Loading...
PC - Minutes - 02-06-17 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 6,2017 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 Eng INVOCATION-Commissioner Tang ROLL CALL-Commissioners Eng,Herrera,Tang,Vice-Chair Dang and Chair Lopez STAFF PRESENT-City Attorney Murphy,Community Development Director Ramirez,City Planner Valenzuela,and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Murphy stated that the Agenda posted for Monday, February 6, 2017, Planning Commission meeting,gave a Teleconferencing Residential Location in Las Vegas, Nevada. He explained that it was anticipated Planning Commissioner Diana Herrera would not be able to attend tonight's meeting, so it was agenized as teleconference, but she is present this evening, and teleconference will not be necessary. He presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-09 - Bard Associates, LLC, doing business as Lucille's Smokehouse Bar-B-Oue, has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application requesting approval for a new On-Sale Type 47 (beer, wine, and distilled spirits) ABC license in conjunction with a bona fide public eating establishment. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.30.040(E)(1), a condition use permit shall be required for any business that sells alcoholic beverages for on-site or off-site consumption. The subject site is located at 1870 Montebello Town Center Drive in a C-3(Medium Commercial)zone. PC RESOLUTION 17-02 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-09, PERMITTING A NEW ON-SALE TYPE 47 (BEER, WINE, AND DISTILLED SPIRITS) ABC LICENSE FOR LUCILLE'S SMOKEHOUSE BAR-B-OUE, LOCATED AT 1870 MONTEBELLO TOWN CENTER DRIVE(APN: 5271-100-060)IN A C-3(MEDIUM COMMERCIAL)ZONE. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17- 02 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 16-09,subject to the 24 conditions. City Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng stated there are currently 4 On-Sale ABC Licenses and asked if they are all Type 47. 1 City Planner Valenzuela replied 3 are Type 47 and 1 is Type 41. Commissioner Eng asked what the establishments are. City Planner Valenzuela replied they are Olive Garden, Double-Tree Hotel, BJ's Restaurant, and a Sushi Restaurant in the mall. Commissioner Eng asked if it is being proposed that the hours of alcohol being served are the same as the hours of operation. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if the 5 alcohol related crimes were all from the Olive Garden or were they from that vicinity. City Planner Valenzuela replied the Chief of Police stated they are from the vicinity. Commissioner Eng referred to Reporting District 533 and noted that in the report it stated there were 50 incidents of alcohol related crimes in the last two years, beginning December 2014 to December 2016, and asked where Reporting District 533 is located. City Planner Valenzuela replied she does not have a map of the districts,so she is unable to answer that question. Commissioner Eng commented she wanted a sense of where that was located, because the numbers are significant being 50 verses 5. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments for staff. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Craig Hofman, stated he is the founder and owner of Lucille's Smokehouse Bar-B-Que and is looking forward to being part of the Rosemead, Montebello Town-Center community. He is present to answer any questions and explained that alcohol is incidental to their restaurant business. He stated alcohol is less than 15%of their sales, it is an accommodation to their guest, they are a bar-b-que restaurant, and alcohol is there for an accommodation for their customers. Chair Lopez thanked Mr. Hofman and 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 for staff. Commissioner Eng stated she would like to thank staff for providing the"State Alcohol Beverage Control Map",which provides the areas of ABC licenses and is helpful information. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments. 2 None Chair Lopez asked for a motion. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 17-02 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 16-09,subject to the 24 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng,Herrera,Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes and explained the 10-day appeal process. B. MODIFICATION 16-02(RECONSIDERATION)•This item was presented to the Planning Commission on December 19,2016. At this meeting,the Planning Commission denied the request to modify Condition of Approval Number 59 for Development Agreement 04-01,Tentative Parcel Map 26827 and Conditional Use Permits 02-882 and 03-939, which currently requires the annual Planning Commission review of Walmart's compliance with the conditions of approval. At the end of the public hearing for this item, Council Member Ly distributed a letter which states that the discourse and final action of the Planning Commission does not account for important considerations and precedence. For this reason, he requested that this item be reviewed by the City Council at the next City Council meeting. Since the Planning Commission did not adopt a resolution to deny Modification 16-02 on December 19, 2016, staff was unable to schedule a public hearing before the City Council. On January 18, 2017, Council Member Ly verbally requested that this item be reconsidered by the Planning Commission at the Planning Commission meeting on February 6, 2017. The subject site is located at 1827 Walnut Grove Avenue,in a C-3(Medium Commercial)zone. PC RESOLUTION 17-01 - 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. Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17- 01 with findings and APPROVE Modification 16-02 subject to revised conditions of approval. City Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report. Chair Lopez asked 1 there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Tang stated the Annual Review is conducted every year and asked how many conditions of approval are active conditions,which do not relate to the construction of Walmart. City Planner Valenzuela replied that she will count them. 3 Commissioner Tang requested she call them out, so that the Planning Commissioners will be aware. City Planner Valenzuela stated she will also give details. Commissioner Tang stated he was going to ask what each of these active conditions of approval entail, in terms of what staff has to do, and what agencies have to review. He added he wants to get a sense of what this Annual Review takes and entails to get a broad picture as to whether this is an actual comprehensive review that is needed every year. City Planner Valenzuela stated staff begins this process in May every year and is about a 3 month process where staff reviews the conditions of approval, distributes the conditions to all the reviewing agencies, including the Fire Department, Sanitation Department, Building and Safety Division, Public Works Department, and the Planning Division. She stated several site inspections are conducted from May to August to ensure Walmart is in compliance with all the conditions of approval. She stated during this process not all reviewing agencies respond, so staff will need to make several efforts to reach out to those agencies to ask if Walmart has met all their conditions of approval. She added the County Fire Department responded that Walmart has met all their conditions of approval and has asked why they are being asked to review this again. She stated staff still needs to get written proof that these conditions of approval are met every year. She referred to the current Conditions of Approval dated February 6,2017 and explained that Condition of Approval number 1 basically states that Walmart will need to comply with the project itself and it is built out so this condition has been met. She explained Condition of Approval number 4 states Walmart has to meet Federal, State, and local laws. Commissioner Tang asked if this is where staff would have to contact those agencies. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Tang asked if Condition of Approval number 4 is on many of the City's developments. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes, it is a standard condition of approval. Commissioner Tang asked if an Annual Review is conducted with any of those developments. City Planner Valenzuela replied no. She stated Condition of Approval number 18 refers to landscaping and irrigation, so staff ensures that their landscaping is in compliance. She explained this condition of approval is included in the City's Municipal Code and Walmart also has to abide by the code. Commissioner Tang asked for an example of a landscaping violation. He asked would it be like weeds to high or trees not trimmed. City Planner Valenzuela replied it would be dead landscaping where it would have to be rehabilitated. She referred to Condition of Approval number 24, and stated Walmart should not have any outside storage of shipping containers on the premises. She added staff is aware that Walmart is not in compliance, Code Enforcement has issued a citation, and it is a Code Enforcement case. Staff has inspected the site and most of the containers have been removed and a few are there, but it is active Code Enforcement case. She added this item is also included in the City Municipal Code and is not just a condition of approval. She stated Condition of Approval number 27 relates to electronic shopping cart wheel locks and City Ordinance 937 requires that all establishments with 10 or more shopping carts must have wheel locking system to abide by. She stated Walmart shopping carts do have wheel locks, so that is not an issue. She stated Condition of Approval number 29 requires that signage be posted stating, "possession of open alcoholic beverages on the premises are prohibited by law", which are posted. She stated Condition of Approval number 28 relates to signage being posted stating "No overnight camping" and"No Loitering", which are also posted. 4 City Attorney Murphy stated Condition of Approval number 15 relating to driveways and parking areas needing to be maintained in good serviceable condition is also an on-going condition of approval. City Planner Valenzuela replied that is correct and a few years ago Walmart did have to do some maintenance. Community Development Director Ramirez stated Condition of Approval number 6, relating to the Security Plan, is also an on-going condition and staff verifies with the Sheriff's Department to confirm it is active. She also apologized that staff is looking through this now and it may be possible that a condition of approval is overlooked. Commissioner Tang stated he appreciates that staff is doing the due diligence now, so that the public can see what conditions of approval are being evaluated while staff is reviewing this Annual Review as well. City Attorney Murphy named the following on-going Conditions of Approval: Number 43, relating to when truck deliveries can or cannot occur, Number 50, relating to site being coated with graffiti-resistant materials or landscaping treatments, Number 54, relating to the hours of operation, Number 55 relating to the diming of parking lot lights, Number's 56 and 59 are technically on-going because they limit what can be sold such as single cans of alcohol, guns,firearms, or ammunition. He continued to the City Engineer's Conditions of Approval and named on- going Conditions of Approval numbers: Number 31, relating to delivery truck taking access on Walnut Grove Avenue and not on Rush Street,and stated that had been an issue in the past and has been corrected. He added those are the conditions of approval that he has seen that are on-going. Commissioner Tang stated most of these conditions of approval such as truck deliveries and the sales of alcohol are already written into the City Municipal Code and asked if that was correct. City Planner Valenzuela replied the sale of alcohol varies with different establishments such as markets. Commissioner Tang stated he has another question, but it is for the applicant. Commissioner Eng stated this Annual Review has been on-going and asked if staff has developed a check list to streamline the process. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes, there is a process and explained that staff reviews what had been completed the previous year and they send out comments on specific conditions of approval. Commissioner Eng stated there is a checklist sent out and asked if reviewing agencies just need to mark what is applicable, what isn't,and if they are in compliance. She asked if the checklist is a farm that will not take too much time to complete. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes, and explained that the issue for staff is not receiving any responses. Chair Lopez referred to the original Affirmed City Council Conditions of Approval Number 59, and asked staff to explain this condition of approval in its entirety on what staff does to prepare for this. City Planner Valenzuela read the revised Condition of Approval number 59. Chair Lopez stated that is Condition of Approval number 60 and City Planner Valenzuela clarified that he had been reading the original conditions of approval. City Planner Valenzuela read Condition of Approval number 59 from the original conditions of approval, which states: "The Planning Commission shall conduct an annual review of the major tenant's operation to insure that it is 5 complying with all conditions of approval.The first review shall take place one year after a certificate of occupancy,or temporary certificate of occupancy, is issued". She explained staff presents this item to the Planning Commission each year. Chair Lopez stated without Condition of Approval number 59, would staff conduct this review every year no matter what. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, without Condition of Approval number 59, staff would not conduct an annual review. She explained it would be lett up to Code Enforcement to address any issues or concerns that have been reported. Chair Lopez asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments for staff. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the Walmart representative to the podium. Mark Ostoich, stated he is present in behalf of Walmart Stores. He thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to come before them again with this issue, summarized Walmart's position on this item, and introduced Kenny Tran who is the Store Manager of Walmart here in Rosemead. He slated Kenny Tran works hard to make this a successful store, is responsive to request he receives, is a wonderful addition to the store, and Walmart is fortunate to have him in this position. He stated that he would like to say again that he really wouldn't believe it,by listening to some of the comments that came from the audience last time, but he has been working with Walmart on this project since "2002" and he has been involved in the Annual Review since"2004" 12 or 13 times, and he feels they try hard to be good corporate citizens in the City of Rosemead. He stated Walmart is a large company, they have many employees, and a lot of business going on at that site. He stated there are problems from time to time and he acknowledges that, but he feels they try hard to be good citizens in Rosemead,to be responsible in conducting their business in accordance with the ordinances of the City and accordance with their conditions of approval. He stated, as it was said earlier,the City does have Code Enforcement authority because most of the things that are subject to these conditions would be more susceptible to the means of Code Enforcement and they do have an item pending currently regarding the containers. He stated there is actually enforcement ability, so when Walmart stumbles the City does have Code Enforcement to straighten the situation out. He stated he really believes that the Annual Review this many years later is unnecessary, because you do have Code Enforcement in authority. He stated this past Annual Review he spent time working with City Planner Valenzuela on why Public Works was requesting they replace cracked sidewalks and things that were outside of the scope of things they are responsible to do. He added City Planner Valenzuela was able to resolve this issue and he appreciates that, but this Annual Review encourages this type of activity and it