Loading...
PC - Minutes - 12-19-16 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 19,2016 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-Chair Lopez ROLL CALL-Commissioners Eng, Herrera,Vice-Chair Dang and Chair Lopez ABSENT-Commissioner Tang STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, City Engineer Fajardo, City Planner Valenzuela,Assistant Planner Loa,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 16-08 • Susan Whee Yin Wong has submitted a Design Review application to construct a new two-story, 2,798 square feet single-family dwelling unit with an attached two-car garage and a new 700 square feet detached second dwelling unit with an attached two-car garage.Any dwelling unit to be constructed that equals or exceeds two thousand five hundred(2,500)square feet of developed living area shall be subject to a discretionary Site Plan and Design Review.The project site is located at 9342 Steele Street(APN: 8594-006-004)and in a R-1 (Single-Family Residential)zone. PC RESOLUTION 16-20 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 16- 08, PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY, 2,798 SQUARE FEET SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT WITH AN ATTACHED TWO•CAR GARAGE AND A NEW 700 SQUARE FEET DETACHED SECOND DWELLING UNIT WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE AT 9342 STEELE STREET(APN:8594-006-004),IN A R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 16- 20 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 16-08,subject to the 24 conditions. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Chair Lopez asked it the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. 1 Kamen Lai, Project Designer, gave a brief summary of the project, stated they have worked with staff, agrees to all the conditions of approval,and can answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Eng asked if this will be owner-occupied when completed. Kamen Lai replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant is the current property owner. Applicant representative replied from the audience and stated his mother is the property owner. Vice-Chair Dang thanked Kamen Lai for the project and stated it is a very nice design. He asked what the color of the decorative rod iron will be. Kamen Lai replied it will be black. Vice-Chair Dang asked if he would consider using an earth tone color. Kamen Lai replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang stated that prior projects that Kamen Lai has presented had a 20 it driveway access and asked if the access is less because this project is closer to the street. Kamen Lai replied yes, and explained this lot is shorter and 20 feet is necessary so that the fire department has access to the rear of the property. Vice-Chair Dang asked where the record of the block wall elevation number 3 is on the site plan. Kamen Lai replied it is on the West side and on the site plan it is indicated in a darker color. Vice-Chair Dang asked if block wall number 3 is a new wall. Kamen Lai replied yes. Chair Lopez asked if the Planning Commission if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 16-20 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 16-08,subject to the 24 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng, Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang 2 Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes and 0 Noes and explained the 10-day appeal process. She also explained because City Hall will be closed for the holidays this appeal will end on Tuesday,January 3,2017 at 6:00 pm when City Hall reopens. B. DESIGN REVIEW 15-05 - Tammy Gong has submitted a Design Review application requesting to construct a new 5,645 square foot commercial building consisting of three to four units. Per Rosemead Municipal Code 17.28.020(A), a Design Review is required for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form,texture, color, exterior facade, or landscaping. The subject site is located at 9400-9412 Valley Boulevard (APNs: 8593-001-001, 002, and 003)in a C-3/D-0(Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay)zone. PC RESOLUTION 16-22 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 15-05 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 5,645 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING COMPRISED OF THREE TO FOUR UNITS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 9400-9412 VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE C-31D-0(MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN OVERLAY)ZONE(APNs:8593-001-001,002,and 003). Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No.16-22 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 14-01,subject to the forty-eight(48)conditions. City Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report. Chair Lopez asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if the second story mezzanine will only be used for storage. City Planner Valenzuela replied it will be used for storage or display and cannot be leased out. Commissioner Eng asked if this will be considered as a common area. City Planner Valenzuela replied no. Commissioner Eng referred to the site plan and pointed out there is only one set of restrooms and asked if this is satisfactory for 3-4 units. City Planner Valenzuela replied that is was distributed to the Building Division to review and they had no comments regarding number of restrooms. Commissioner Eng asked if the block wall that abuts the alley in the parking lot area can be moved forward a couple of feet and shrubbery be planted. She added this may reduce noise and deter graffiti. City Planner Valenzuela replied the block wall is required by code and shrubbery will be added to enforce the noise issue, so residents will not be affected. Commissioner Eng read Engineering Condition of Approval number 28 and stated she is concerned that this is a due diligence that should have already been done. City Engineer, Rafael Fajardo, explained that the topographic survey has been done and if you look at the site plan, on Sheet A, it shows the contours and dimensions of the alleys and lots. 3 Commissioner Eng stated she wants to make sure that after their investigation that there is not an impact to the design with their findings. She added she is concerned about viability because when dimensions are determined it impacts egress and ingress Raphael Fajardo reiterated what the topographic survey includes and that it is acceptable to the Engineering Department. Commissioner Eng asked and confirmed that the topographic survey had been done. Raphael Fajardo replied yes, the survey has been done and is indicated on the site plan. He added if there is a discrepancy,then the architect and engineering will be held liable to do any kind of changes, if needed. Vice-Chair Dang asked if an existing curb cut by the driveway located on the corner of Valley Boulevard and Rio Hondo Avenue will be removed. Raphael Fajardo replied yes, the entire sidewalk, driveway, curb, and gutter will be removed and everything will be brand new. He added the sidewalk will be"Barcelona Brown'and will beautify the area. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the existing concrete sidewalk noted on the plot plan will be replaced. Raphael Fajardo replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the Public Works Department has any requirements in regards to street trees. Raphael Fajardo replied yes,the applicant will need to plant two parkway trees, one on Valley Boulevard and one on Rio Hondo Avenue. Vice-Chair Dang asked if there are two parkway trees on Valley Boulevard. Raphael Fajardo replied yes. City Planner Valenzuela stated there will be one parkway tree on Valley Boulevard and it will be 48 inches and the tree on Rio Hondo Avenue will be 36 inches. Vice-Chair Dang asked if there will be in total of three trees on Valley Boulevard. Raphael Fajardo replied yes. 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. Kent Wu,Architect, stated he is present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Eng asked what type of retail use will be at this location. Kent Wu replied the owner will be selling construction type materials and it will be also be used as professional office's. 4 Commissioner Eng asked if the use will be used primarily by the owner. Kent Wu replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang referred to the second level of the floor plan, stated in the circulation area there is 2,000 feet that is not being used,and asked why it is not being used. Kent Wu replied that is the corridor way,which is on the second floor over the garage, and will make the building look better. Vice-Chair Dang stated he likes the design, the way the traffic flow is incorporated, and the way the alley is utilized. He commented that it's a shame there is 2,000 square feet circulation area on the second floor and it will not be able to be used. Kent Wu apologized and stated he has bad hearing and did not understand the question. