Loading...
Pc - Item 4A - Minutes of August 21, 2017Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August 21, 2017 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice -Chair Tang in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Eng INVOCATION — Commissioner Lopez ROLL CALL — Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Vice -Chair Tang ABSENT - Chair Dang STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Interim Community Fajardo, Assistant Planner Lao, and Commission Secretary L 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND City Attorney Murphy presented the procedure and appeal 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS RIGHTS the meeting. 'ity Engineer A. MODIFICATION 17-05 — Connecticut Ave. XB, LLC has submitted a Modification Application requesting to modify Design Review 14-06. Design Review 14.06 was approved by the Rosemead Planning Commission on September 15, 2014, for a mixed use project consisting of a 6,500 square foot retail building fronting Garvey Avenue and 48 residential units in the rear. To incorporate restaurant use, the applicantis proposing to re-classify the retail use to a shopping center use. Parking will not be impacted as the parking requirements for a shopping center is consistent with retail use. The subject site is located at 9036-38 Garvey Avenue (known as 9048 Garvey Avenue), in the Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay (C-3/MUDO/D-0) zone. Per Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.120.110(C), a 'proposed change that does not comply with the criteria identified in subsection B of [RMC Section 17.120.110], or any other provision of the Zoning Code, may only be approved by the original review authority for the project through a modification permit application filed and process in compliance with [RMC Chapter 17.120]. PC RESOLUTION 17-17 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION 17-05, A MODIFICATION OF DESIGN REVIEW 14-06, TO RE-CLASSIFY THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT OF THE MIXED USE PROJECT TO A SHOPPING CENTER USE, FOR THE INCORPORATION OF RESTAURANT USE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 9036-38 GARVEY AVENUE, IN THE MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A MIXED USE AND DESIGN OVERLAY (C-3/MUDO/D-0) ZONE (APN: 5282.026- 052). STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17-17 with findings and APPROVE Modification 17-05, subject to the 102 conditions. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Vice -Chair Tang asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if the five tenant spaces in the commercial area will all be equal in size, in terms of square footage, or is it changing. Assistant Planner Lao replied that the existing floor plan for the commercial building will not be changing. Commissioner Eng stated there are five tenants, it is 6,500 square feet, and asked if it will be 1,300 square feet per tenant space. Assistant Planner Lao replied they will not be exactly the same size because Suited is a little different. Commissioner Eng asked if there will always be five tenant spaces. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked how many food retailers are being proposed for this development. Assistant Planner Lao replied that question may be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Eng referred to parking analysisin the staff report on page four, where parking standards are explained and asked if this parking standard was in effect when this project came up. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Commissioner Eng stated there were changes made to the parking code and asked staff when they were made. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied it was in November "2013". Commissioner Eng stated she specifically brought up the issue of parking regarding restaurant use for this project and read the bottom of page four, of the Planning Commission minutes from September 15, 2014, regarding commercial parking standards and restaurant parking requirements. She stated she took what she read as face value, this has 26 parking spaces, and the staff report indicates that a traffic study is not required. She asked staff whathappened. Assistant Planner Lao explained that the parking study was staff's initial response, but there is a new buyer and they initiated the conversion of the commercial lot to a shopping center use. She added staff consulted with the City Attorney and the City Engineer and the City Engineer stated that because the building is 6,500 square feet, he did not foresee any traffic or parking impacts. City Engineer Fajardo explained that the traffic impact analysis was initially based as a shopping center (non -retail) and it is now being converted into a shopping center. He added the generated trips will be the same, so it will not be a major impact regarding traffic. Commissioner Eng stated restaurants are a more intense use and as a matter of planning that is why the restaurant parking requirement is one space per 100 square feet. She requested staff to clarify this because this concern came up. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela explained that the original intent for the applicant was to not incorporate restaurant use. She added the commercial property, however, was purchased by a new owner who reached out to staff stating that this meets the requirement of a shopping center. She said that is why staff contacted the City Attorney and the City Engineer to confirm if the applicant met the requirement. Staff was told by both the City Attorney and City Engineer that they meet the requirements and that is why the applicant is requesting to incorporate the restaurant use to this shopping center. Commissioner Eng stated her concern is that specifically at that time, when the project was presented, it was asked if there was a different parking standard for restaurant use, and if the applicant was requesting restaurant use. She added that she understood it if they wanted to incorporate restaurant use it would: require a parking analysis. She added if they had met at that time, they should have been told, and then this modification would not be necessary. