicant and commented that will liven that area up. She asked if all the Starbuck stores have free-standing signs. Alicia Zaayer replied Starbuck's likes to maintain whatever signage currently exists on site. She said as City Planner Valenzuela stated they do have a permitted record of that sign in use. She added that signage is important to Starbucks and they want people to know from a distance where they may want to go. Commissioner Eng stated that free-standing signage is old and they are coming in with a new modern building and asked if they would be willing to change the sign to a monument sign. Alicia Zaayer stated she will refer that question to Ruth Escalante who is the Project Manager. Ruth Escalante replied no, Starbucks likes the visibility of the sign, as it may be seen from a long distance. She added Valley Boulevard is a big street, will have a lot of commuter travel, and Starbucks prefers the visibility. She stated a monument is much lower and will not get as much visibility. 2 Commissioner Eng stated the sign will stand out and expressed that this sign takes away from the niceness of the modernization taking place. City Planner Valenzuela addressed Commissioner Eng and stated that she had spoken with Starbucks and requested a monument sign but was told that if the sign needed to be reduced they probably would not use this location. Commissioner Herrera asked how long will this sign be allowed to stay at this location or does it last indefinitely. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that is correct, City Attorney Murphy explained that it does last indefinitely,there is a value to that, and any party buying or leasing that land is going to take the value of that permitted existing sign in account while looking at acquiring the property. Vice-Chair Dang referred to the elevations in the staff report and asked if the signage on the rendering is off in terms of sizing. He asked if the sign was reduced or if the scale is off. City Planner Valenzuela replied the scale is off. Brian Lewin stated that the general improvements being made at this site enhances it, but the pole sign does not fit aesthetically with the design of the building and does not enhance the final product. He requested that be taken into consideration during their decision. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Tang asked if the Planning Commission is looking at the updated version of the outdoor patio. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes, it is the updated version. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Lopez asked for a motion. Commissioner Tang made a motion,seconded by Commissioner Herrera to ADOPT Resolution No. 16-15 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 16-06, subject to the 26 conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 3 Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with a 5 Ayes and 0 Noes vote and explained the 10-day appeal process. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-05, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-06, DESIGN REVIEW 16-07, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 74334 - Frank Chao has submitted applications for two (2) Conditional Use Permits(CUP), Design Review(DR), and Tentative Parcel Map(TPM)to consolidate five(5) parcels of land into one(1)parcel of land; improve the façade of the existing commercial building; perform interior tenant improvements to establish a total of two (2) units within the existing commercial building; expand the parking and landscape areas on-site; and establish an automobile sales use and automobile rental use in the first and second unit, respectively. Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Table 17.16.020.1, an automobile sales/rentals (no repair) use shall require a Conditional Use Permit. Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.28.020(A)(1), in the Design Overlay zone, Design Review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior façade, or landscaping. Per Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 16.08.130, the Planning Commission may approve or conditionally approve the subdividing of property into four or fewer parcels. The project site is located at 9348 and 9350 Valley Boulevard (formerly known as 9344 and 9354 Valley Boulevard and 9347 Steele Street), consisting of the following Assessor Parcel Numbers: 8594-005-004, 8594.005.005, 8594-005-006, 8594-005-022, and 8594-005-030; and is in a C•31D-0 (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. PC RESOLUTION 16-16•A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-05, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16.06, DESIGN REVIEW 16-07, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 74334, TO CONSOLIDATE FIVE (5) PARCELS OF LAND INTO ONE (1) PARCEL OF LAND; IMPROVE THE FACzADE OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING; PERFORM INTERIOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS TO ESTABLISH A TOTAL OF TWO (2) UNITS WITHIN THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING; EXPAND THE PARKING AND LANDSCAPE AREAS ON-SITE; AND ESTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILE SALES USE AND AUTOMOBILE RENTAL USE IN THE FIRST AND SECOND UNIT, RESPECTIVELY. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 9348 AND 9350 VALLEY BOULEVARD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS 9344 AND 9354 VALLEY BOULEVARD AND 9347 STEELE STREET), CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS: 8594-005-004, 8594-005-005, 8594.005.006, 8594-005-022, and 8594-005-030, AND IS IN A C-31D0 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 16-16 with findings (Exhibit"A"), and APPROVE CUP 16-05, CUP 16-06, DR 16-07, and TPM 74334, subject to the 50 conditions. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Chair Lopez asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if there is a number of auto sale/rental facilities in the City. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if the hours of operation are all consistent for this type of use within the City. Assistant Planner Lao replied she does not have that information available but can provide it later if requested. Commissioner Eng stated she would like to make sure that the hours of operation are consistent. She asked if the cars will be driven onto the lot because the Code requires that on-site loading be provided. She also stated that this issue has been challenged and asked how this has been handled in the past. 4 Assistant Planner Lao replied according to the Off-Street Loading Section 17112.113, it is only required if the applicant is proposing to load the vehicles onto a vehicle transporter. She explained since the applicant is transporting the cars one-by-one off-street loading space is not required, and a condition of approval has been included. Commissioner Eng stated there had been a facility on Garvey Avenue that because of the size of the property was not conducive for them to have on-site loading and conditions were added to make sure loading and unloading did not block traffic or cause congestion. She stated any type of loading and unloading will create more traffic concerns and asked how this has been addressed in the past. City Planner Valenzuela stated staff agrees and suggested that a loading space be added to ensure this does not occur if the Planning Commission would like to request this. Commissioner Eng recommended the Planning Commission consider this addition. She referred to the rental office area and asked staff if the applicant is proposing to replace the garage doors and keeping them as garage doors. Assistant Planner Lao replied the applicant is proposing to use that section as the auto/sales portion and will have a modern open format to display cars with offices surrounding the perimeter of the building. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant wanted to keep that so they may display cars inside. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Commissioner Eng commented that she has not seen that type of configuration for auto sales. She stated this is an office building and is use to seeing office buildings with walls and windows. She referred to the fencing and stated the side and rear perimeter fencing will remain in place and asked how the property will be secured when the business is not operating. Assistant Planner Lao replied the applicant has submitted a security plan, which has been approved by the Chief of Police. She added the applicant is proposing 24-hour surveillance as well as an alarm system. Commissioner Eng asked if the cars will be parked when they are closed. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 17 and asked City Attorney Murphy if there is a way to improve this condition to make sure when loading and unloading it does not impact traffic in that area. City Attorney Murphy stated he will have to defer this to City Planner Valenzuela because she knows more on the proposed operation and to what extent the owner is planning on bringing in vehicles on small haulers or large haulers. City Planner Valenzuela explained that the applicant is not hauling any vehicles with commercial vehicles and they will be picking up the vehicles and driving them onto the site like a normal size vehicle. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant has an off-site storage site. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. City Attorney Murphy stated in light of that information the condition of approval is appropriate as written. 5 Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 20 and stated it may be helpful to the Planning Commission if staff would be able to modify the security plan so if any issues arise they may be addressed. She asked City Attorney Murphy if the Planning Commission has the ability to do this currently. City Attorney Murphy referred to Condition of Approval number 8 and stated the Planning Commission has the ability to review and modify the overall permit. He added in terms of the security plan, staff if deferring the implantation of the security plan to the Sheriffs office, rather than the Community Development Department or Planning Commission. He recommended if the Planning Commission would like to oversee the security plan, then that is something that would need to be discussed with the Chief of Police on how to go about that process. He stated if that is the will of the Planning Commission, then either this matter can be put over to discuss this with the Sheriffs Department or a Condition of Approval can be drafted to meet the Planning Commission's will. Community Development Director Ramirez clarified that Commissioner Eng was asking if there is an issue with the Security Plan does the Chief of Police have the ability to make changes to it. She stated yes, he does. Commissioner Eng stated she just wants to make sure there is that flexibility in that Condition of Approval. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that is correct and it is put into all the standard conditional use permits. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 26 and stated they are still working on a Master Sign Program. She stated she would like to encourage a monument sign if a stand-alone sign is proposed. Community Development Director Ramirez stated if the site does not already have a pole sign they no longer can have it. She added they can only have a monument sign if there is room or it has to have signage on the building itself. City Planner Valenzuela stated free-standing signs are permitted in the City and in the Design Oveday zone the height is limited. She recommended that if a Monument Sign is preferred, and to ensure that it is done,the Planning Commission should condition it. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 26 and recommended that any type of sign be a Monument Sign. Chair Lopez asked what does the City say in regards to signs and what is the applicant allowed to make a decision on. City Planner Valenzuela replied the applicant is allowed a free-standing sign, building signage, and they will need to meet the code standards. Chair Lopez confirmed that the applicant can put those types of signs as long as they are permitted. Community Development Director Ramirez stated roof signs are not permitted. City Attorney Murphy explained that when there is a Design Overlay there is a bit more discretion and it is not what simply can be done but what the different options are for what can be done. He stated in working a Design Review you can work in preferences, but you cannot do that with Starbucks because they had an existing sign and rights. He stated in a situation as this the Planning Commission can certainly say as we approve this design the overhaul of this site, in light of the fact that there is no free-standing sign, any free-standing sign would be of the monument variety 6 and not of the taller full variety. He explained that would be within their discretion because they are granting new rights rather than dealing with pre-existing rights. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that sometimes with a monument sign they may not have enough right-a-way to do a monument sign and in this case they do. She stated in the cases where there is not enough room to put a monument sign then,they would put a free-standing sign. Chair Lopez stated if it is requested that they install a monument sign does the applicant have the right to say they don't want a monument sign, and instead want a free-standing sign. Community Development Director Ramirez replied if the Conditional Use Permit does not allow it, then they cannot and it is the direction of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tang asked what the maximum height is allowed for a free-standing sign. City Planner Valenzuela replied for free-standing signs the code allows it to be 35-feet. She explained monument signs are 6-feet or less. She recommended if the Planning Commission would like to limit the height then this would be the time to do it. Commissioner Eng stated her vision is that a lot of effort is being put forward into beautifying the City and her hope is that the Planning Commission is guiding projects in that direction. Chair Lopez asked if it something needs to be added or is it alright the way it is written. Vice-Chair Dang commented that what he understands is if the owner/developer wants to install a pole sign, then a conditional use permit will need to be obtained and come before the Planning Commission for approval. Community Development Director Ramirez clarified that is not correct and explained if the Planning Commission would like to limit that,then it needs to be done now and included into this condition of approval. Vice-Chair Dang recommended that a condition of approval be made that if a pole sign is requested, then it will have to go before the Planning Commission for approval instead of mandating a monument sign. Commissioner Tang clarified what is being proposed is if the applicant proposes to install a sign, then a condition of approval be added stating the preference would be that it be a monument sign. He added, staff is recommending that it be included this evening if the Planning Commission would like to add this. Commissioner Herrera stated that it cannot be higher than 6-feet. Commissioner Tang stated that it cannot go higher than 6-feet but it can be lower if requested. City Planner Valenzuela stated it can go lower and in this case it has two uses so they would not need a lot of space. She stated at"Grocery Outlet" it is less than 4-feet. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if they would like to add this as a condition of approval. Commissioner Tang requested that it be added and the Planning Commission discussed and agreed that it stay at 6- feet. 7 City Attorney Murphy stated that Condition of Approval number 26 will have a second sentence that will read, "Any sign not attached to the building shall be a monument sign of a height not to exceed 6 feet" He explained when the Public Hearing opens the applicant may be asked if he agrees with the change and then it can be added. Chair Lopez clarified with staff that there is currently not a sign and this is just in case they may request a sign in the future. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Commissioner Tang referred to the south side of the properly and stated there is a light pole which is about 20 feet away and abuts the residential side. He stated this business closes at 8:00 pm and asked if the light illumination will affect the residents,will it dim or shut off after 8:00 pm,and will it impede on the residents. Assistant Planner Lao read Condition of Approval number 25 which addresses exterior lighting. She explained that before final plans are submitted a lighting study is required and staff will ensure the lights are shielded, facing downwards,and not projecting over property lines as required. Commissioner Tang referred to Condition of Approval number 17 in regards to transporting , loading, and unloading of vehicles on a major street and asked if this condition of approval satisfies the restrictions of this. He asked if a commercial transport truck was hired to load and unload vehicles from the medium on Garvey Boulevard would they be allowed to do this based on these conditions of approval. Assistant Planner Lao replied no,they would be in violation because this condition of approval states"Each individual vehicle for sale or rent shall be driven onto the site". She added each vehicle needs to be driven individually and not grouped together. Commissioner Tang stated the way he reads it is that they can drive it on site from the street if they can load it and unload it from there. City Attorney Murphy stated this is the second Planning Commissioner that has brought this up and if there is enough vagueness he recommends changing Condition of Approval number 17 and have the second sentence to read, " Loading and unloading vehicles for sale or rental shall be prohibited on site and on the street adjacent to the site". He explained that will clear up the concerns of the Planning Commissioners and meet what the applicant has said what they are going to do. He explained if the applicant or any future person using the site wants to change the business operation,then they can come back for an amendment. Vice-Chair Dang referred to Condition of Approval number 24 (a), read it, and asked staff since the designer has agreed to do masonry, can chain link and wood be struck out. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that this only has to do with the vacant property during the construction process. Vice-Chair Dang referred to page 6 of 29, it states Conditional Use Permit 16-05, and on page 8 of 29,there is Conditional Use Permit 16-06, and expressed that he was comparing the two and it seems like they have the same text. Assistant Planner Lao explained that there are some changes one says automobile sales and the other one says automobile rentals. Chair Lopez referred to the garages and asked if one is going to be set up for rentals and if the other one will be for sales. 8 City Planner Valenzuela stated the building will be split with one side for sales and the other for rentals. Chair Lopez clarified that the garages will just be used for showcasing. Vice-Chair Dang stated referred to the color chosen for the garage door and asked what color is"glazing color". Assistant Planner Lao replied the garage door is clear aluminum and the"glazing color"is clear glass. Vice-Chair Dang stated if that is the case he would like to request that the designer or architect strike out the word "color and state"garage door with glazing and clear anodizing aluminum". City Attorney Murphy informed Vice-Chair Dang that changes will have to be made after the Public Hearing is opened in case there are other issues/concerns. He added after the designer and applicant make their presentation they may address any question,changes,or concerns that may come up to keep the record clean. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions for staff. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Kai Chan,Architect of the project stepped to the podium to answer questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant is also the property owner. Kai Chan replied yes. He also stated he would like to address some of the previous questions the Planning Commission had discussed. He stated the garage door is to display the more luxurious vehicles inside the showroom. He explained that car sales always have cars parked in the showroom and that is what they intend to do. He also stated the garage door is basically a glass door with glazing and the frame is clear anodized aluminum and is not a glass color. He stated the sign is not a pole sign and indicated the location of the sign on page 3, elevation 1 &2, which is on the building. He stated if there are any further questions he will gladly answer. Commissioner Eng asked what type of experience does the applicant have in terms of car sales and has he been in this type of business for a while. Kai Chan replied yes. He referred to the loading and unloading of the cars and explained that the owner has a body/repair shop in South El Monte near Garvey and Rosemead Boulevard where all the cars will be stored there. He added that the cars will be driven to this location and that this is a small operation, not a large dealership or corporation. Commissioner Eng asked if the car-sales are primarily used-cars. Kai Chan replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if this business is just retail and not wholesale. Kai Chan replied yes. Commissioner Eng stated it was indicated there was a body shop near-by and asked if that was a storage site also for the cars. 9 Kai Chan replied yes, Vice-Chair Dang referred to the shielding of lighting and referred to Landscaping Plan L 1. He pointed out the easterly line is shielded with trees. He asked if the trees were requested by the adjacent property owner. Kai Chan replied yes, they were planted because they knew It was residential and were concerned. He stated the lighting is pretty far away and they will make sure that the shielding will not go beyond the property. Vice-Chair Dang stated this is a good design to have trees provide shelter against the lighting. He recommended that additional trees be planted on the easterly property line and pointed out where exactly on the plans. Kai Chan replied yes and explained where they could plant more trees. Brian Lewin, resident stated he has a lot of concerns with this project with the first one being the City's Municipal Code - RMC 17.112.113(b) an off-street loading and unloading space is required, it is not presented as an optional thing. He read some of the Municipal Code to the Planning Commission and referred to the adjacent part and commented that would not stop them from parking on Rio Hondo. He also stated conditional use permits are not limited to the single-use, so if someone else buys this business from the applicant next year they will be given a free ticket and asked the Planning Commission to consider that. He referred to the garage and stated he is skeptical about that because what they have are bay doors and when you have a display,then you will have open glass where things can be seen easily from the street. He stated from his experience, as working as an inspector, he is suspicious of things that are hidden from the street. He requested that if the Planning Commission is considering approving this project to ensure that this is a complete clear front so that everyone can see what is in there. He expressed he does not see that and he sees potential problems at this location. He requested that in terms of deliveries that it be fine-tuned some more. He expressed that he does not feel this is a good project for this site due to the development around there being offices, is an appropriate use for this site, and opposes this project. He stated he feels this site should be subject to a low impact development standards but the design of the site does not seem to appear to be designed to be compatible with the requirements of a low impact development and he is wondering why that was not the case. He asked why the ramp that is in front of the building was not required to be eliminated, and a full sidewalk be placed there. He added the existing ramp that is for the crosswalk is not current ADA standards and asked why that was not brought up to current ADA standards. He asked the Planning Commission to consider all these concerns. He addressed City Attorney Murphy and asked what the legal description of adjacent is and the legal adjacent meaning would address Valley Boulevard and would not address Rio Hondo. He expressed that there is not any restrictions placed on the number of sale/rental vehicles and restricts them from being parked in the customer or employee areas. He added that some employers make the employee's park off-site so that they can use those parking spaces. He requested that the Planning Commission not approve this project. Assistant Planner Lao stated in regards to the off-street loading space, it is only required if it involves the receipt or distribution by vehicle of materials or merchandise. She explained if the applicant was proposing to have a large tow- truck bring in the vehicles, then the off-street loading would be required. Since he is driving the vehicles in one-by- one the loading space is not required. Chair Lopez asked if the garage doors were all clear glass. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Chair Lopez asked what else Mr. Lewin wanted addressed. 10 Assistant Planner Lao replied the ramp was one of his concerns and she explained that when the plans were sent to the Building Division for review they were returned with no comments. She added if requested the plans can be re- routed to the Building Division to specifically check on the ramp. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that can also be checked during the building stage when construction documents are submitted. If there is something that is not up to ADA standards, then it will be checked at that phase. Vice-Chair Dang addressed some of Mr. Lewin's concerns and stated as far as the ramp on the street, it shows on the plans A-1 that it will be removed and used as a useable sidewalk. He stated in terms of the loading space in a commercial business,you have UPS trucks parking and unloading their material and driving off, but this is different in terms of packages being delivered it will be car deliveries and does not fit the content. He added because there is so much circulation and in the event if a package or mail needing to be delivered there are plenty of locations where they can temporarily park, so loading and unloading such not be an issue. He expressed he is also concerned about the glass doors and that is why he asked about the garage and agrees that future owners should be considered because you cannot control what they are going to do. He stated the glass doors allow anyone to see through it