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the owner of the property would like to address the question instead. Kent Wu replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang asked why the applicant is not planning on using its large circulation area on the second floor. Tammy Woloski, property owner,thanked everyone for the opportunity to present her project. She stated the second floor will not be used because that is an open area and is there to make the building look nice. City Planner Valenzuela explained one of the reasons it is not being utilized is because the floor area ratio is only 35%and there is not a lot you can do with that property. Vice-Chair Dang stated he was looking at the plans and noticed they are over-parked by 5 cars and only 23 is required but the applicant is giving 28. Tammy Woloski stated the purpose for that building is for office only,so parking is not necessary. Brian Lewin, resident, recommended the second floor be enclosed with a decorative design on the exterior, rather than open-air for practical storage purposes. His main concern is traffic circulation and pointed out that Rio Hondo Avenue is a major cut-through street and north bound Rio Hondo Avenue traffic routinely back-ups all the way to Steele Street and beyond. He referred to the initial driveway planned for this use(north of the alley)and if people are trying to turn into that driveway there is only one-lane, it could potentially back-up traffic wanting to go South on Rio Hondo Avenue, and possibly onto Valley Boulevard while people are waiting to turn. He explained this happens all the time and it is not always during rush hour because cars are trying to avoid traffic on Rosemead Boulevard and Valley Boulevard. He recommended that a pork-chop be considered for that driveway and restrict outbound traffic to the North and inbound traffic would only be able to enter off of north bound Rio Hondo Avenue rather than left-turning south bound off of Rio Hondo Avenue to preserve the flow. He also expressed concern with the hours of operation and deliveries, and stated since there is an access entrance that directly abuts the residential properly he recommended it be consider hourly restrictions on delivery times. Al Angel, resident,addressed the Planning Commission and presented a poster board diagram. His comments were (barely audible) and he expressed concerns with traffic backing up to Guess Street, cars parked in the alley way continuously, sewage drainage smells and is filled with sand, which is never cleaned. He proposed that a gate be moved to exit on Valley Boulevard so that traffic will be alleviated on Rio Hondo Avenue. He stated he is not opposed to this project and he would like to see 23 parking stalls instead. 5 Lam Kung, resident,stated she and her mother live on Rio Hondo Avenue and expressed concern that the deck area on the second floor is accessible, people would be able to look directly into their back yard. She stated they are concerned about their safety and security because they have had their home broken into in the past. She expressed concern with traffic on Rio Hondo Avenue because it is congested in the morning and often is backed up. She proposed that the driveway be moved to Valley Boulevard because traffic flows better through Valley Boulevard than Rio Hondo Avenue. She stated there are also two parking spots in front of their home and requested they stay if this project gets approved. Jim Flournoy, resident,asked if there are sprinklers in the common area on the second floor. He also asked if this project is in a Seismic Hazard Mapping Zone and if so, has a Seismic Hazard Mapping Zone review been conducted and approved by the City before approving this project. Tammy Woloski stated she would like to answer a few questions that have been asked. First question was in regards to hours of operations and stated they will be from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. She addressed the concern that someone would be able to see into the neighbors home from the second floor and stated their home is over 100 feet away and expressed it is too far away to look into their home. She addressed traffic concerns and explained she will have 7 employees and this use will not create more traffic. Chair Lopez explained that Rio Hondo Avenue has traffic because there is a school located there and people are trying to avoid Rosemead Boulevard. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the City Engineer will address traffic concerns when the Public Hearing closes. Tammy Woloski stated traffic calculations have been conducted and she has provided additional parking. Kent Wu stated the main concern seems to be traffic and in the planning design stage a traffic study is required. He stated they hired a professional company to conduct the traffic analysis and it was found that traffic would not be impacted for this type of construction and location.He stated in the morning hours, while this is considered peak hours, the number was only 19 and in the afternoon it is about 7. He added this is a professional office and Rio Hondo is a busy street but Valley Boulevard,which is a major boulevard,is busier and explained that he would rather have an access on Rio Hondo. He explained that the alley would only be an extra access and will not have that much traffic. He added consideration for this design was done very carefully and was kept as low as possible for visibility. Chair Lopez asked if there was anyone else wishing to comment on this item. None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and requested that the City Engineer answer some questions that arose. Raphael Fajardo stated mitigation regarding traffic will be done and the first thing will be a recommendation to the Traffic Commission that a"Keep Clear" sign be installed on Rio Hondo Avenue for vehicles entering or exiting the alley. He stated at the driveway located on Rio Hondo Avenue, a "No Left Turn" sign will be required going southbound. He added it will be prohibited to park in the alley and a 'No Parking" sign at any time will also be installed. He added Code Enforcement will be contacted from time-to-time to check on this status. Community Development Director Ramirez stated once staff was made aware that people were parking in the alley they contacted Code Enforcement to begin giving citations, if necessary. 6 Commissioner Eng asked staff if the site line standards for the mezzanine area were looked at. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes, and referred to the Plans on page Al to show the applicant did a line of site on variable height. Commissioner Eng asked it the line of site is looking onto Valley Boulevard from the front area of the mezzanine. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked what time periods were the traffic analyses taken. City Planner Valenzuela replied that the City of Rosemead has an initial assessment form,which shows how many trips are taken at peak hours,and how many trips per day. She explained that this was not a full traffic study so hours were not taken. She added the assessment was reviewed by the Traffic Engineer, Joanne Itagaki, and she determined a full traffic study was not required based on the assessment. Commissioner Eng stated since the City Engineer is present, once the project is completed,and if traffic is impacted, and asked what measures can be taken to address this. Raphael Fajardo replied one measure would be that a new traffic analysis can be conducted once the building is built to see if it coordinates with this current analysis. He stated the recommendations that are presented currently will help mitigate the concerns that are being presented right now. Vice-Chair Dang asked staff if the numbers were furnished by the applicant. City Planner Valenzuela replied the applicant hired a traffic consultant to furnish these numbers. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the City's traffic consultant took these numbers at face value or did the City consultant also conduct her own traffic study to confirm the numbers. Raphael Fajardo replied the traffic analysis is required to be conducted during school hours and it is forwarded to Joanne Itagaki for her review. The City consultant reviewed, approved the traffic analysis study, and let the City know it was approved to proceed. Vice-Chair Dang stated the Planning Commission did not get a copy of this Traffic Analysis Report and he is not sure if the report was comprehensive in when these analyses were taken. Raphael Fajardo slated the study was taken this year. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the report states what certain hours it was taken, which week, days, or was it a 1-day thing where someone stood on the corner and counted cars. Raphael Fajardo stated, according to the traffic study, these are projections for the new building and they are projecting 39 new trips. Community Development Director Ramirez stated when the City Traffic Consultant reviews the report if she does not feel it is adequate, or the numbers are not correct, then yes, she can actually deny it, and ask for additional information,while she runs her own analysis. 