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated that staff d', project property being sold to two owners. She explained they intended tf it was brought to staff's attention that Preface LLC had sold the residential to sell the commercial portion. She added at this point the new owr requirements for a shopping center, requested it, and this is why it's being Commissioner Eng addressed the City Attorney and stated this commercial building is on a separate parcel when it was developed. City Attorney Murphy replied one parcel was presented to the and deferred the explanation to the Interim Community Develol Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela s Planning Commission, the intent was to create two parce Tentative Tract Map that was approved by the Planning C Commissioner Eng asked what the maximum capacity for d not have, any intention of the mixed-use is as being one project, however, in '2015" portion to Benchmark, and their intent was ers contacted staff, stated they met the presented. was a subdivision and asked if the and it was subdivided into two Tact Map 72871 came before the ent. She explained that the original parcels. restaurant use is. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated that question can be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Eng asked if a condition of approval will be added requiring a grease trap because this project was not intended initiallv for a restaurant use. Development, Director Valenzuela replied yes, it will be added. Vice -Chair Tang asked when Preface LLC sold the property. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied it was in the year "2015" that staff was told that the residential section had been sold to Benchmark Communities. Vice -Chair Tang asked if this is common for some mixed use developments to be converted into shopping centers, not only in this community, but in other nearby communities also. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela explained that all the mixed use developments that have been approved in the City of Rosemead have been vertical projects and this is the first horizontal project. Vice -Chair Tang stated that for technical legal language a definition of a shopping center was given. He asked if a shopping center can exist with this type of mixed use development, as it was originally intended. City Attorney Murphy replied he does not see any reason why the commercial portion of any mixed use development couldn't be a shopping center the way the City of Rosemead's code is written. He added in this case the map that was approved said retail, it could say restaurant, it could say office, or it can say shopping center. He stated a shopping center is a means of saying they are going to have a combination of retail and restaurant, and maybe retail, restaurant, and office. He said by clustering those uses together with at least four different tenants in the given zones and either under less than 100,000 square feet or in some cases more than 100,000 square feet, you will set certain parking ratios, and certain types of requirements for those uses. He added in Rosemead when you have a shopping center what you are expecting is a certain mix of restaurants and retail instead of just one or the other. He stated the way the Council adopted the definition has made a policy determination that where you have those uses clustered together they are willing to accept the one per 250 parking ratio, rather than requiring the one per 100 for restaurant up to a certain square footage for restaurants, and up to one per 250 for the remainder that would have to stay retail. He stated it is a policy decision, certainly within the rights of any city to set that or make that kind of decision and that is how this came to be in terms of how it fits in mixed use, and it can be done in this type of horizontal mixed use. He added it could also be done in a vertical mixed use unless there is something in the code that specifically would not allow it. Vice -Chair Tang asked if that is the original intent for that definition to create this parking standard of one per 250 square feet is to make sure there is consistency since there is a restaurant requirement for parking and retail requirement. City Attorney Murphy replied it was a policy determination that they want to multiple tenants, and it's to say, given there are going to be multiple tenan parking. He stated one is to set a single ratio for the entire center, and the s up to a certain square footage for restaurants, and restaurants may be parke the remainder would be for retail and parking for retail would be one per i numbers would be figured out and parking fields would be set. He added if t come in, want a new restaurant, may not know the restrictions, and the Cit need to be invalidated, because it is against the Cities'' approval. He exp shopping center ratios and give the owner flexibility. Vice -Chair Tang asked what the parking ratio for a stand-alone restaurant is. Assistant Planner Lao replied it is one parking space per 100 square feet. Commissioner Eng questioned if that ratio is for a stand-alone restaurant. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. try to build these shopping centers with s; there are only two ways to figure out )cond is to say that the center may have J at one per 100 square feet. He added 50 square feet. He explained then the us route is taken then a new owner may i'may come in and say their lease may ained that it makes sense to set these Vice -Chair Tang stated that the definition that was provided by staff didn't say that this was a combination of retail and restaurant, he said it says, "shared businesses or managed as a total entity". He asked if the code specifies that it is a combination of retail and restaurant use. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that it states commercial site, so restaurants, retail, and office is considered commercial uses. City Attorney Murphy explained one reason why they talk about it being managed as a total entity, you don't want to say it has to be one parcel, often times some of the bigger and better tenants will want their own parcel. He explained like Target would be one of them, or if there was a Lowes or Home Depot, it would be the same thing they would want to own their own box He stated so you look at the management itself otherwise you end up with odd results. Vice -Chair Tang stated if the original proposal on the project was mixed use, he asked if they are now looking at this as two separate uses and not as a mixed use anymore. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that the components are still there, the commercial component is still at the 6,500 square foot retail building, and the residential is remaining in the rear. She added this would remain the same. Vice -Chair Tang stated so this would be looked at a broader perspective and would still be considered as a mixed use project. Commissioner Eng asked what the current parking standard for shopping centers is with less than 100 square feet with occupied space for restaurants. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied shopping centers with four or less uses would be parked at one per 100 for the restaurant use and for retail and office it would be one ,per 250. She stated for shopping centers with five or more tenant spaces the definition in the code allows for one per 250 for every use, regardless. Commissioner Eng asked if that is for more than five tenants.' Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if it is five tenants and below then it stays at 250. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela clarified it is four tenants or below. Vice -Chair Tang 100,000. Commissioner Eng it if it is four and below it is 100 and 250, five and above it is 250 flat, or less than of shopping centers have been developed recently. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied there are a lot of Rosemead. Commissioner Eng asked what the parking standards are for the smaller ones. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied it is one per 250. shopping centers in the City of Vice -Chair Tang asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions or comments for staff. None Vice -Chair Tang opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Patsy Ma, stated she is from BP International, Inc., and Representative for the new owner, who is Connecticut Ave. XB LLC, who is the new developer. She stated they acquired the property in "2016". She stated she is the marketing leasing agent for this project; they reached out to national, regional, and local tenants, to find out who may be interested in this site and new development. She added they received interest from fast food tenants such as Waba Grill, Firehouse Subs, Sub Sandwich chains, Papa John Pizza, and different hamburger chains. She stated the franchises like that this is a single -story site rather than a multi-level mixed use and that parking is on grade, so it is convenient for them. She addressed Commissioner Eng's question on the type of restaurants and explained these are mostly all fast food, quick serve restaurants, and are not the type that you will sit-down, tablecloth, and waited on restaurants, where patrons will sit for hours. She added the other food type restaurants that are interested are dessert concepts such as ice cream, tea, and bakery. She added parking will vary with different times of the day and there will be shared trips. She stated this project will be a synergy of different uses with a quick dinner, coffee or tea, and then a trip to the bakery for dessert. She added there will be retailers too but from the people they have spoken with three to four will be quick serve and one to two will be retail use. She stated the retail vendors have been considered are cell phone vendors, beauty products, and cosmetic vendors. She explained that the fast food vendors will probably seat 20-35 patrons that each unit is about 65 feet deep, and the average is about 1,300 square feet per unit. She referred to the grease trap and because the majority of interest is fast food, the developer has discussed this with Building and Safety, and it has been agreed that there will be a community grease trap. She added management will maintain as joint common area maintenance and that will control the cleanliness. She added the project being part of a mixed use and there are CC & R's in place, as well as the easement, the parking lot that is being used by the shopping area is going to be managed by Benchmark (parking lot lights, timing, landscaping, and maintenance) and further details are still being made. She stated they have received written proposals from Waba Grill and Vince & Tails which is a poke restaurant. She stated these are regional and national products they are seeking where they know what their ambiance and their design looks like to make this a successful project. Vice -Chair Tang asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions for the applicant. Commissioner Eng thanked the applicant for addressing and clarifying some of her questions. She asked if the CC & R's have been recorded, finalized, or are they a work in progress. Representative Patsy Ma replied it is a recorded CC&R's. Commissioner Eng stated there are now two separate owners and asked if the commercial parcel is being managed by the management for the residential parcel. Representative Patsy Ma replied there may be changes because the CC&R's were developed when the same developer had both projects. She addedConnecticut Ave. XB just inherited the CC&R's and it is a recorded document. Commissioner Eng asked if the management of the commercial parcel itself will be the same property manager as the residential. Representative Patsy Ma replied as it stands currently the CC&R's state that the residential portion will be managing the common areas, which is the parking, landscaping, and will probably have control of the parking lot lights in the parking