encourages the reviewers to look for problems. He stated this Annual Review is unnecessary and there are only a few conditions of approval that are active conditions and after listening to City Planner Valenzuela description of how staff administers this review it is expensive for the City. He stated it is also expensive for them and leads to a hearing and no real effective enforcement if anything is turning to be amiss the City would already have that ability with Code Enforcement mechanism. He stated that they are the only business in the City that is subject to this type of Annual Review and requested that the City trust Walmart and terminate this condition of approval. He stated that if Walmart is not responsive in the future to use Code Enforcement mechanism in order to bring them forward. He added they are a good corporate citizen and they try very hard to comply with all the rules that are implacable to Walmart. He stated that he appreciates the Planning Commission hearing him again on this issue and will answer any questions they may have. Commissioner Eng thanked Mr. Ostoich and Walmart for their efforts to be a good neighbor. She stated the residents that are present have expressed their concerns and also want the same thing. 6 Commissioner Tang referred to the Solar Inverter and stated the one issue lingering is the noise from the Solar Inverter. He stated that he had drove by it and he could still hear it. He acknowledged that it is within the noise regulations, but if Walmart is here to be a good neighbor, the City has not seen good faith or effort to resolve that issue. He stated they have installed a sound wall but it did not enclose the Solar Inverter and you can still hear it from the outside. He asked if there was a way to enclose it and have access to it if necessary. Mark Ostoich explained that two years ago the company decided to make the decision to move the Solar Inverter. He added the engineers got involved and engineered a solution that unfortunately, by the time it went through the process, the cost of that was over a quarter of a million dollars to achieve, so it didn't really go anywhere. He stated at the last Annual Review he reported that they were restarting the process and an engineering firm was hired and has come up with a new solution that is one tenth of that cost and it is about$27,000.00. He explained that it would involve the relocation of the Solar Inverter, but in a different way and more cost effective way that was originally proposed. He stated that now exist and is going through the financial process and they are making progress on that. He stated that he is frequently asked when it comes to a decision on a financial point, if Walmart is in violation of the City's noise ordinance and he replies that they are not. He added that he has met Mr. Ping, the resident that is the most affected by the noise and he is very sincere in his concern about it, so he tells them it is more of being a good neighbor and part of the community to do this. He stated they are in the process of doing this and will happen. Commissioner Tang thanked Mr. Ostoich and stated it is those types of actions that show the good will, faith,and effort that Walmart wants to be a good neighbor. Chair Lopez called Brian Lewin to the podium and stated there are a number of speakers for this item, so all speakers will be allowed 3 minutes each. Brian Lewin, resident, stated one of his concerns is that the repeatedly representation of this issue being stated that it was initiated by City staff responding to City Council's discussion on August 23, 2016, and it strongly implies that there was a discussion, the discussion was involved in the removal of this condition of approval, and the discussion lead to in favor of it. He added he attended that meeting, it was not agenize, and by the City Attorney's specific direction there was not a discussion on this. He stated there was not even a consensus by City Council that there was a needed to be reviewed, let alone be removed. He stated one Council Member brought it up, spoke in favor of doing it, another noted the Annual Review is in the conditions of approval,and expressed a desire to see outstanding issues from the last one addressed. He stated he is not questioning the Council Members right to an opinion or to request a review, he is just saying if this was initiated entirely on the basis of one Council Member, then the staff report should reflect that fact. He stated the Council Member has asserted at other times that Walmart is uniquely subjected to the Annual Review among the businesses of Rosemead. He commented that Walmart is hardly the first project subject to a unique condition of approval and besides the boiler plate conditions, the Planning Commission has had numerous occasions established applicants specific on-going conditions of approval based on particular circumstances of the project, location, potential impacts, and issues associated with the business type. He added this is also a condition of approval that Walmart initially sign off to do,was not imposed after the fact, and was never documented or stated it was going to be a temporary condition of approval, it was stated as on-going, which they agreed to. He stated although he does not agree to the Planning Commission's former decision to approve the project, he does approve that it was a wise decision on the Planning Commission's part, to include this condition of approval,as a way of protecting the residents, and helping to make sure the impacts, and non-compliance issues are more likely to be addressed in a timely matter because there is a forum. He stated history has repeatedly shown the Walmart has dragged their feet, stonewalled, not addressed issues for a long time, and it is only during the Annual Review meetings that Walmart has to deal with this is that progress was made. He stated the residents depend on this Annual Review and requested the Planning Commission does not remove this condition of approval. Jim Flournoy, resident, stated the noise ordinance is not what guides this thing, it's the condition that Walmart was not supposed to make any more noise than the plot had before the construction. He stated you do not want to hear 7 anything that was not there that was not ambient. He referred to seismic considerations that were done by Walmart. He stated that Walmart based their EIR inputs from the City of Rosemead's General Plan,which is old, and that the nearest fault lines were 6 miles away and that got transferred to 9 1/2 kilometers, and so therefore, the reports state seismic considerations were not necessary under the building code. He stated this is not exactly true, because there is a fault that runs right down the middle of the site, and all the reports from various companies that set up the 1991 fault zone all say that is an extension of the Whittier Fault Line and that is considered by a geologist survey as a Class A fault. He stated it may or may not be, but no one has ever refuted that,so if you have a Class A fault line going through the middle of the property then you have to upgrade the seismic inputs by doubling them twice. He stated that is what the 1997 Building Code says and expressed that thrust faults need to be considered, but they were not mentioned in reports sent to geotechnical consultants. He mentioned the Upper Legion Fault,which borders Walmart and is also not considered at all. He stated there are two Class B fault lines that are right next to the site and requested that be looked at because there is a strong possibility that the building does not meet the Building Code and retrofits may be needed. He stated the fault was never surveyed to be put on the plot plan. He stated he has gone through the records, put things in chronological order of what has been done and what hasn't been done,and will leave his reports for staff to review. John Lowrey, resident, stated when the question of the pallets and storage containers was brought up at the Planning Commission meeting held in December 2016, the Walmart Representative, which spoke at that meeting, and is speaking tonight, apologized, and stated it would be taken care of, but as of today it still has not been done, and