7 Vice-Chair Dang asked if the applicant's consultant did athorough investigation and added maybe that question should be answered by the applicant. He stated he has another question for staff and asked the ratio for retail is 1 for every 250. City Planner Valenzuela replied that is the ratio for retail and office use. Vice-Chair Dang asked if storage use would have a lighter ratio. City Planner Valenzuela replied not in the commercial zone that is counted as 1 per 250 for everything. Vice-Chair Dang stated he uses Rio Hondo Avenue quite often and there is substantial traffic back-up right in the corner and that is why he is bringing the traffic analysis/study to the table. City Planner Valenzuela stated after this project is constructed post assessment conditions of approval can be added if the Planning Commission would like them added. Vice-Chair Dang stated because this is a large project it would be difficult to ask the applicant to change anything once the building is built. He recommended just looking at the traffic analysis and making sure it is was a thorough analysis. He stated there is a driveway on Rio Hondo Avenue and then there is the alley where they funnel in together and asked if it was possible to check with Willdan to see if the driveway can be eliminated and have an alley access by itself with a keep clear access. City Planner Valenzuela stated the Fire Department has already reviewed and approved this project as is, so that would be something staff would have to research. Community Development Director Ramirez stated it would not be good planning not to have an actual access to this property and you would not want to create a situation where you would not have good access to the property.. Commissioner Eng stated she agrees with Commissioner Dang and while this project is still under the planning stage more effort should be put into the circulation now because once the project is completed changes that can be made will be limited. Raphael Fajardo stated part of the new capital improvement project being proposed for 2017/2018 is the coordination of timing for the traffic signals on Valley Boulevard, Rio Hondo Avenue, and Mission Drive. He stated staff is aware of the concern, is in the process of requesting funding from the state, and the coordination of timing the signal lights will help mitigate the traffic issue. Vice-Chair Dang commented a nearby Starbucks will also be opening soon,which will also impact traffic. Raphael Fajardo commented that Valley Boulevard is coordinated by Los Angeles County and if the traffic signal coordination is off by one second going northbound or eastbound it will create a major impact. He explained staff is trying to find a solution to this concern. Vice-Chair Dang expressed concern with traffic being an issue and will continue to be once this project is completed. He reiterated that he hopes the consultant that the applicant hired did a thorough traffic analysis. Chair Lopez called the applicant Tammy Woloski to the podium to address questions in regards to the traffic analysis study and asked who she hired to conduct the traffic analysis. Tammy Woloski replied that she does not recall who she hired. She stated she will work with staff, City Engineer, and the community. She added she will speak with the Fire Department and the Traffic Engineer to make sure all the 8 calculations in regards to the traffic analysis is correct. She referred to the right-turn only provision and agreed that it is a good suggestion. She addressed the neighbor's concern that employees may invade their privacy by looking into her yard/home and of robberies and explained that all her employees go through a background investigation. She added they are only employed if the investigation is approved. Vice-Chair Dang addressed the neighbors privacy issue and recommended a lockable door be installed at the stairway access point to the mezzanine. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff agrees and it can be added as a condition of approval if requested. Commissioner Eng commented that is a good suggestion and that way only their employees would be able to access that mezzanine. Tammy Woloski agreed and commented that can be done. Community Development Director Ramirez stated a condition of approval should be added. Vice-Chair Dang stated an idea was suggested about having a driveway access from Valley Boulevard and asked if the applicant is open to that idea. He added if it is, then when the City Engineer speaks with Willdan's Traffic Consultant,this can be an alternative on the table. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the City Engineer will be able to address that. Vice-Chair Dang explained that it would be an exit only driveway feeding from the parking garage in the back onto Valley Boulevard. City Planner Valenzuela explained that staff will have to let the applicant know and they would have to redesign the whole project. Vice-Chair Dang stated that it would create a tunnel effect because there are some modifications. Community Development Director Ramirez stated it would be more than that;they would have to redesign it,go back to the Fire Department, and go back to all the approval processes. Tammy Woloski asked the Planning Commission for clarification what the last suggestion was. Vice-Chair Dang reiterated the idea of having an exit only driveway from the parking garage, going through a tunnel, and exiting directly out onto Valley Boulevard with a right-turn only. Tammy Woloski stated she is against that idea,this project has taken many years, and the alley exit is something that she would like to keep. She added that the building codes have been met and she does not understand why they need to have an exit only on Valley Boulevard. Vice-Chair Dang stated the idea was just presented. Tammy Woloski replied she opposes the idea, this project has taken so many years,this is a beautiful project, and she does not want to have it redesigned. Vice-Chair Dang commented that this is a beautiful building and staff will look at the traffic analysis by their consultant. 9 Tammy Woloski stated that she does not mind having the consultants traffic analysis reviewed. She added she does not understand how the traffic report calculations should determine why there should be an exit only to Valley Boulevard and expressed it would make the building unattractive. Vice-Chair Dang explained if her private consultant, traffic engineer, gave staff a due diligent thorough report, then she can have design she has proposed. He asked in the event this does not work out would she consider putting a driveway on Valley Boulevard to make the project work. Tammy Woloski replied no. Vice-Chair Dang stated if not,then she will have to work with her private traffic engineer to make this project work. Tammy Woloski stated the traffic analysis report has already been submitted and meets the Municipal Code. Vice-Chair Dang stated the City Engineer will touch base with Willdan's Traffic Consultant and take a look at the report. Tammy Woloski stated she agrees with that. City Planner Valenzuela explained the process for the traffic report assessment went first to Joanne Itagaki from Willdan for her review and then went to City Engineer Fajardo for his review,which he agreed with her report. Raphael Fajardo stated a letter was submitted in 2015 by Joanne Itagaki and after her review she recommended that there was not a need for a full traffic impact analysis because the calculated business trip numbers are accurate according to her review. Community Development Director Ramirez asked if Joanne Itagaki verified that the numbers were correct. Raphael Fajardo replied yes. Commissioner Eng thanked the applicant and stated this is a beautiful project. She asked staff if throughout the planning process was there ever the consideration of looking at egress and ingress on Valley Boulevard for this property. City Planner Valenzuela replied when the applicant originally contacted the City,they asked where they should enter from, and this was discussed with the City Engineer. He did not want it from Valley Boulevard because it is a major corridor and added that is why the applicant proposed it on Rio Hondo Avenue. Commissioner Eng stated so the entrance on Valley Boulevard was considered but it was the City Engineer that advised against it. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. She explained that a lot of the projects on Valley Boulevard, one that the Planning Commission approved two years ago on Valley and Temple City Boulevard, had two aprons that they wanted to keep. She stated the Planning Commission and staff did say they had to close them off and enter off of Temple City Boulevard and it is common practice for staff to deviate traffic entrance on Valley Boulevard. Commissioner Eng stated the one on Temple City Boulevard has two lanes and there is more room to maneuver around traffic and the concerns being expressed with Rio Hondo Avenue is that there is only one lane,which creates the back-up traffic. She stated if the entrance is on Valley Boulevard there is still the option of the parking lane. She stated the applicant did put a lot of work into this design and the circulation. She asked if the driveway needs to be 10 moved how much work is going to have to go into redesigning this project. She added the applicant is trying to get as much use of the lot as they can. Raphael Fajardo stated an issue that he discussed with Joanne Itagaki was that by putting the driveway on Valley Boulevard it will be close to the southeast corner of Rio Hondo Avenue, and when the signal light turns green it will affect visibility,which may create a collision. He recommended that the curb be painted green in front of this project to prevent cars from parking on Valley Boulevard to help with visibility. Vice-Chair Dang explained that there are two types of traffic analysis and he just wants to make sure that the traffic consultant took into account the existing condition, plus the new,and gave a proper report. Chair Lopez stated since the City's Engineer has reported that both representatives in regards to traffic reviewed and approved the traffic analysis report, then that tells him the projections on peak hours have been completed. He added Planning Commission needs to rely on recommendations made by the City Engineer, staff, and the conclusion that a full impact traffic analysis is not necessary. Vice-Chair Dang stated he supports the City Engineer and if it is the projected number, plus the existing numbers, then he is good to go. Tammy Woloski stated this property is on the corner of Rio Hondo Avenue and Valley Boulevard and it has been sitting for many years undeveloped. She added she has had it fenced, has sent gardeners to mow the grass, it has been used for advertising for incumbents running for City Council, and she has had to keep it maintained. She added she is a developer and would like to have the opportunity to develop this building, has worked with staff, has met the municipal codes, and would like to do this for the community. City Planner Valenzuela stated that Mr. Flournoy had asked staff a question regarding the soils report. She reported a Geological and Geotechnical Report was produced and reviewed by both consultants, which was approved and has been sent to the State. Greg Murphy, City Attorney, stated before a motion is made the easiest way to make the upstairs mezzanine secure is to add a sentence to Condition of Approval number 1 to state: "The applicant agrees to revise the plans to provide secured access to the mezzanine level and also to the approval of the Planning Division". He added, so if there is a motion for approval,it would be to approve with that modification. Chair Lopez asked for a motion. Commissioner Herrera made a motion to Approve Design Review 14-01 with the modification to Condition of Approval number 1 and Adopt Resolution 16-22. Chair Lopez seconded the motion. Vice-Chair Dang commented regarding traffic issues but it was not audible. Raphael Fajardo replied if there are traffic issues in the future after this building is constructed,the City's Engineering Department will send their consultant to conduct a new traffic study and it will not be an issue. Chair Lopez asked if this is a condition of approval. Raphael Fajardo replied no, and explained it will be taken to the Traffic Commission for mediation. Commissioner Eng asked City Attorney Murphy if that is advisable. 11 City Attorney Murphy replied once you get to a point of build out, there are not operational characteristics that the Planning Division would have any furter control over. He added those characteristics would be over the Traffic Commission's control,things like: right-in and right-out only on Rio Hondo Avenue or what exactly the use of the alley would be. He explained,for the Planning Commission, if they found there were traffic issues,their only options would be to modify the operations,which again are the off-site operations,which are the Traffic Commission purview, rather than the actual points of access and the design of the building, and are in the Planning Commission's purview. He stated so unless he misunderstands the role of the Planning Commission, he explained once they approve the design of the project, then it moves into the Traffic Commission purview. He asked Raphael Fajardo if he agrees with this or has he mis-stated the Traffic Commission. Raphael Fajardo replied that is what he understands from Commissioner Dang. If there are traffic issues in the future once the building has been constructed, then a new traffic impact analysis would need to be completed. He asked Commissioner Dang if that is correct. Vice-Chair Dang replied yes, but what if the impact requires lights, timing, and things like that. He asked who will enforce this,and will be financially responsible,or will it be an in-house traffic analysis, it necessary. Raphael Fajardo replied the City Engineers office will enforce it. He explained it will be an in-house traffic analysis and a new traffic consultant will be hired. He explained if the new traffic consultant doing the analysis and sees any issues it will be recommended to go to the Traffic Commission. The Traffic Commission will be the ones to approve all the recommendations from staff. Community Development Director Ramirez added to complete the circle, based on the Traffic Commission's recommendation, it will then go to City Council for final approval. Chair Lopez stated a motion has been made and stated a vote is now needed. Commissioner Herrera made a motion,seconded by Chair Lopez,ADOPT Resolution No. 16-22 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 14-01, subject to the forty-eight(48)conditions. (Modification to Condition of Approval number 1 was made by the Planning Commission on 12-19-16). Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng,Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with a 4 Ayes and 0 Noe's and there is a 10- day appeal process which begins December 20, 2016, at 7:00 am and ends on Thursday, December 29, 2016, however,since City Hall is closed this day the appeal process will instead end on January 3,2017,at 6:00 pm. C. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 73751 AND ZONE VARIANCE 16-01 - For property tax purposes, Beacon Property Management (representing Rosemead Place, LLC) has submitted a tentative parcel map application to create five (5) new legal parcels from three(3) existing parcels,which have been tied as one (1) parcel. The tax parcels are critical to the shopping center's financial viability as they provide the basis under various leases for the proper allocation of the property tax bills, which are primarily reimbursed by the tenants under the terms of their triple net leases. A Zone Variance has also been submitted as the applicant is requesting to deviate from Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.16.030(A)(6)(b), which requires a total of 6% of the gross lot area to be landscaped. The shopping center as a whole meets this requirement, however, if calculated as single lots, Lots 3 and 5 are 12 deficient in meeting this requirement. The subject site is currently located at 3506-3684 Rosemead Boulevard, in a C-3/D-0 (Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay) zone. The public hearing for Tentative Parcel Map 73751 was originally scheduled on October 17, 2016, however, the applicant requested that the item be continued. For this reason,the public hearing was not held by the Planning Commission. PC RESOLUTION 16-18 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 73751, A REQUEST FOR THE CREATION OF FIVE (5) NEW LEGAL PARCELS WITHIN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER FOR TAX PURPOSES AND ZONE VARIANCE 16-01 FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THE 6% LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT FOR LOTS 3 AND 5. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3500-3684 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD, IN A C-3/D-0 (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERYLAY)ZONE(APN:8594-023-046). Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 16- 18 with findings and APPROVE Tentative Parcel Map 73751 and Zone Variance 16-01. City Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission it there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if all the tenants at this location are on triple net leases. City Planner Valenzuela replied in regards to leases the applicant may address that question. Commissioner Eng asked if this is a special unique case. City Planner Valenzuela replied this is special and unique in a way that this shopping center is completely built out, it is existing, and the applicant was required to consolidate all the parcels. She explained by consolidating these parcels it created an issue of their lease tax. She added that is why the applicant came to the City to request the five parcels to help mitigate these financial issues. Commissioner Eng asked if this had been a consideration while it was requested that the parcels be tied together. City Planner Valenzuela replied it is a common practice to ensure properties are not sold separately. Community Development Director Ramirez stated it was not thought of by staff or the applicant that it would be considered an issue. She added it is something that came up after the fact. Commissioner Eng stated this was probably due to a change in the assessor's office and she has further questions for the applicant. 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. Jim Notley, Representative for Rosemead LLC,the ownership of this Rosemead Place Shopping Center and gave a brief summary of what they are requesting. He stated originally they had 3 legal parcels and 8 property tax parcels. He stated when they were going through approvals for the TGIF building, as well as the Hollywood building 13 conversion, it was discovered that one of the lot lines went right through the building located on Rosemead Boulevard and Marshall Street, so the simple fix was to sign a one page form to tie the legal parcels into one. He stated it wasn't tied before but they were never going to sell three separate shopping centers, it has always been one shopping center, and will always be one shopping center. He added it seemed like a simple process and a year later they received a notice from the assessor's office that they collapsed the 8 tax parcels into 1 tax parcel as a result of completing that form, which is a disaster for them because every single one of their leases is tied into separate parcels and were tied to the tax parcel they were in. He added they tried a few other solutions, but have now realized the only way to fix this is to take the 3 legal parcels and create 5 new legal parcels out of them, still tied together,still reciprocal parking, still one shopping center, and there will be no physical construction or changes. He stated they will have 5 legal parcels tied together operating as one shopping center and the advantage of that is,with the 5 legal parcels they now get 5 tax parcels, and that is what they need to keep their keep lease administration clean and simple with their tenants, and be able get reimbursed for their property tax cost. He stated they are not making any changes to the property, it will always be one shopping center, with the lot line parcels were tied together, there is now a reciprocal parking agreement,and all the agreements will remain as one shopping center going forward. Commissioner Eng asked before the lots were tied together, were the parcels assessed as 8 separate parcels. Jim Notley replied yes, which did not overlap with the three legal parcels. Commissioner Eng asked if there were 3 legal descriptions, but with 8 tax identifications. Jim Notley replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked when the parcels were tied together were they issued 1 tax identification. Jim Notley replied yes, and explained they issued 1 property tax bill for the entire parcels. Commissioner Eng asked if Mr. Notley would be willing to share the financial impact in terms of numbers. Jim Notley replied it is more of a complication and all the time and energy spent debating with each tenant what their new share is under this new tax bill as it comes up. He added its not as simple as saying you pay 15% and it is done, now they are figuring an interim solution for allocating between the various parcels and property taxes do become complicated when you get a property like this with different types of leases, different types of buildings, and ages. He added it is a formula that is difficult to figure out and explain. Commissioner Eng asked if all of their leases are triple net leases. Jim Notley replied 90 are, but they do have a few offices leases that are gross leases. He explained most of them are triple net leases,by the time they pay rent, plus reimbursement of cost,including property taxes. Commissioner Eng asked if their tax is based by the square footage of the leasable space. Jim Notley replied for most of them it is based if they are renting 2,000 square feet and the shopping center is 100,000 square feet they would pay 2%of their cost and including another 2%of the property tax bill. Chair Lopez called Brian Lewin to the podium. Brian Lewin, resident referred to Condition of Approval number 24 or 25 on page 13 and requested it be changed to, "A recorded document shall be executed to be prohibit the sale of each lot separately". Community Development Director Ramirez stated that was staff's intent and it will be changed. 14 Brian Lewin stated since the City is granting the Variance to the applicant, he requested the Planning Commission consider adding an additional condition of approval to require the applicant to work with staff to make circulation and pedestrian improvements at the center. He stated this is desperately needed,the site is over 50 years old, and has a lot of safety issues. He suggested that to consider to at least adding one sidewalk on the side of Marshall Street entrances and on the North side of the Glendon Way entrance. He also suggested adding a railing along the sidewalk, and proper stop signs by TGIF because the current signs are faded, old, and are not regulation size or height. Chair Lopez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 1 and requested that the exception be specified to Lots 3 and 5. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that is acceptable. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 13 and stated there has been discussion of pedestrian safety and circulation. She stated more projects are coming in and asked the Planning Commission if they thought it would be advisable under this application to request the applicant improve the circulation and pedestrian safety concerns for the shopping center. She asked if the applicant would like to comment on this concern. Jim Notley replied it is not a simple thing to get a sidewalk access to both sides on the Marshall Street entrances but they have been working on another concept that might fix it in a different direction. He added it would be a radical change to the building that is in the corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Marshall Street and the plan has not been finalized. He stated if they do, it would change the concept of how traffic is brought in from Rosemead Boulevard and change the location of sidewalks. He stated they would like to address that concept when he comes back with a renovation plan for that building later this year. Commissioner Eng asked if there are plans in the works to address those concerns. Jim Notley replied yes, and it would change how you would get better access getting into Marshall Street. Community Development Director Ramirez stated Beacon Management has approached the Community Development Department staff and discussed the proposals but because it was not officially submitted information it was not disclosed. She reinforced that staff is looking forward to working with Beacon Management with the proposed renovations. Commissioner Eng referred to Engineering Condition of Approval number 24 and stated she likes this condition because it had been one of her concerns that the lots would be sold separately. She stated she appreciates that the entitlements for this project has been tied to as one shopping center. Vice-Chair Dang referred to the Variance to off-set 6%of the gross lot area for landscaping and stated there is more on some lots and relatively speaking there is a required number. He asked if there is a tool or a master covenant that can be used to blanket the entire shopping center instead. 15 Community Development Director Ramirez explained that will be corrected in the Zoning Code update. She stated it is a matter of the interpretation of the Zoning Code and staff wanted to be more conservative than to take that approach right off of the start for this project. She added in the future it will be addressed in the Zoning Code update. City Attorney Murphy stated it will be something like Vice-Chair Dang stated,that a number of parcels operating as a single center can have landscaping spread among the center in a way that meets the best aesthetics needs of the community rather than parcel by parcel. Vice-Chair Dang stated he has seen it referred to as a Development Agreement. Commissioner Eng thanked Vice-Chair Dang for bringing this item up for discussion as this was an item she had wanted to discuss also. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further comments or questions. None Chair Lopez asked for a motion. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 16-18 with findings and APPROVE Tentative Parcel Map 73751 and Zone Variance 16-01. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng, Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with 4 Ayes and 0 Noes and explained the 10- day appeal process. She also explained because City Hall will be closed for the holidays this appeal will end on Tuesday,January 3,2017 at 6:00 pm when City Hall reopens. D. MODIFICATION 16-02 - The City of Rosemead is initiating a request to modify the conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map 26827 and Conditional Use Permits 02-882 and 03-939. The modification would eliminate Condition of Approval Number 59, which currently requires the annual Planning Commission review of Walmart's compliance with the conditions of approval. City Staff's initiative is based on discussion by the City Council at the August 23, 2016, City Council meeting. The subject site is located at 1827 Walnut Grove Avenue,in a C-3(Medium Commercial)zone. PC RESOLUTION 16-21 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING MODIFICATION 16-02 TO ELIMINATE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NUMBER 59 FROM THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 04-01, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 26827, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 02.882 AND 03-939. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 1827 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE IN A C-3(MEDIUM COMMERCIAL)ZONE(APN: 5279-033-001). Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 16- 21 with findings and APPROVE Modification 16-02 subject to revised conditions of approval. 16 City Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report and reported that three letters and an email have been received in opposition of Modification 16-02 and copies have been given to the Planning Commission at the dais. She explained that Condition of Approval number 59 has been italicized in"Attachment A"to inform them that Condition of Approval number 60 will be Condition of Approval number 59 if this is approved. Chair Lopez asked it the Planning Commission had any questions for staff. Commissioner Eng referred to the new proposed italicized condition of approval number 59, and read it to the audience. She reassured everyone that it will not be removed and if this modification is approved this condition of approval was previously number 60 and will now be condition of approval number 59. She stated there are still a few outstanding issues and asked staff the status of the Solar Inverter noise issue. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the applicant is present this evening to address that. She explained that it is not an outstanding issue because it does meet the City noise ordinance and Walmart is just addressing some concerns with residents that hear a noise. She added Walmart has made some progress and will speak on that. Commissioner Eng stated a resident that has attended City Council meetings to have overnight and other parking concerns addressed and asked if they had been resolved. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that there has been one resident that has attended several City Council meetings to bring to staff's attention that the signage was not correct. She stated that the correct signage has been installed, was approved by the Chief of Police, as well as the Planning Division, and meets the current condition of approval. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if there were further questions for staff. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Mark Ostoich, Walmart Representative stated he had appeared before the Planning Commission at the Annual Review held in August and there were no issues related to their performance of the conditions. He stated there was one issue related to Mr. Ping, a resident,who had a concern of the buzzing from the solar inverter and unfortunately the year before they believed some steps were being taken to mitigate that and they were not taken. He stated that he heard the concerns that evening and went back to Walmart and recommended they reconsider their position and they have. He stated they engaged a contractor who is bringing back alternative bids to either build additional sound barring facilities around the solar inverter or to look for a modification of the system that would move the solar inverter up on the root. He added this was not more of an issue of a condition of approval but more of just being a good neighbor. He stated Walmart has a new Director of Real Estate in California and as soon as he brought this to his attention he immediately responded. He added that it should be done before the next time he appears before the Planning Commission. He referred to the letters from residents opposing the removal of Condition of Approval number 59 and how it may relate to the parking lot situation with containers,and also the "no overnight parking signage"that was installed earlier this year. He stated he agrees that the signage in the parking lot is correct and spoke with the store manager and asked what protocol they follow with vehicles seemingly parked overnight. He stated that the store manager told him that they have 24-hour security in the store and that security also keeps an eye out on the parking lot. He added that when security finds somebody in the parking lot that is not required to be there security will approach them and will direct them away from the site. He stated City Planner Valenzuela had mentioned to him that there are some containers located on the site in locations where they are not supposed to be and there, is a condition of approval that requires storage placed in screened areas. He added he agrees and unfortunately due to the holiday season and the lay-a-way system at Christmas those containers are full of lay-a-way 17 items for customers. He explained that the containers will be removed after Christmas and the situation will be corrected. He apologized for the situation and stated it is a consequence of a very busy Christmas season. He thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak and will answer any questions they may have. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that staff was made aware of these containers today, as well as numerous pallets, and boxes. She added staff checked with Code Enforcement and no one had reported this, so as a result a code case had not been previously opened. Staff inspected the site, saw the violations,and opened a code case. She added Walmart will be inspected by Code Enforcement and may be cited. She apologized to Mr. Ostoich for learning about this tonight, but as soon as staff found this out a report was filed on behalf of the resident. Mark Ostoich stated it is a very good point and all the conditions of approval related to the store are enforceable by the City's code enforcement. He stated the annual review is something that was originally designed to make sure Walmart performs the conditions of approval that were in many cases a one-time condition of approval. He stated that they have done this over the years and is an overburdened process. He added it takes City staff a considerable time and energy to prepare for the Annual Review and it takes Walmart a considerable time and energy to do the same thing. He stated by terminating Condition of Approval number 59 the City is not giving up any rights,they have full code enforcement rights against them,and if Walmart is doing something wrong they should be cited. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the conditions of the storage containers, pallets,and the boxes are conditions any business in the City of Rosemead would have to abide by. Brian Lewin, resident, stated it was requested that he read a statement into the record by Todd Kunioka, a resident, that could not appear this evening. Chair Lopez asked if this statement will take longer than 3 minutes. Brian Lewin replied he has not timed Mr. Kunioka's statement and asked if he could read Mr. Kunioka's statement first and present his own comments later. Chair Lopez explained that if Brian Lewin reads Mr. Kunioka's statement that will be part his 3 minutes and this will be a one-time opportunity. Brain Lewin stated he is reading in Mr. Kunioka's behalf not his. Chair Lopez explained that each person present will only be allotted 3 minutes. Community Development Director Ramirez explained it's important to know that the letter has been given to all the Planning Commissioners and is available this evening for the public to view. Brian Lewin stated that it had been requested that he read this into the record. Commissioner Eng addressed City Attorney Murphy and asked what the protocol for this type of request is. Brian Lewin stated he has done this in the past. City Attorney Murphy stated he understands this has been in the past, speaking Southern California or California wide, it is very unusual and normally if someone cannot