area. She added the building footprint like building lights, the cleanliness, trash receptacles; those will be managed by the commercial building; owner, just the shared parking and landscape. Commissioner Eng asked if foreseeably there will be two management companies. Representative Patsy Ma replied yes, and stated it may be one, but it can be two. Commissioner Eng asked City Attorney Murphy if that is a common practice or will this create issues in regards to a mixed use. City Attorney Murphy stated it does not create issues for legal, but it may create issues for staff, in terms of making sure they know who bears responsibility if there are any code enforcement issues. Commissioner Eng asked if the intent is to have the majority of the units to be fast food franchises. Representative Patsy Ma replied three to four units will be fast food. Commissioner Eng asked if the new owner is still proposing to keep this as five units. Representative Patsy Ma replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if that will change. Representative Patsy Ma stated the new owner acquired 6,500 square feet of space, it can be divided into five units, and that is the best choice right now. Commissioner Eng asked if there are any plans to consolidate a couple of the units to have a bigger space Representative Patsy Ma replied no, because they need the five units to be a shopping center. Vice -Chair Tang asked if this item is not approved what they foresee for this space, will they just get more retail tenants, or what is the process. Representative Patsy Ma replied speaking in behalf as a real estate practitioner, she sees this turning into another older strip center type of uses with a beauty salon, real estate office, or insurance office, not that they are a bad, but it is a different synergy than what they can foresee with such a beautiful design. She stated it is hard to find a single - story shopping center, so the quick serve would serve the city and everybody much better. Vice -Chair Tang asked if there was anyone else None Vice -Chair Tang closed the Public Hearing and asked or comments. Commissioner Eng recommendE regarding the grease trap be incl) City Attorney Murphy addressed into the record, they can approve include a number of sub conditk would be the grease trap, any E anything else the city normally ar 17 and add them as Sub A, B, or this Commission if there were any further questions be approved as a mixed use, then a condition of approval the Planning Commission and suggested rather than him trying to read everything this item and give direction to staff to amend Condition of Approval number 17 to ins that would be the standard conditions related to restaurants. He stated that it :hahges to the trash, rubbish, garbage receptacles, venting to the restaurant and plies to restaurants. He stated this can all be put into Condition of Approval number Commissioner Eng stated she was excited when this project was brought up, especially because of the housing component, there is a need for housing, and it is a nice project to provide that. She stated that having 26 parking spaces for three or four restaurants is a little bit optimistic and her concern is that the residents behind the restaurants may be impacted. She added this item does meet the municipal code based on the city's current standards and the Planning Commission did not anticipate something like this because when the project was presented, they took the applicants presentation as face value and that they had no intention of including food retail into the development. She stated she especially asked directly about this. She doesn't understand that the developer would turn around and decide to sell the commercial parcel. She expressed that she understands the business needs and business decisions change, but this project was to have that tied in. She expressed concern that having four or five quick serve units with 26 parking spaces may be a little optimistic, but she can see that having one or two may be reasonable. Commissioner Herrera asked if there is a limit to the amount of eating establishments or is there a maximum. Assistant Planner Lao replied no, and stated if it is classified as a shopping center, then it is parked as one per 250, so they may propose to have five. Commissioner Herrera commented that there will always be five then. Commissioner Eng stated that the applicant will have to have five tenant spaces to qualify as a shopping center. Commissioner Herrera commented there has been change but expressed it as not negative change. Vice -Chair Tang expressed concern that the subdivision was allowed. He stated when he voted for this initially and he was excited about the synergy of this horizontal mixed use on Garvey i Avenue, which needs good development. He stated now, there are two owners and it creates a complexity of how issues will be solved with code enforcement and etc. He added this was a nice project with a lot of potential, a mixed use with affordable housing, and easy access for families to eat, work, and play. He commented that he agrees with foodestablishments being allowed, but expressed concern that 26 parking spaces is not for three to four food' establishments. He referred to the Rosemead Shopping Square where the (Wing Stop, The Habit, and Chipotle) are located and stated if that area was limited to 25 parking spaces consumers would be unhappy, and it would create spill over parking to the other areas and in this shopping center there is room. He expressed concern because for this mixed use the spill over parking would affect the residential neighborhood. He stated the Planning Commission is consistently hearing concerns with commercial establishments that abut residential properties and reckless or lack of parking. He stated his main concern is that 26 parking spaces is highly inadequate for three to four food establishments and the Planning Commission would be doing a disservice for the consumers that would frequent these locations. Commissioner Herrera Commissioner Eng food establishments Commissioner food