he has pictures if anyone would like to see them. He expressed that actions speak louder than words. He stated staff has mentioned conditions of approval and referred to Condition of Approval number 24,which was in the original conditional use permit, and has to do with the containers and there is another condition, but he does not know the number,which specifies the hours allowed for truck deliveries. He stated while he was walking and twice on January 21st and January 9th, at 5:28 am,there was a Golden State Food delivery truck delivering at the front door entry-way of the South entry door, and he has pictures of that if the Planning Commission would like to see them. He stated Walmart can come and say why do you have to keep an eye on them and that is why. He commented it took them over a year to get their parking lot security back in place, and that was only after he complained to the City, and the City started putting pressure on them. He added it took over a year to get the "No Overnight Parking' signage up and they put signs but did not mention"overnight", so he had to call the City again. He stated that he can understand why Walmart does not like to do this Annual Review but, like the gentlemen commented before him it is what Walmart agreed to do so let them live up to it. He thanked the Planning Commission and let them know he has the pictures if they would like to look at them. Todd Kunioka, resident, stated that it has been noted several times that there have recurring events, recurring issues, and then have meetings for the Annual Review where the City is assured that Walmart is taking care of it. He added, but it has been noted by several people that's when it is getting taken care of, and every meeting where you have the Annual Review or considered at the ending of the Annual Review, there is something where it is said, 'oh yeah we will take care of that". He stated if the Annual Review was not needed, then things would be taken care of by themselves. He stated it is pretty clear that when you need that institutional requirement to have that review either with staff's investigation or by review of complaints by the public at large. He stated that is the only way things are getting done, especially on the sound issues. He stated the Solar Inverter was mentioned but the other issue a lot of neighbors have mentioned for years and eventually they stopped complaining about, was not because the sound went away, but because it was clear no change was going to occur for the folks who are living in the condominiums on Delta Avenue adjacent to the property there is a direct line of site, the parapet wall is not high enough, to block a direct line of site to the compressors, so that sound goes right through their windows. He stated the initial sound studies that had been done before a few years ago measured the sound at street level, but that is not where the issue was, and it was required at this Annual Review process to get this sound monitoring up at the window level where you had that direct line of site. He added you still have that direct line of site and to him it seems to be a pretty simple fix, even if you put a chain link fence with sound absorbing material perimeter around those compressors it would be a partial approach to that sound issue. He added it would at least take away that line of site and that has not been proposed and certainly not being planned. He stated he has some concern that without this Annual Review 8 those issues would never be addressed, he mentioned that he had written material that was presented at the December 2016, Planning Commission and he does not want to repeat it all, but he would like to thank the Planning Commission for their consideration last time and for their questions this time. He stated he is impressed that the Planning Commission is doing their job, reading the material, listening to the public, asking questions to make the right decision. He stated this Annual Review, although it is a special case,the store itself is a special case by being directly adjacent to a residential area, it is a place where the General Plan needed to be changed to put something in there, and neighbors were not expecting a 200,000 square foot retail development so close to their homes, which was a big change. He said it also applies to the California Quality of Family Act requirements that did not apply,for as an example when Target was built. He stated so this is a special case and yes you are the only business singled out for this requirement, but this is the only store that has these characteristics. He recommended that it is important that this Annual Review continue and he suggest a"No Vote"for this motion. He stated he will come back for Item 4A, later. Lydia Martinez, resident,stated she had written a letter for the Planning Commission meeting in December 2016,and she would like to reiterate all of those points and the Commissioners all have copies of her letter. She stated she would like to emphasis the fact that the residents really do need this Annual Review always.She stated you never know what will happen with any of those conditions of approval, so they need the protection and they count on the Planning Commission as their representation to protect them. She stated that she and her neighbors have been subjected to a lot since this project came to being. She explained when this project was under construction they had to put up with dust, noise, trucks, electricity was cut off, gas and water was also cut off, so they could build it, and it was an inconvenience to them. She expressed that they deserve to be protected against each and every one of those conditions of approval. She stated they are very important to those that live there because they live there 24/7 and nobody else lives there they do. She expressed this Annual Review needs to stay in place forever and thanked the Planning Commission. Yuki Fokomoto, resident,expressed concern that she had to attend another Planning Commission meeting regarding this Annual Review. She stated there are three reasons why this should stay in place: 1) It is not unreasonable, because it is only once a year,and yes, it does take time and money, but it is something that Walmart signed up for. 2) She stated she is educated on how some of the Conditions of Approval and Municipal Codes both may cover certain issues but, there are still certain conditions of approval that need to be brought to the resident's attention, such as the sale of ammunition and arms, and if it is only an Annual Review. 3) She expressed that the residents that live on Delta Avenue are still being harmed, this entity has been known and does not have a record for not following through. She added the residents still need protection and as for being a good neighbor she believes that is an'Allstate"statement and not a"Walmart"statement. She requested that this Annual Review continue. Yvonne Fernandez, resident, stated she has two concerns. First, she walks on Delta Avenue and she would like to know if security checks the dugout area because there are times she hears voices and if they do not would they consider doing it. Her second concern is she has seen trucks driving on Rush Street in the morning hours while children are going to school. She stated this concerns her because there is a lot of traffic and expressed the trucks should not be driving through there. Frances Chavez, resident, stated she is concerned and this Annual Review should be kept.She stated she is a teacher and they have report cards for a reason as it keeps people in check, where people are at, and what kind of progress is taking place. She stated she does not shop at Walmart and will never shop there, she has high values,as far as that is concerned.She added she is concerned for the children,their safety,and she knows a lot of things were put into place, but who knows what can change in the future that could affect those children. She stated it is the Planning Commission's job to protect the citizens, and that should come before anything else. She stated residents matter and requested that the Annual Review stay in place. She commented that a corporation should not be a person and requested to please keep the