attend a meeting they will submit written comments and those go to the decision makers and they are made part of the administrative record. He stated if there happens to be an appeal and if someone is going to read something into the record the clock starts to run when that person gets up to speak. He stated they may read a portion, they may add their own comments to it, they may read selections 18 out of something they have been asked to read, but he has not seen people get extra time to read comments by people that cannot attend the meeting, and that is a unusual circumstance in his experience. Brian Lewin requested a delay so he consider what he may want to do with Mr. Kunioka's comments verses his own comments. Chair Lopez replied yes and called John Lawrey to the podium. John C. Lowrey, resident stated he is present to voice his opposition in the removal of item number 59. He stated Walmart has a proven record that if it is left alone and unsupervised by the City it will do as it pleases. He added under the Final EIR dated December 2005, there were originally 60 Planning Department conditions of approval along with Engineering and Fire Department conditions of approval. Up until January 2015,Walmart has for the most pal lived up to those conditions of approval and in January 2015, Walmart terminated its on-site parking security without the approval of the City,which is one of the conditions of approval. He stated almost immediately there were violations of overnight parking, RV parking,and truck parking. He commented at that time there were only two small signs addressing the issue, with one being on Rush Street and the other on the North entry next to Panda Express. He reported on June of 2015, he counted over 50 violations in that one month. He spoke with several managers and they all took the same attitude that they would take care of it, but yet nothing was done. He stated in January of 2016, he walked one of the managers out to the parking lot and showed him several violations and yet nothing was done and the problem continued. He added in March of 2016 he mailed 3 certified letters, one to Walmart Rosemead. one to Walmart Headquarters, and one to the City of Rosemead trying to find a resolution to the problem. He stated he attended three City Council meetings in attempt to trying to get some resolution, finally with pressure from the City, Walmart installed new signs, but the first set of signs omitted any mention of overnight parking,so they had to be re-done, and the signs are now in place today. He added at the same time they reinstalled the on-site parking lot security, but unfortunately the violations continued. He stated they were not in the magnitude of what they were in the past but they still continued even with the on-site security. He stated he has spoken with the security patrol but they do not take an aggressive attitude for enforcement. He gave an example of a Friday night were he noticed a white van was parked in an area that he knows overnighters like to take and in the morning that van was still there. He added while on his morning walk at 6:30 am and confirmed someone was sleeping in the van and he waited for the parking lot security gentleman to come along. He told him someone was sleeping in the van, and that he is supposed to take care of this. He stated the security person told him that he was not his supervisor. He commented this is the attitude of Walmart and the company they have hired. The shipping containers and pallets have already been mentioned, he stated there is also a problem with trucks making illegal entry turns onto Rush Street, which is a violation. He stated if the City takes a hand off attitude and eliminates the Annual Review of Walmart it will feel it has permission to act as they choose and they have already proven they cannot be left unsupervised. He added he strongly objects to the removal of Item Number 59. Jim Flournoy, resident, stated he has two issues to discuss, one is in regards to Seismic Hazard Mapping Act Reports and years ago there were 5 businesses under construction here in the City that had not filed Seismic Hazard Mapping Act Reports. He added in the result of that the City got sued, the City Engineer and the Geotechnical Consultant were terminated, and they paid the City to fix this. He added going forward Walmart sold the Panda and Wells Fargo pad as being shovel ready, but as a result of the investigation they have not completed seismic studies on that side of the lot and they also had not done near-fill upgrades at the 9898 building codes, so Panda and Wells Fargo had to upgrade their sites. He stated this is in the Rosemead General Plan now and a seismologist was hired to get the right numbers,so the City has the right numbers now but Walmart was not built to the right numbers due to where the faults run.He stated whether the design where it is built now is strong enough, we do not know, and there is no way to prove it. He stated his second issue is that there are three faults that have been done,one done by Southern California Edison, one by Southern California Earthquake Center, and one by Hushmond for Walmart. He added Walmart picked the one by Southern California Edison when they designed the project and didn't pick the one they paid for. He explained why they picked SCE and said there were a lot of loose ends that 19 need to be fully enforced. He stated that he does not feel a lot of items were satisfied and will be submitting a Public Records Request at the City to see if these the conditions of approval have been satisfied. Yuki Fukumoto, resident, stated she opposes the elimination of the annual review. She expressed that this annual review is not unreasonable and is done once a year. She added to remove it takes the residents out of any type of recourse. She stated the City says residents may come in any time, they get to see Walmart lawyers once a year and that's all they see as residents. She stated residents go to the Planning Commission for help because they are supposed to protect the residents and residents have no leverage going against a corporate entity. She stated she is not only speaking for herself and there are others that have appeared at meetings to address issues that have been stated that have not been met. She expressed issues like noise and lights have not been mitigated and requested the Planning Commission not eliminate the Walmart Annual Review because it is an annual review for compliance and elimination and compliance does not mix. She added at minimal an annual review is needed. Brian Lewin, resident, read some of Todd Kunioka's concerns with the first one being that the Annual Walmart Review was supposed to be part of a compromise that involved the Planning Commission and City Council approving a change in the City's General Plan essentially because the parcel in question was specified for a much different use than that would be applied for. He stated they had to adopt a mitigated negative declaration and the annual review process was supposed to be a commitment to minimizing the impacts and this is the only time residents can be assured that Walmart is paying attention. He stated during the annual review it is the only time that resident concerns get dealt with. He added Condition of Approval number 39 regarding down-lit, cut-off, or shielded light fixtures was a concern that Todd Kunioka brought up and that it does not appear to have properly qualified or cut-off or shielded fixtures that are consistent with the modification monitoring program. He stated Mr. Kunioka expressed that this annual review process has been the best way force Walmart to deal with these concerns. He stated it is clear some of the things they have dragged out as long as they have, that if they didn't have this they would never get dealt with. Brian Lewin stated from his own standpoint he agrees with this because he has attended most of those annual reviews and it has been Walmart saying no, it's not a problem, and then it is demonstrated there is a problem and eventually it gets dealt with, although some of the promises have not been dealt with. He stated the solar inverter issue has not been dealt with and it has been several months with nothing getting done. He requested that the Planning Commission strongly consider not eliminating Condition of Approval number 59. Commissioner Eng stated she has received an email from three residents that she has forwarded to staff expressing their concerns and opposition. She added they are Barbara Murphy, Susan Young, and Mary Faras. She stated Ms. Young and Ms. Faras are residents near this project. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked if there were any further questions for staff or Walmart. Commissioner Eng stated she would like to thank Mr. Ostoich for the update in regards to the Solar Inverter and Walmart. Vice-Chair Dang stated he would like a clarification on what was the original nature of instating Condition of Approval number 59. Chair Lopez stated he was on the Planning Commission at that time and there were so many things going on at that time and they needed Walmart, but at the same time they needed to make sure things were being followed, watched,and getting done. He added there were concerns with noise and other items, so this condition of approval was made because of that and to keep an eye on Walmart and to make sure complaints are addressed and not missed. He stated on that note and being that he was on the original Planning Commission that approved Walmart 20 he agrees with the community and that Condition of Approval number 59 should not be eliminated. He stated there are conditions and items that do appear and sometimes they are not addressed so this condition is needed. He asked the Planning Commission if there were any further comments. Commissioner Eng stated she supports Chair Lopez's decision on not supporting the elimination of Condition of Approval number 59. She read from her notes and as stated there was a lot of interest and concerns when this project came up and Condition of Approval number 59 was conceived to respond to those issues, concerns, and to move the development forward. She stated the project has to Walmart's credit, benefited the residents and community, she acknowledges that, and appreciates the effort put forward to address some of those concerns. She stated if you read Condition of Approval number 59 it specifically task the Planning Commission with the responsibility of conducting the annual review. She stated as fellow residents they are the ears and voices of the community and especially if it impacts the quality of life's concerns to the neighborhoods. She stated staff's report suggest that compliance of all the conditions of approval to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director supports the need to eliminate the Annual Review and she expressed that goes against the directive intent of Condition of Approval number 59 in her view. She commented that Chair Lopez was on the original Planning Commission and Commissioner Herrera was also there to approve this. She stated recently the bank inside Walmart was robbed, given the demands on Code Enforcement operations, the limited resources and capacity Condition of Approval number 59 is an important monitoring tool to the City. She addressed the staff's point on that there is no other development required to conduct an Annual Review by the Planning Commission. She stated while this is true, this development is unique in size and intensity of operations that requires a General Plan and Zoning Change to develop and is also generally located in a established residential area that has significant impact to the quality of life for many long term residents. She stated the Annual Review is an important mitigation measure to minimize operational impact. She stated this local Walmart center, this facility, the Walmart's, have the ability to use the Corporate Walmart as a shield to not timely address the concerns, complaints, and changing commitments. She stated the store was willing to help when after the residents came to share their complaints at the Annual Review. She stated the residents and community need a venue to be able to bring up their concerns and complaints and the Planning Commission serves that purpose. She stated she does not support the elimination of the Annual Review but recommended that perhaps a modification can be made to eliminate some of the pre-construction related conditions of approval, which will help speed up the annual review process. She asked City Attorney Murphy for some guidance in the process. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the preconstruction conditions of approval are not addressed anymore because they have been addressed and the majority of the conditions of approval are in regards to construction of the site. She stated that looking through the minutes, one of the reasons Condition of Approval number 59 was put there was because of the length of the construction it was going to take and the concern if they were going to be doing everything or following a construction management type plan, in which they did. She stated it was stated that Walmart is a corporation and it is protected, staff has been very fortunate to have a good working relationship with Walmart and when something has been brought to staff's attention staff contacts their attorney who has responded back quickly. She explained that the problem is that staff is not always made aware of issues until an annual review. She stated when the pallets and shipping containers were brought to staff's attention, it was taken care of right away, and a code enforcement case was filed against them. She stated a resident can do the same and Code Enforcement will go out and investigate, but if they don't do that and wait until an annual review every year, then not only will it be a surprise to you, but it will be a surprise to staff, and Walmart also. She stated in regards to the noise, they do meet the noise ordinance and have done many studies. Staff understands there is an issue with the Solar Inverter and staff is hoping they do solve that, but it is important that from staff's perspective Walmad has always responded when they have contacted them. City Attorney Murphy stated in reviewing staff's preparation for the Annual Review over the years he has served the Planning Commission when the construction phase or one-time conditions of approval were met, that was followed by a note in the reports that went to the Planning Commission, and staff did not go back and check on those early issues again unless something was raised. He stated he would not recommend removing the construction phase 21 conditions of approval because they don't put a burden on staff but they do let staff know if a complaint was brought up by a resident or by anybody visiting the site, then it could be cross checked against the conditions. He added he does feel the conditions of approval that are there stay and if the Planning Commission wants to continue the Annual Review process then it is strictly within their own discretion. Chair Lopez thanked City Attorney Murphy and asked if there were any further questions. None Chair Lopez asked for a motion. City Attorney Murphy stated the motion would be to DENY the request for Modification 16-02 and direct staff to bring a resolution of DENIAL to the February 6, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. He stated when that resolution comes it would simply be part of the Consent Calendar, it will not be subject to anymore hearing but will be there for the Planning Commissions review and adoption as pal of the Consent Calendar. Chair Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eng to Deny Resolution No. 16-21 with findings and Deny Modification 16-02 subject to revised conditions of approval. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng,Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes for the Denial of Modification 16-02 with 4 Ayes and 0 Noes and explained that the 10-appeal process will not be in effect until the Resolution comes back on February 6, 2017. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 12-5-16 Commissioner Eng made a motion,seconded by Chair Lopez to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes 0 Noes. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced that City Hall will be closed beginning Monday, December 26, 2016, until January 2, 2017, and will re-open for business on Tuesday,January 3,2017. She reminded the Planning Commission that City Hall will be also be closed on January 2, 2017, (New Year's Day holiday)and January 16, 2017, (Martin Luther King Jr. holiday), which are days that the Planning Commission would meet on and it is possible 22 a Planning Commission meeting may be scheduled on Tuesday, January 17, 2017. She explained that at the last Planning Commission meeting it was announced that it would be a Special Meeting but it is not it just be held on a Tuesday instead of Monday and will be agonized like a regular meeting. She also wished everyone Happy Holiday's. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Eng stated she would like to thank staff for their hard work, making their jobs meaningful, and being open to suggestions. Commissioner Herrera wished everyone Happy Holiday's. Chair Lopez wished everyone Happy Holiday's and thanked staff also. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meetings scheduled for Monday, January 2, 2017, and Monday, January 16, 2017, will be Cancelled due to City Hall being closed for the "New Year's Day" and "Martin Luther King Jr. Day" holidays. A Planning Commission Meeting may be scheduled for Tuesday,January 17, 2017, if necessary and if it is not then the next Planning Commission meeting wi •e Id on Monday, February 6,2017 at 7:00 pm in the Council Chzarpbersl ./ � r Daniel opez Chair ATT y Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 23