and leavE your food, and leave, so the in they are small food establish always be parking concerns a staying for long periods of time. Vice -Chair Tang stated he agrc yet if these will be quick servE where patrons want to sit-down it can be limited to three eating establishments. that staff work' with the applicant to help on how parking concerns can be mitigated if fed. d that these are not sit-down restaurants, these are drive-thru, or park, and get your >e establishments are not large enough to have sit-down restaurant and the Planning is on a lot of ifs. He stated most strip malls are like a Subway where you park, order i and out traffic should not be a problem. He added whether there are three or five, ments, and he does not foresee any issues with this item. He expressed there will nd reiterated that these are not sit-down style restaurants where the patrons will be with Commissioner Lopez but the commercial property owner has not established tablishments. He asked what if a Starbucks or an ice cream concept comes in extended periods of time. Commissioner Lopez recommended that a condition of approval be established that requires the applicant to reapply for that type of sit-down establishments. Vice -Chair Tang recommended that perhaps both can be achieved where they find adequate parking and encourage amazing food restaurants come in. Commissioner Lopez stated he does not want to say no based on what may happen. He added the Planning Commission voted on this mixed use for a reason and even when it was voted for retail he had hoped they would bring restaurants or eateries. He added this modification is requesting a mall and he does not see anything wrong with this. Commissioner Eng stated that this is an opportunity for the applicant to work with staff because we want this to work and to work successfully. She commented that even if this is a quick serve such as Subway or Ono's, they will still sit-down for 30 minutes or so, and it will not be just an in and out service. She added she agrees with Vice -Chair Tang that 26 parking spaces are optimistic for three to four food units. She asked staff what measures they would like to see if these food units come in. City Attorney Murphy addressed the Planning Commission and stated there are two Planning Commissioners that are willing to move forward and two are requesting more information, more restrictions, and conditions where staff would be working with the applicant. He recommended that staff and the applicant work together and bring this item back when all five Planning Commissioners are present because this may be a two to two vote anyway. He stated this is an option and referred the item to Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela for her recommendation. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated Commission has dedicated a number of units to the shopping like to request that three units are dedicated as fast food esta will help mitigate this issue. She addressed Commissioner E code does not define quick serve. It only refers to it as fast difficult to decide what quick serve is and sit-down because a too and it would be considered sit-down. She stated it puts allowed or what is not allowed. Vice -Chair Tang asked whether it is defined as fast food or a per 100 square feet. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that in the past, for shopping centers, the Planning ;enter. She added if the Planning Commission would lishment out of the five, staff is supportive of that, if it g's reference to quick serve and stated the municipal )od and restaurant sit-down. She explained that it is ypical Poke Restaurant would have chairs and tables staff in a difficult stance in telling applicants what is parking requirement is still one but for shopping centers, it is one per 250. Vice -Chair Tang stated there is a parking standard one per 100 for food establishments for a specific reason, because it is known that regardless if it is fast food or sit-down, people may decide to park and have the option to dine there. He recommended finding different options and finding a way to increase parking, so that there will not have to be limits on food establishments: Commissioner Eng expressed that she would like this establishment to be successful, customers to be satisfied, and want to continue coming back. Vice -Chair Tang stated that there may be four to five quick food establishments, but his main concern is that there is one shared driveway, and as the food establishments gain popularity, it may create parking issues in the future. Commissioner Eng commented that area on Garvey Avenue is always congested with traffic. Vice -Chair Tang stated he agrees with the City Attorneys recommendation with staff working with the applicant, but does not feel 26 parking spaces is adequate. He asked if the Planning Commission had any other comments. Commissioner Lopez stated he agrees with the recommendation of staff working with the applicant. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela asked the Planning Commission which direction or solution would they like staff to take while working with the applicant. Commissioner Eng recommended that staff look into what the neighboring cities are doing in terms of shopping centers. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela addressed the City Attorney and stated if staff is abiding by the municipal code she asked for his recommendation to apply additional rules to this shopping center. Vice -Chair Tang stated while the City Attorney is researching that, this project is currently under construction, and asked what percentage has been completed. City Engineer Fajardo replied but it was not audible. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela explained the commercial area has recently just pulled permits Commissioner Herrera asked if the residential area has their own parking that has nothing to do with the commercial area. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied,: yes. She also added that for mixed use projects, the goal for planners is to create walkability, have them pedestrianfriendly, and to have uses such as restaurants, so people living in the residential units are able to have access to the restaurants. She explained that a lot of the customers may be the residents that live in the residential units and not patrons from other cities, or from just driving by. She added it will be a mixture of both, but the main goal for mixed use is for the residents living in the residential units. Commissioner Eng stated that they are providing a service to the City, residents, and the Planning Commission does not want to limit them. Commissioner Herrera asked what about the recommendation of limiting them to three units because this would be a compromise. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that has been done in the past, and if requested by the Planning Commission, the applicant may be asked if they are agreeable to that request. Representative Patsy Ma explained that three units will not be workable because they are trying to create a synergy. She added there is not a definition of fast/quick serve they are all fast food. She added that if they have a coffee concept there will be a bakery, coffee shop, then a fast food, and then a tea. She added they need a mixture so patrons may visit a variety of options. She added that it does meet the zoning code in regards to parking. She explained the common area parking arrangement that was made at a previous mix use project with a hotel in Monrovia and stated it is working out well. Commissioner Eng stated when this project was initially approved the Planning Commission they did not anticipate having food use go in it. She requested that staff take the opportunity to make sure conditions of approval that are in place address and preserve the goal of what a mix use is. City Attorney Murphy stated there are two things, the Director has asked if the code has a requirement and how does staff work with it. He added he did try to find the code section online but it was not immediately available, often times the parking standard will have standard parking ratios but in a circumstance where a standard ratio is not sufficient or maybe too onerous the ratio can be departed from with a parking study. He added he would need to look at the code language to be sure there is not some flexibility there. He added the second item is Condition of Approval number 27, requiring a parking management plan for approval by staff, and then the incorporation of that plan into the CC&R's. He added in respect to how the parking spaces are used that parking management plan needs to be done and he does not know where that is. He referred to the very last page of the packet for this item and where the lots 10 are split across the front, there needs to be a sign and some striping to separate out parking spaces that look like they are part of the commercial lot, but have to be dedicated to the residential lot as guest spaces. In terms of the way that parking management plan is going to work, that's one aspect of it and he does not know if the parking management plan has been done yet. He stated that plan may resolve some of the concerns. Commissioner Eng asked if staff has seen the parking management plan. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied yes, it was reviewed by City Attorney Murphy, and it has been approved. City Attorney Murphy asked how long ago this was. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied it was a year ago. City Attorney Murphy stated it would have to be brought back to look at and to know where it is, see what it says, where the state of parking is going to be, and where we will go from there. It was approved as the initial approval and not the changes, so it is a matter of changing the parking management plan to take into account the changes to the project, then they will take a look at that. Vice -Chair Tang stated there are ten parking spaces allocated for the residential that don't have any barriers or a security gate that says these are the commercial parking spaces and these are the residential spaces. He asked staff if there is a potential that anyone can park in a residential stall even if there is a marked sign. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied they shouldn't and the residential parking is separated. Vice -Chair Tang asked if there is a barrier that separates them. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied there will be signs stating, "Residential Parking Only". Vice -Chair Tang stated when people are desperate they will park anywhere. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated it will be up to the security guard or Management Company. Commissioner Herrera questioned if people; really do that and if she sees handicap parking she does not park there. Vice -Chair Tang stated they have heard issues of this all the time and of people parking in someone's driveway. He added he hears a majority of consensus that the Planning Commission would like to see staff work with the applicant to devise a plana Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela clarified if the Planning Commission is requesting that the applicant do a parking study, to see if the parking can accommodate the restaurant use. She stated that would be the alternative parking method that staff would apply. ' Commissioner Eng asked it the applicant is required to do this under the code. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied staff may require it, if that is the will of the Planning Commission. Vice -Chair Tang asked if they are really required to do this. 11 Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that is an alternative parking provision that staff has that ability to do, since there is no other satellite campus where they can park that's within 300 feet, and there is no other area where they can find additional parking spaces. This is the only method that staff can recommend to the Planning Commission and to bring this item back. Commissioner Eng stated the parking management plan was originally approved without restaurant use and asked how the proposed management plan that was previously approved be impacted if restaurant use is now allowed. She also asked if a parking issues can be mitigated working with the applicant. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied the parking staff and the City Attorney's office just basically stated which parking stalls are dedicated to residential. Commissioner Eng asked how long a parking study would take and Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied have to send out an RFP to different consultants and based o added they will get estimates and it does take some time. Vice -Chair Tang asked if the parking study also provides meet the adequate parking. Interim Community Development Director parking stalls. Vice -Chair Tang asked if it does not provide recomm( Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela not sure and exp they will determine plan that was approved by )d to commercial and which that the applicant will iev would select. She should those establishments not es if the uses would accommodate the 26 : to go forward. City Attorney Murphy stated with his history with this Planning Commission he has seen parking studies before and there have been things like a school use that wasn't a traditional school use like a music school and in light of the number of students they would normally take, even though they're space was big enough to normally require a certain number of spaces, they took their parking study and walked through what their actual use was and allowed them to go into an area where normally they would not allow a school. He added, the interim director is right, and that is the alternative and instead of going strictly by the code, they can look at a situation and say the situation is going to require them to make sure that the reality is going to match up with what the code may actually require. In some cases it may require like that school that fewer parking spaces are required and there are other times that when staff reviews an application they can say not withstanding what they think can happen under the code they think the reality is it is going to require quite a bit more. He added that is why they always try to go with the code because that is the business friendly way to go and is something standard that can be counted on in extraordinary circumstances. He explained that this is the option and he has not really had to do one he has only had to review them briefly because that is something for specialist in traffic and planning to look at. He stated the City Attorney's office reviews them to look for inconsistencies and return them to staff/Planning Commission to make policy decisions. Commissioner Eng stated she believes the applicant wants the best use if they are going to include retail and she would like them to be able to do that. She added if a parking study is going to help with answering that question, she would like to see it done. She commented that previous parking studies that have been presented before the Planning Commission has not always answered all her questions. Commissioner Lopez asked the Planning Commission what is being recommended. Eyl Commissioner Eng commented that she is not ready to say no. Her recommendation is for staff to work with the applicant and to make sure that if fast food units are allowed that the existing conditions of approval will meet, address, and mitigate some of the impacts to parking, grease traps, venting, and food use for this development. Vice -Chair Tang stated he agrees with Commissioner Eng and is not ready to say no, but he would like to look at options. He requested a motion to table this item. Commissioner Eng made a motion and requested that staff work with the applicant to make sure the conditions of approval that are in play are sufficient to permit food use to go into this area. City Attorney Murphy requested an amendment to the motion and suggested this item be continued to a date certain to remain open to the next regular Planning Commission meeting to be held on Monday, September 18, 2017, so that it may not have to be re -noticed and with the direction that the Planning Commission has given. He added then staff will give the Planning Commission an update on the status and time frame if the item will need to be continued again. Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to table Modification 17-05, subject to the 102 conditions. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: Dang Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes and 0 Noes. She added staff will contact the applicant to discuss the next steps. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 8-7-17 Commissioner Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None` Abstain: None Absent: Dang Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, and 1 Absent. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela announced the date, time, and location of the upcoming City Events: 1) Family Movie Night, 2) 911 Ceremony, and 3) Moon Festival. 13 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & Vice -Chair Tang referred to Item 3A, and recommended that this is the opportunity, during the zoning code update, to re-evaluate the definition of a shopping center. He added especially with the parking ratio for food establishments of one per 100 and retail use of one per 250. He added a project like this can come before the Planning Commission and they can come and say they are going to do four food establishments, so they do not have to provide one per 100 ratio in parking, and recommended that the definition of a shopping center be revisited, so this cannot be used for a loop hole for future developments. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:17 pm. The regular Planning Commission meeting to be held on Monday, September 4, 2017 will be cancelled. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, September 18, 2017, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. John Tang _ Vice -Chair ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 14