Annual Review, what is it going to cost, it may save some people's lives,and it will give people some peace of mind. 9 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 Commissioners if there were any further comments or questions for staff. Commissioner Eng stated she would like to thank everyone for attending this evening. She stated she respectfully disagrees with Council Member Steven Ly's suggestion that the Planning Commission final action at the December 19,2016 Planning Commission meeting did not account for important consideration and precedence. She stated the item took over 30 minutes,the Planning Commission considered comments shared by residents in person and in writing, advocating to keep the Annual Review. She stated it was a unanimous 4 to 0 vote. She stated her second point is her reasons for keeping the Annual Review has not changed and the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 19, 2016, captures her reasons, so she will not repeat those reasons again. She stated those reasons are still valid for her this evening. Commissioner Tang stated he would like to go back to Mr. Flournoy's comments in regards to the seismic fault lines. He asked when the Panda Restaurant as well as the other buildings in that area was constructed was a geological study conducted or an EI R. City Attorney Murphy stated there is a member of staff that may be available to address that and replied some of the information that Mr. Flournoy has is correct or some could be mistaken. He added in terms of what is before the Planning Commission it is the Modification or Reconsidering the Modification, which was brought up in December and the conditions that would be of issue were deemed to be satisfied by professional staff and the Planning Commission at that time. He stated when staff conducts the Annual Review they do not go back and second guess decisions that were made a decade ago. They are looking at the on-going conditions, which were the ones that were read out this evening to see where they are on these. He stated it would be a different venue for discussing the concerns that Mr. Flournoy has brought up and there is staff available to discuss which reports they have or do not have. He stated that they can touch on that briefly, but it is not really much of a part of whether they should have an on-going Annual Review discussion. He requested they speak briefly on that and then go from there. Commissioner Tang stated that is fine, he just wanted to make sure Mr. Flournoy's comments were not dismissed and if there were gaps that need to be addressed and if they are legitimate then action will be taken on it. He stated he would like to thank Walmart's representative for introducing store manager Kenny Tran, and the residents for attending this meeting. He stated this has been a hot topic for many, it is a special case, and it's an unprecedented case because they don't really have this anywhere else. He stated the size and scope of this store does merit it and as a City we are trying to attract new businesses like Lucille's and we want new businesses to spur up the community because we want people to work and play in our community. He stated we want to set an example for other potential businesses to come into the City and we want to show them we are business friendly and are willing to work with them as good neighbors and partners. He stated Walmart is going to be here for the long term and to the residents that have problems with Walmart, they are really not going to go away, so what can be done to help build the bridge the differences,to make sure Walmart is held accountable for the things they should be doing and some of the things that they are not doing. He stated at the same time Walmart should be forced to work with the residents as to make sure those issues are addressed. He stated what he is trying to achieve is to hopefully find a compromise. He stated if it is found that ultimately there is a need for this Annual Review, and with counting 15 conditions of approval, which were counted off earlier, and some are already written in the Municipal Code, is there a real need for this Annual Review. He suggested that maybe removing the Annual Review and gives more power to the residents by doing an annual agenda item to review the concerns that the residents may have without a formalized process of having staff reach out to state and local agencies for responses on conditions that they really don't have any changes or opinions on. He also suggested that it could be semi-annually also, to give residents an opportunity to come twice a year to an agenda item at a Planning Commission where they can come, voice their concerns, and to have Walmart 10 representatives at the table to make force dialog, so action can be taken. He reiterated that he is trying to find a compromise and a way were we can be partners, we are a community together, some have businesses here, and there has to be a way to find a good marriage to this because he does not see Walmart going away or some of these residents going away, so how can it be worked out to live in peace. He asked if the Planning Commission had any thoughts or ideas on this item and requested discussion take place to finding a compromise to this item. Chair Lopez stated Commissioner Eng and Commissioner Tang both had valid points, but he expressed they are missing one thing, and that is people. He expressed if the Planning Commission lets this condition go, then they leave the door open for nothing to happen. He stated corporations sometimes tend to forget, even when they are asked, and if they don't have someone pushing on them, and as a resident of Rosemead he expressed the Annual Review is an important step to keep. He stated residents need to know as a Planning Commissioners, City Council members, and staff that work for the City, that we are here to listen and be there for them. He stated this Annual Review is only once a year and City Council may override the Planning Commission's decision but it is important that the Annual Review stays in place. He asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Lopez asked for a motion. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Chair Lopez not to ADOPT Resolution No. 17-01 with findings and DENY Modification 16-02 subject to revised conditions of approval. Commissioner Tang made a Subsitute motion to grant the Modification, but to have a Semi-Annual Agenda Item to allow residents the opportunity to voice their concerns and give a forum for those residents to express those concerns with Walmart present. City Attorney Murphy requested that the Planning Commission discuss this second motion to see if they have consensus on this. Commissioner Tang explained what he is proposing is a motion to allow two agenda items twice a year for residents specifically to voice concerns on anything and everything regarding Walmart and to have both parties present to work out solutions. He stated that way it will give residents two times a year to voice their concerns, rather than once a year, and having things dragged out. Community Development Director Ramirez stated she would hope that any of the issues that the residents have wouldn't wait every 6 months to report. She stated as soon as staff knows of any concerns or issues, and there is a resident that has spoken in the audience has brought issues to staffs attention, staff acts on it immediately. She added staff's concern is that they don't always hear about these issues not even at the Annual Review. She stated residents usually do not even attend the Annual Review to let them know of these issues. She explained residents themselves can go on the City's website where they themselves can submit a complaint or request and staff will be notified immediately or residents may call staff directly. She added she will have to defer the suggestion of every 6 month to the City Attorney because she is not sure how this would work or resolve any issues. She explained if staff is made aware of the issues regarding Walmart, then staff will handle it and if it involves Code Enforcement staff will forward it to them to handle. She stated even with an Annual Review she would be disappointed if anyone waited until that time to take place before reporting an issue. She added as soon as something is happening, that is when staff should know. If trucks are driving on Rush Street,staff needs to know right then as waiting for every 6 months is not going to resolve the problem. Code Enforcement needs to be sent out immediately to catch them. She stated that is what is important for staff. 