and the property has good line of sight. He recommended that a condition of approval be added stating the glass doors should remain glass so that a new owner cannot come in and switch it to solid doors, and asked if that was possible. City Planner Valenzuela replied in a case like that, and if something is going to be done to the building design wise, it would go before the Planning Commission as a Modification for approval. Vice-Chair Dang stated that is a good point and recommended that if the condition of approval is written it will be a reminder for future owners, staff will know that it was a concern, and it will be a good background resource for the future. Community Development Director Ramirez stated if the Planning Commission would like to add this as a condition of approval it is not a problem and reemphasized this is a Design Review so any changes they make will automatically be required to come back to the Planning Commission. Vice-Chair Dang stated he understands it has to come back but if this is written into the staff report,then it would just lead to clarity for later on if a future owner needs to come back before the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that if this would have to come back before the Planning Commission staff will include the previous staff report and minutes to see what took place at the first meeting. Commissioner Eng stated she supports Commissioner Dang's perspective and expressed if ownership changes, then they can refer to the conditions of approval before making any changes. She added it will save time, and provide clarity to owners and staff, and asked if may be there is a legal reason why it cannot be done. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no,the Planning Commission may add that if they would like to. Commissioner Herrera asked if this would be a two week delay for the applicant. City Attorney Murphy replied this can be added this evening,if it is the will of the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Ramirez stated a Condition of Approval will be added. City Attorney Murphy suggested closing the Public Hearing while he works on this while the Planning Commission continues their discussion. 11 Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission and staff if there were any further comments or questions. City Planner Valenzuela stated Mr. Lewin brought up a very good point and requested another condition of approval be added limiting the number of sales and rentals. Chair Lopez replied he is fine with that. Vice-Chair Dang requested clarification on what is the number, asked if a hard number will be added, and if it is in the Municipal Code. City Planner Valenzuela stated it is the number of vehicles for sale and rentals. She stated it is not in the Municipal Code and this is what staff does for car rental and sales just in case vehicles start to stack up. Vice-Chair Dang thanked staff for the clarification, City Attorney Murphy requested that City Planner Valenzuela read this into the record. He stated that will be Condition of Approval number 32 and all the other conditions of approval after that will have to be renumbered. He stated Condition of Approval number 18 will have a second sentence added stating: 'The proposed rolled up garage doors will remain clear glass and will not be changed out to frosted glass or any other kind of opaque material without review and permission of the Planning Commission'. He explained that way it will be in there and the Planning Commission has a right to look at that. Vice-Chair Dang stated he does not know if this has to be a condition of approval but he requested the additional trees be added also. Community Development Director stated in regards to the trees the applicant has noted to add them in one location but he is not sure about the other. She recommended not conditioning that, in case he is unable to fulfill the condition without studying it,and to work with staff to ensure how much tree coverage can be done. Vice-Chair Dang stated that is a great idea and thanked staff. City Planner Valenzuela stated Condition of Approval number 32 will state: "The site shall be limited to 28 displayed vehicles for sale and 18 displayed vehicles for rental.' City Attorney Murphy recommended that it also state the parking lot on the site shall be limited also and the reason for this is that the applicant is proposing to have additional display vehicles within the building and we don't want to limit what is out in the parking lot. He asked staff if the intent was to know how many spaces are in the lot. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng commented that she shares Mr. Lewin's reservation about the use in this area and whether it is a compatible use. She stated it is not a big site(only a little over 1/2 an acre)and what is being proposed will clean up the site. She stated her concern is because of the intersection and the in-and-out of this use, and if it is appropriate for this location. Chair Lopez asked if there are any further comments or questions. None Chair Lopez requested a motion. 12 Commissioner Tang stated he would like to respond to Commissioner Eng's comment before the vote is taken. He stated he understands this use is located in a unique intersection but he does not foresee that the use changes anything. He added if this was a retail use or a restaurant use, the flow of the in-and-out would be exasperated compared to people wanting to rent cars or buy cars. He stated his comments may not change anything but he wanted to give his input. Vice-Chair Dang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tang to ADOPT Resolution No. 16.16 with findings and APPROVE CUP 16-05, CUP 16-06, DR 16-07, and TPM 74334, subject to the 51 conditions. (Modifications to Conditions of Approval numbers 17, 18, and 26, were made by the Planning Commission on 8-15-16 and Condition of Approval number 32 was added by the Planning Commission on 8-15-16). Vote resulted in: Yes: Dang, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang No: None Abstain: Eng Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Abstain by Commissioner Eng,and explained the 10-day appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 6-20-16 Commissioner Tang stated he would like to pull 4.A due to a typo on page 8 and explained the word "seize" should state"cease". City Attorney Murphy also corrected a typo on page 8 and stated the word"exist"should be"desist". B. Revised Planning Commission Resolution Numbers Commissioner Tang made a motion,seconded by Commissioner Herrera,to approve the Consent Calendar with typo corrections on page 8 to PC Minutes 6-20.16. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the Consent Calendar passes with 5 Ayes and 0 Noes vote. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF A. Annual Review of Walmart Conditions of Approval City Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report. 13 Mark Ostoich, Representative for Walmart stores stated he wanted to report in person on why the solar inverter had not been or will not be relocated. He stated as the planning of it was getting precise the cost was also more precise and turned up being a $277,000.00 dollar project, and they did not expect this to be so expensive. He added the review process went to the corporate level and they began asking questions on why the solar inverter had been requested to be relocated. He stated they asked if there was a problem,a compliance issues, are there noise issues, and unfortunately the answer was no,they are within the noise limits of the City. He stated they were not conditioned to move it and Walmart did represent that they would attempt to relocate it to address Ping's concern. He informed the Planning Commission that they were not successful in getting that approval and as of right now the process has stopped. He wanted to personally apologize for getting ahead of themselves last year. He explained it should of been explored further with the company before stating they would be able to make this happen because they were not able to get approval to do this. He stated he would be happy to answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the noise issue was reported by an adjacent resident near the converter. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the noise level did not exceed the Rosemead Municipal Code noise limit. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang asked if this had been certified by an acoustic engineer or how was it determined. Community Development Director Ramirez stated Walmart conducted and submitted several noise studies that were certified. She added the City of Rosemead also conducted noise studies with a noise reader, which did not exceed the noise levels. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the noise studies were conducted during the day while there is a lot of traffic flowing or was it at night time when people are sleeping. City Planner Valenzuela replied in the past it was conducted at various times within a 24 hour period. Vice-Chair Dang asked if within a 24 hour period the noise level did not exceed the noise ordinance. City Attorney Murphy replied that is correct and this has been done over a number of years. He stated Walmart has continued to pay for and provide the City with certified noise studies over the years and they were taken at different times over the day. He added the last two years the noise studies have come back clean and the second study included the solar inverter. He stated his office has had to advise the Planning Division that there is not much that they can demand because the readings were acceptable. He stated everyone was happy that Walmart was ready to take that on but that is something that cannot be pushed on Walmart because the readings were what they were. He stated the City Engineers office has reviewed those noise studies and the Planning Division has no way to take issue with them and accepting them as legitimate. He added, at this time, the noise issue is relatively resolved unless some new or different issue comes up. Vice-Chair Dang asked if this noise complaint is only from one resident or are there others that came forth afterwards. Community Development Director Ramirez replied there has been one resident, along with his wife. Vice-Chair Dang asked if this resident has subsequently showed up or was it just that one time. 14 Community Development Director Ramirez replied she has not heard from that resident within the last year. Vice-Chair Dang asked Walmart as an active new neighbor have they reached out to the residents or have they just been working with staff. Mark Ostoich replied Alison Wong spoke with Ping about a year ago and that is the last they have heard from him. He added Ping would contact them periodically but he has not contacted them since the last annual review. Commissioner Eng thanked Mr. Ostoich for personally appearing and expressed she is very disappointed. She stated Ping came before the Planning Commission and spoke to Ms. Wong in good faith and since the last review he has not contacted anyone at Walmart because he took in good faith Walmart's Representatives word on it. She stated Walmart's word should be their bond and this is very disappointing. She stated it is the quality of life and Ping was not just speaking for himself, he was speaking in behalf on a number of residents that have given up. She stated the noise does not exceed the noise ordinance, but it is a constant noise. She stated some people are sensitive to noise and they would not want that in their back yard. She reiterated that she is extremely disappointed,Walmart is a very large store,wants to do be a good neighbor, and $277,000.00 is a large amount but it is not too much for Walmart, and if Walmart wanted to do something about it they would to be a good neighbor. She stated it should have not taken Walmart three (3)years to come back and say no. She expressed that the residents were pulled along and finally cooperated with Walmart and have not complained since the last review because Walmart sent an executive to say the noise would be taken care of. Mark Ostoich stated he understands her position and Ms. Wong sincerely believed it would be taken care of. He added something changed subsequently and he is present to apologize personally for getting ahead on this, and he understands Commissioner Eng's position on this. Commissioner Tang thanked Mr. Ostoich for coming personally to address this review and asked if the noise barrier is still up. Mark Ostoich replied there is a partial wall barrier that is still up. Commissioner Tang stated one of the items discussed last year was possibly installing a real sound barrier and not just a chain link with vegetation surrounding it. He asked if there was a possibility of Walmart installing a higher standard of a sound barrier since the solar inverter will not be relocated. Mark Ostoich asked if he could look into that,explore it with Walmart,and contact City Planner Valenzuela within two weeks. Commissioner Tang replied yes and stated that was one idea discussed last year and he does not know what happened to it. Commissioner Tang stated he does not know if Ping and the other residents are present, if they are continuing to hear that noise, and if it still an issue. He asked what options are still being explored. Community Development Director Ramirez stated Ping is present this evening. Mark Ostoich stated this is a suggestion that he will look into and get back to staff. Commissioner Tang stated he does not foresee Walmart or the residents going anywhere soon and he would like to get this mitigated as soon as possible,so this does not goon every year. 15 Community Development Director Ramirez stated as soon as staff has been contacted by Mr. Ostoich they will contact the Planning Commission and City Council members. Vice-Chair Dang stated that relocating the solar inverter is quite costly. He commented that homes that are near LAX, the City mandates high performance windows that blocks noise off. He recommended that perhaps Walmart can entertain the idea of installing this type of window for the nearby residents, if possible, which will provide noise reduction and give the residents better energy efficiency. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions. Commissioner Eng stated she will have a few clarifications with staff. Chair Lopez asked resident Ping to the podium. Ping Liu, resident, stated he attended the Planning Commission meeting two years ago with other residents but they are not here today. He stated at the last meeting he attended there was a Walmart representative that stated the solar inverter was going to be relocated and it was shown on a map where it was going to be relocated. He stated he reported this to the residents and property manager, and he thought this matter was successfully resolved and the reason they never came back to contact City, City staff, and Walmart. He added that he had invited Ms.Alison Wong to their Association meeting but she never did attend and did not contact him. He stated they had faith that Walmart had considered their request and it was presented at the last meeting that the solar inverter would be relocated. He added the residents have been waiting, the noise is still there, he is surprised, and disappointed that Walmart is not going to do anything. He stated he did not receive a notice, a letter, or Agenda about this matter and found out about it by looking at the City's Website. He stated he does not know what to do and agrees that the concrete wall is a good idea to block noise. He explained that the residents never asked for the solar inverter to be relocated because that can be costly, but they did request something be done to block the noise. He requested that something be done to resolve this issue and he hopes the Planning Commission and the City can do something to help the residents in the surrounding area. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that she would like to confirm that it was Walmart that offered to relocate the solar inverter and it was too requested by the residents. She explained the resident's did just request that a more permanent barrier be installed. She added that staff can notify Ping once they hear back from Walmart. Commissioner Tang thanked Ping for attending and representing the community at the Planning Commission meeting. He commented that Cal-Trans use high grades of sound barriers all the time while construction is being completed along the freeways. He suggested that this is something to be looked into. Brian Lewin resident stated he spoke with a woman who has given up on this issue and she stated she would not be attending this meeting because she felt it is not doing any good to appear at these meetings. He said she did indicate that the trees planted along the back wall of Walmart, along Delta Avenue, have helped to a degree in cutting down some of the reverberate but the groundskeeper tends to trim the trees too much, so when that is done you lose a lot of that reverberate effect. He recommended the trees get pruned a lot more modestly so as not to lose that reverberate dampening effect on Delta Ave. He referred to the two issues that John Lawry mentioned at the City Council meetings regarding the deficiencies on site and the overnight parking went completely unaddressed in the main document and apparently did not exist. He stated that there were signage issues that had been raised and those subsequently addressed could've been appropriately put into Condition of Approval number 28, which talks about those signs specifically and the fact they were absent from the main entrance from where they are supposed to be. He added the overnight parking issue itself was only addressed in one line of an email supplement from Lieutenant Somoano's buried in the back of the attachments. He recommended it be appropriate to incorporate references to those things in Condition of Approval number 28 since that would better preserve that for the record in going forward. 16 Community Development Director Ramirez stated that a resident informed staff that a sign had been installed for"no overnight parking" and "no loitering" was not up to the standards that the City had in the condition of approval. She stated Walmart has submitted those signs and they have been approved by staff according to the City's code, as well as the Los Angeles Sheriff's Code. She stated those signs are being processed currently. She expalined when the Annual Review is being conducted,staff is looking for items that have not been done and not into things that they are in the process of doing. She stated that the signs were addressed by Walmart quickly, staff approved them, and she is not sure if any had been installed yet. City Planner Valenzuela replied some of the signs have been installed and she can contact the store manager to ensure that all the signs have been installed in the locations were Mr. Lewin specifically asked. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the reason the solar inverter was discussed is because that was something that Walmart had not addressed. Vice-Chair Dang stated that Condition of Approval number 28 on page 7 of 26 states "no overnight camping" and asked staff if they meant parking or camping. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that it states "no overnight camping'and "no loitering". She added that is what the sign now states and also has the features of the tow company, their phone number, and the proper municipal code number according to the LA Sheriffs Department for citation. City Attorney Murphy stated that signs have been installed and the signs are acceptable to the Planning Department. He added the concerns that were raised were that the signs were not up to the general "no parking" signs, didn't list the municipal code division, and did not list the tow company with their phone number. He stated they weren't meeting the general acceptable standards and in terms of Condition of Approval number 28 that was intended back when the project was approved to make sure these signs went up and warned the public that"no overnight camping"was allowed on this site. He also explained that if you don't have any "no loitering" signs on commercial property,then it is very hard to force someone to leave. He stated when you have those signs up, then the property owner can call the Sheriffs and say we have people loitering on site and get them out. He stated since those signs were acceptable to the Planning Department and, when he reviewed this, he did not see any problem with the issue because this is not a conditional issue as much as it was what the signage should look like issue. He explained from a legal perspective, in terms of conditions of approval and on-going compliance, once the Planning Department approved the initial signs, and as long as the signs stayed up, the condition of approval was being met. He stated the fact that they are being made better is a good thing but in terms of the annual review of compliance it is not something necessarily had to lead to discussion. Commissioner Eng stated the annual review is conducted annually and asked if the staff report will only reflect what is found from its inspection. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, and explained an inspection is done by all the different departments that are involved with the conditions that apply to them. Commissioner Eng asked if there is a way of tracking complaints that come to the City and making sure the complaint is not out of compliance with the condition of approval. She also asked if there is a system in place currently to do that. Community Development Director Ramirez replied there are several ways: (1)they appear at a Planning Commission meeting or City Council meeting where it will be noted and made for the record;and(2) using "Rosemead Around the Clock"on the City website where a complaint can be submitted and will get routed to the Planning Division. 17 Commissioner Eng asked if those complaints would be reflected in the annual report. Community Development Director Ramirez replied if the complaints reflected the annual report, then they would be included. City Attorney Murphy stated when he first started with the City of Rosemead, with an entirely different five (5) member Planning Commission at that time, this report was much longer and had a list of specific complaints that had been raised, how staff had reviewed them, and how Walmart had responded to those complaints. He added the reports were much longer and had much more detail and as time has gone on the issues have shrunk down. He stated he had suggested a few years back that not all the conditions of approval be listed for the Planning Commission to review because so many of the conditions of approval were when building permits were pulled or when a Certificate of Occupancy was granted and, not the Planning Commission, but for other people reading them it can get confusing when you see things like establish something verses things like continuing landscaping,continuing to maintain striping and slurry seal. He stated there are so many conditions of approval and yet the annual review seems to be getting tighter and tighter and less focused because so many of them have been satisfied 5 - 8 years ago and no longer valid. Community Development Director Ramirez clarified Public Works, Building and Safety, Planning, and the Fire Department will review the conditions and let staff know if there is anything that is being violated. She explained staff would lean on Code Enforcement to let them know of any complaints were received. She explained that it is possible that if Code Enforcement received a complaint about property maintenance and it was addressed staff would not put that in the annual report because it was handled. She stated in the future if the Planning Commission would like Code Enforcement to run a report on any complaints they have received on Walmad that can be easily done and attached to the staff report. Commissioner Eng thanked staff and requested that City Planner Valenzuela add last years annual review date on to Condition of Approval number 59 on page 14 of 26. Community Development Director Ramirez stated at this time staff will need the Planning Commission's approval to bring back the Walmart Annual Review in August of 2017. Chair Lopez asked if a motion was necessary. City Attorney Murphy replied a voice vote/motion is all that is necessary. Chair Lopez asked if the Planning Commission if they approve that the Walmart Annual Review will be brought back in August of 2017. Vote Results: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes for the next Walmart Annual Review to take place in August of 2017. She added in the meantime, staff will expect a response from Walmart's attorney letting them know what they can do for that solar inverter, which staff will share with the Planning Commission, City Council, and also the residents that showed up this evening. She also announced the date, time, and location of the Area Watch Committee meeting. She announced that the Survival Summer Camp-Out has been cancelled due to not 18 enough participation this year. She announced the date, time, and location of the 2nd Strategic Plan Workshop and stated it is open to all to participate and give input. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Eng shared that her family went to South Lake Tahoe for vacation. She stated she was impressed with how the City was designed and how it had a lot of symmetry. She added the chain stores even mixed-in with the design,the look,and feel for the City. She stated the City has a vision and you can tell that by the way developments are coming in, which inspired her. She encouraged all to visit South Lake Tahoe and stated our motto is "Today's Small Town America"and when she visited Lake Tahoe she recommended that is what this City should strive for. Chair Lopez shared that his family just got back from Carpentaria, which is on the beach, and they had a great time. Vice-Chair Dang commented that recently there have been two coyotes in his neighborhood and left a half-eaten cat in his front yard. He stated that Temple City recently circulated warning notices reminding residents to keep their small pets indoors and he just wanted to pass on the information. He also reported raccoons have been visiting his pool, damaged some of the equipment, and has defecated in the pool. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that Public Safety is aware that there has been an increase of coyotes and they may have had a workshop to address this issue not too long ago. She stated she will inform the City Manager of his concern. 7. ADJOURNMENT The regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on Monday, September 5,2016 will be Cancelled due to lack of quorum. The next regular Planning Commission will be held on Monday, September 19,2016 a •'0 pm in the Council Chambers. n i .i Cy�Daniel Lopez Chair ATT T: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 19