11 Commissioner Tang staled he would like to echo that to the residents that are present because after hearing Mr. Lowrey's statements about the delivery trucks and shipping containers, he would hope if there are issues like that, they would bring it to the City's attention immediately. Community Development Director Ramirez stated Mr. Lowrey does bring it to the City and staff's attention. Commissioner Tang stated what he is suggesting is that if those issues are not resolved,then he wants to give those residents the opportunity to come twice a year to the Planning Commission to voice their concerns rather than once a year under this Annual Review. He suggested this as a compromise or an idea that the Planning Commission can discuss. Commissioner Eng stated she is trying to understand what Commissioner Tang is proposing. She stated there is a mechanism is in place currently, and what he is suggesting is to direct staff to put up an Agenda twice a year to discuss Walmart. She asked how that would be a compromise because now they would have to come twice instead of once. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that what Commissioner Tang is suggesting is that the conditional use permit would not be reviewed, it would just allow residents to come in and speak of any issues they have. She added staff reports would not have to be written or very basic stating this is a time for residents to speak. Commissioner Tang stated ideally the City would be able to resolve the issues and they would not have to be presented again. He added he would like to provide a forum where the residents would not just have once a year and hopefully it would be a forum where they can just voice unresolved issues. He stated that after listening to the residents' concerns and their discussions, some of the issues are related to the conditions of approval,and most can be addressed immediately by City staff, which some are also included in the Municipal Code already and are not unique. Chair Lopez stated the City is already doing this and if the Annual Review is kept, then it allows staff to always question Walmart when they receive calls from residents. He stated the conditions of approval are always open and not closed. He explained if the Annual Review is kept in place it allows staff to address issues/concerns immediately. Commissioner Tang stated he agrees with this process but concerns such as delivery trucks and landscaping can be brought up at time regardless of the Annual Review. He added what he is trying to do is see if there is a compromise. Chair Lopez stated that without the Annual Review, Code Enforcement would have to be contacted, and not go through the City. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that it would still go through the City. She stated if a complaint were made it would first go to City staff and staff would contact Code Enforcement to investigate and confirm the complaint is valid. Commissioner Tang stated what he is trying to do is to eliminate the redundancy in having to contact the agencies, the time, and resource involved in that. He added if there are violations such as truck deliveries,shipping containers, graffiti, or of people congregating where they should not be, then it should be addressed to the City and the City should be able to naturally in response go and investigate as if they were going to do an Annual Review and investigate those conditions. He stated that is what he is suggesting and he is trying to make it, so that it works more efficiently. Chair Lopez asked if Commissioner Tang is suggesting that midway there is an open forum instead of at the end of the year,as it always is. 12 Commissioner Tang replied whatever time is convenient for everyone. Commissioner Herrera asked Commissioner Tang if he is suggesting a once a year review or not. Commissioner Tang replied he is suggesting a semi-annual with it being done twice a year. Commissioner Herrera asked if he is suggesting every 6 months. Commissioner Tang replied yes, and explained it eliminates the obligation of staff having to follow up with federal, state, and local agencies. He stated staff has already stated that these agencies have no comments because they have already commented on previous Annual Reviews. He stated if that is eliminated, then the City is working smarter and still providing an outlet for residents to voice their concerns and address those concerns at the Planning Commission level. He stated he is confident because he has met the Store Manager Ken Tran in the past and he is a great store manager. He added store managers make a big difference because they control the facility from the inside and out, and make the determination on how to upkeep and maintain the facility, but also how to support the community in general. He stated Mr. Tran is a good partner in hand for that and hopefully he is right. He stated he can also make an amendment to his motion and make this pending the Resolution of the noise barrier. Commissioner Eng asks what happens when the Store Manager Kenny Tran becomes the CEO of Walmart. Commissioner Tang stated that would be a good day. Commissioner Eng pointed out that you cannot keep Kenny Tran indefinitely. Commissioner Tang stated that Kenny Tran would have set some best practices so his predecessors can follow. Chair Lopez stated let's refer to the Modification and asked City Attorney Murphy what he has recommended. City Attorney Murphy stated if there is a second motion to Commissioner Tang's motion and if the Planning Commission would like to go in that direction, you would first need a modification to Section 2 of the resolution, because you would not be eliminating Condition of Approval number 59, you would be modifying it, and you would delete the last sentence of that finding, because you would not need the fact that City staff is proposing a modification to eliminate the condition. He stated Section 3 would be modified and again instead of saying to eliminate the condition it would say to modify it and in the last portion of Section 3 we say which requires the Annual Review, we would say: 'The Planning Commission hereby Approves Modification 16-02 to modify Condition of Approval number 59 for Developmental Agreement 04-01 and Parcel Map 26827 and Conditional Use Permits 02- 882 and 03-939 to provide two opportunities per year for public input on Walmart's compliance on conditions of approval". He stated, then you would modify Condition of Approval number 59 to read: "The Planning Commission shall agenize an action item at two meetings per calendar year to provide an opportunity for public input on the developer's compliance with these conditions of approval". He stated that would allow for what Commissioner Tang has requested in terms of two meetings per year and will not require staff to conduct a review of the tenant's operations and instead will make the forum that the Planning Commission has been discussing. He added if that is their wish, then a second to the motion would be in order and it would be a substitute motion and would be on the table first and if there is not a second then the motion is voted down and then they would revert to Commissioner Eng's original motion. Community Development Director Ramirez asked for staff's clarification where would this action item appear on the Agenda. 13 City Attorney Murphy replied it would be under"New Business Item' and the current Annual Review is not a Public Hearing Item, so it would make sense to have a "New Business Item" and he would not call it Unfinished Business because each individual meeting should be its own chance for discussion, but imposing a new Public Hearing requirement would not get rid of the cost and time issue, which the Planning Commissioners were hoping to solve because it would require the cost to mail and cost to notify. Community Development Director Ramirez asked if it would be under the Public Hearing Item, so it would be an additional cost. City Attorney Murphy replied no, it would be under and he phrased it that it could just be an action item to be "New Business". Community Development Director Ramirez asked, so staff would not have to do any noticing if it is under "New Business". City Attorney Murphy replied that is correct, and if the Planning Commission wants to change that, then you would say to Agenize a Public Hearing at two meetings per calendar year. Commissioner Tang stated he would prefer that it be a Public Hearing, so that residents can be noticed, so they will know when they are going to be agenizing this item. He added that way they will have the opportunity to plan to be here to discuss this item. City Attorney Murphy stated so now it will read to state: "The Planning Commission shall Agenize a Public Hearing at two meetings per calendar year to provide an opportunity far public input on the developer's compliance with these conditions of approval". Commissioner Herrera asked Commissioner Eng how she sees that as a good thing. Commissioner Eng asked staff if the Annual Review is a Public Hearing item currently. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that it is not a Public Hearing item it is currently a Consent item. Commissioner Eng stated so it is a Consent item where staff is just reporting to the Planning Commission. She added so now it is being proposed as Iwo Public Hearing items, which means we have to notice and post. She added while it takes away staff task of contacting different agencies that they are currently doing,staff will now have to post an action item where the community can come and share concerns about any issues about the operations of Walmart. Community Development Director Ramirez stated it will not change any of the staff's time and will stay about the same because staff will have to that prepare the Public Hearing Notice, label and stuff the envelopes, and prepare mailings. Commissioner Eng expressed that to her it seems to be a wash. Vice-Chair Dang stated that if there are two calendar items per year it seems to be duplicating work. He stated if they are concerned about the waste of time for staff when they do this Annual Review perhaps the Planning Commission can consider conditions that are here that deal with construction and things of that nature. He added in other words, Public Works won't be involved, Fire Department won't be involved, things in that nature, and will help stream-line staff's effort and expedite this Annual Review process. He stated this way she would not have to utilize too much of the other sister agencies resources and at the same time keep it at once a year, so that it does not inconvenience all the residents to come twice a year. He stated if the residents feel that anytime throughout the 14 year there is an issue, they need to reach out to staff, Code Enforcement, Planning Commission,or the City because we want to be proactive. He added if the City staff does not know of the issue,then they cannot help. He stated the Planning Commission meeting helps bring both parties together and residents need to reach out to City staff to help understand the situations in order to help them. He stated it is important for Walmart staff to listen to the resident's concerns and try to be proactive. He stated he heard that an issue has not been resolved since December, it is still an on-going issue, and that is why the residents are here trying to make a statement. He suggested moving forward in two or three years it Walmart has a stellar record, or whenever there is a complaint and the solution is quickly handled, perhaps the Planning Commission could see this at a different light. He added currently the issue is still on hand and the public needs a platform to voice their concern. He stated this platform is helpful to the public and allows them to voice an opinion if there concerns with Walmart, the City,and if Code Enforcement is not being active or being responsive enough, then their concerns can be forwarded to City Management. He added it is important to have this platform. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that it is sounds like the Planning Commission would like to modify this conditional use permit and remove the conditions of approval that have already been completed like preconstruction and construction. She suggested instead of staff having each year to go through which ones apply and which ones don't, they just can bring back any code cases that have been open, so that the Planning Commission can see what code cases they have had throughout the year and if those were addressed. She stated that way it puts the burden on the public and if they are having an issue, then they need to be responsible for reporting it and for Code Enforcement to act upon it. Commissioner Tang stated the only issue he sees with that are things like the noise, there would not be a code case open for that matter,and they would not be able to view that unless a resident brought it up. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that is true and with the noise that is still something the Planning Commission does not have any control over, because they are within the City noise ordinance. She added that is something that staff will continue to work with Walmart in hopes that they do correct that. She stated she does not disagree that there is a humming noise and Commissioner Eng and herself,have been out there, but it's a matter of Walmart complying with the Municipal Code that makes it difficult for staff to do anything. Commissioner Herrera asked if Walmart did say they would be working on it and the cost is $27,000 instead of a$250,000. She stated maybe next year it will be completed, everyone will be satisfied, and maybe this can be reconsidered again next year. She added this would be a neighborly thing to do. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that Walmart has always responded quickly when there has been an issue that the public has made staff aware of, and been able to do something about it. Commissioner Tang stated that the noise isn't part of the purview of the Planning Commission, but they can still bring that up as an issue and he is sure Walmart is willing to listen to it and hopefully try their best to resolve it. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if there will be a change or not. City Attorney Murphy stated currently there is a motion on the table from Commissioner Tang to modify Condition of Approval number 59 and if there is a second, then they will go forward with this as he has read into the record. He stated there has been subsequent discussion on it so the Planning Commission may want to withdraw that motion and see if there is certain language that makes people happy or if the Planning Commission would want to go into a denial right now. He stated he leaves this up to the Planning Commission. Chair Lopez stated the motion is to change it and requested a second. 15 Commissioner Tang stated if the Planning Commission does not agree with doing this twice a year, then he is agreeable to once a year. Chair Lopez stated a second motion is needed. Motions were discussed by the Planning Commission and staff. City Attorney Murphy explained a motion was made by Commissioner Eng and Chair Lopez seconded and now Commissioner Tang made a substitute motion, which the Planning Commission has been debating. He stated that motion now needs to be seconded and carried to a vote,to be withdrawn,or if there is no second then the motion will die for a lack of a second,at which time the Planning Commission would move back to the original motion. Commissioner Herrera asked if there are certain condition of approvals that have been completed be minimized. City Attorney Murphy stated staff can take the direction from this hearing that the Planning Commission does not want the review go into some of the depth that it has gone into the past. He stated that language has never been in the conditions of approval in the first place,that is the way staff has carried it forward, and staff has clear direction on how the Planning Commission would like this to see this go. Chair Lopez stated a second motion will be needed for Commissioner Tang's motion. Commissioner Herrera asked for clarification on the motions. Chair Lopez explained there are two motion's on the table. City Attorney Murphy explained the motion that needs a second, if it is going to be voted on, is to keep Condition of Approval number 59, but modify it to agenize for public hearing for an opportunity to get public input on the compliance with the conditions of approval. He added if that motion is not seconded,then it is dead and the Planning Commission will revert to Commissioner Eng's motion, which is to Deny staff's recommendation and you would continue to have the Annual Review that is currently in place, and at that point the Planning Commission can move on to Item 4A., on their Agenda, which is a Resolution for Denial which has been brought back from the previous Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Herrera asked what about minimizing the conditions of approval. City Attorney Murphy explained that is just direction for staff on how to carry this forward, because there is nothing in the conditions of approval themselves, that talk about the way that staff has to conduct the Annual Review of the major tenants operations. He stated staff has been conducting a very thorough one because when staff started this 11 or 12 years ago, it was a very thorough review. He stated that the Director and staff understands that the Planning Commission does not think that much of a review is necessary and that this can focus on the on-going conditions of approval. He stated without that going on to a resolution that is the direction that has been given this evening no matter how this item is carried over. Commissioner Herrera confirmed that it will be considered minimizing conditions of approval, which involve contacting agencies such as the Fire Department, and items not necessary, every year. Chair Lopez replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang explained that staff will have the direction to minimize the conditions of approval regardless if they are supporting Commissioner Tang's motion or Commissioner Engs motion. 16 Commissioner Herrera stated she does not see how Commissioner Tang's motion will make a difference. City Attorney Murphy stated if there is not a second for the motion,then the Chair can say the motion dies for a lack of a second,and then move forward to Commissioner Eng's motion. Chair Lopez stated there is motion and a second for the original Modification 16-02 to keep the Annual Review and requested a vote. City Attorney Murphy clarified that the motion is to Deny staff's recommendation and to keep Condition of Approval number 59 as it is. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Chair Lopez to not ADOPT Resolution No. 17-01 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: Tang Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with a 4 Ayes and 1 Abstain. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. MODIFICATION 16-02 (DENIAL) - On December 19, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the public hearing for Modification 16-02, a request to modify Condition of Approval Number 59 for Development Agreement 04-01, Tentative Parcel Map 26827 and Conditional Use Permits 02-882 and 03-939,which currently requires the annual Planning Commission review of Walmart's compliance with the conditions of approval. After considering all testimony and facts available, the Planning Commission voted to deny Modification 16-02. In addition, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution for the denial of Modification 16-02. RESOLUTION NO. 16-21 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DENYING 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. Staff Recommendation-It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider Resolution No. 16- 21 to deny Modification 16-02. City Attorney Murphy stated Item 4.A was put into place based upon the Planning Commission's direction at the Planning Commission meeting held on December 19, 2016 in which it was said they were Denying Modification 16- 02 and it was needed that the Resolution 16.21 comes back for approval of a Denial because it had not been prepared. The Public Hearing on the substance of the matter was concluded and the Planning Commission had a discussion and took that vote. He stated there is a brief agenda report and the resolution itself, if the Planning Commission would like to have a discussion, the discussion would be on the terms of the resolution. He stated if they think there is anything in there that is improperly categorizes their discussion or is somehow inaccurately representation of what went on, and that is the same for the public. They are not there to talk about the 17 underline project so much as the vote has been made and does this resolution properly set-forth what the Planning Commission's vote was. He stated there is a brief staff report and staff is able to help, but it would be proper to allow the public to comment in that limited scope, have their discussion, and then have a motion to approve, is to approve this Denial,at which at this point will become final. Chair Lopez asked staff if there was a need to discuss this item. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Lopez asked for a motion. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Chair Lopez, to consider Resolution No. 16-21 to DENY Modification 16-02. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: Tang Absent: None Community Development Director stated the motion passes with a 4 Ayes and 1 Abstain vote and explained the 10- day appeal process. Todd Kunioka, resident,asked if there was public comment on this item and stated he had requested to speak on this item,he had further comments but they were not audible as he spoke from the audience. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, and explained that the Public Comment had been completed and closed the Public Hearing at the last Planning Commission meeting held on December 19,2016. Todd Kunioka commented but it was not audible. Community Development Director stated it is being left as Status Quo. Todd Kunioka commented but it was not audible. City Attorney Murphy explained that on a Unfinished Business Item there is not a need for Public Comment, as there would be for a Public Hearing item.He added the item is finished unless the Planning Commission would like to re- open it. He stated the Planning Commission has approved this item and it is moving forward. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 12-19-16 Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to approve Minutes of 12-19-16, as presented. 18 Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng,Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: Tang Absent: None Community Development Director stated the motion passes with a 4 Ayes and 1 Abstain vote. 6. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced the time, date, and location of the Coyote Awareness Workshop. She announced the time, date, and location to be determined for the Community Area Watch Committee meeting. She also announced the time, date, and location of the City's Community Yard Sale. She added if anyone would like to rent a space for the yard sale to please contact the Parks&Recreation Department. 7. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Eng stated she would like to thank Community Development Director Michelle Ramirez for contacting the Planning Commission in regards to the Planning Commissioners Academy to be held in March 2017, and she looks forward to attending. She stated she would also like to wish everyone a happy and productive 2017, continue to be present,take time to care,and do what you can to make your families and community thrive. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:40 pm. The regular Planning Commission meeting to be held on Monday,February 20,2017,will be Cancelled. The next regular Planning Commission will be held on Monday, March 6,2017,at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. CASS, Daniel Lopez !i Chair ATT T: z) bici Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 19