Loading...
PC - Minutes - 12-02-19 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 2,2019 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Eng at 7:03 pm in the City Hal Council Chambers. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Vice-Chair Lopez INVOCATION—Chair Eng ROLL CALL—Commissioners Berry,Tang,Vuong,Vice-Chair Lopez and Chair Eng STAFF PRESENT - City Attorney Thuyen, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim, Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela,Associate Planner Lao, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MODIFICATION 19-01 - Gerard Yang has submitted a Modification Application ("Modification 19-01") requesting to amend Modification 13-01,which was approved by the Planning Commission on May 20, 2013. Specifically, Modification 13-01 was approved with Condition of Approval Nos. 1 and 37,which limited the square footage and percentage of restaurant or fast food use within the shopping center ("Lucky Plaza"). The said Modification 19-01 would amend Condition of Approval No. 1 and delete Condition of Approval No. 37, allowing for additional restaurant or fast food use to be established in the shopping center. PC RESOLUTION 19-12 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD,COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,APPROVING MODIFICATION 19-01, AMENDING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 1 AND DELETING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 37, ALLOWING FOR ADDITIONAL RESTAURANT OR FAST FOOD USE TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THE SHOPPING CENTER.THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8526 VALLEY BOULEVARD,IN THE MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY(C-3/D-0)ZONE. Staff Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 19- 12 with findings and APPROVE Modification 19-01,subject to the 40 conditions. Associate Planner Lao presented the staff report. Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Vuong referred to notes from 2013 indicating that the parking ratio for restaurants is 1 parking space per 100 square feet and asked if that is the current standard code. ,1 Associate Planner Lao replied yes and explained that a standalone restaurant it is parked at 1 per 100 square feet. Commissioner Vuong stated the applicant is requesting to remove the conditions for retail space and questioned if the plaza could contain all restaurants. Associate Planner Lao replied yes. Commissioner Vuong asked if this would still classify"Lucky Plaza"as a shopping center if there is no retail. Associate Planner Lao replied yes and explained a shopping center requires two or more businesses. In addition,the parking requirement for four or more units would be 1 per 250 square feet. Commissioner Vuong asked if this shopping center is all restaurants,will there be adequate parking spaces. Associate Planner Lao replied yes, and if all 28,000 square feet is converted to restaurant, it will still have the parking ratio of a shopping center,which is 1 per 250. She added the applicant would only need 116, but they have provided 153,so they will have a surplus of 37 parking spaces. Commissioner Vuong asked if 280 parking spaces would be required for a restaurant and retail plaza. Associate Planner Lao replied that is the requirement for a standalone restaurant. Commissioner Berry asked if any other shopping centers in Rosemead have the same restrictions as this one. Associate Planner Lao replied yes,there is one and it is the"New Valley Plaza". Commissioner Berry asked what is the reason for this restriction on these two shopping centers only. Associate Planner Lao replied after reviewing past entitlements for this shopping center and the New Valley Plaza, it was a condition of approval recommended and added by staff due to parking restrictions. Commissioner Berry asked if the parking at this shopping center is different from other shopping centers without these restrictions. Associate Planner Lao replied no and explained shopping centers have the parking ratio of 1 per 250,except for those two shopping centers,which have a specific restriction. Commissioner Tang referred to page 4 of the staff report and asked if the applicant is considering consolidating certain units to make it feasible for restaurant use, because some of the units seem to be too small to be restaurant use. Associate Planner Lao replied staff does not have that information and that question can be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Tang referred to parking spaces and stated this meets the definition of a shopping center parking ratio of 1 per 250, they will be providing 153 parking spaces, and questioned if 153 parking spaces is sufficient for the shopping center. Associate Planner Lao replied the need can only be determined by a parking study, but it has not been required for a shopping center to conduct a parking study. 2 Commissioner Tang stated he has visited this shopping center and expressed that the existing parking is inadequate with the mix of restaurant and retail use. He added,if the shopping center is all restaurant use, he anticipates it will be very chaotic. Commissioner Vuong commented that he has seen people walk from the"New Valley Plaza"to the"Lucky Plaza". Commissioner Tang stated that is what he is trying to be considerate of because it is not only chaotic in this plaza,but it will spill over to the neighboring shopping centers,and that is what he does not want. He just wants to ensure that if the applicant qualifies for a shopping center and meets the requirement,that's great, but do we know what the need is,and if it meets the need. He asked staff if any of the units in this plaza are currently vacant. Associate Planner Lao replied yes,there are two vacant units they are "J&A Cell" and "J&C Snack Shop", which are both retail. Commissioner Tang asked based on those two vacancies is the applicant stating they are having difficulty finding suitable retail tenants. Associate Planner Lao replied that restaurant uses in the past have inquired on tenant spacesin this plaza, but staff has had to turn them away due to Condition of Approval number 37.Also,after speaking with the applicant,they have commented that retail is slowing down, and they are having difficulty leasing the units for retail use. Vice-Chair Lopez asked if this change will only allow the applicant to bring in a restaurant use tenant, and this does not mean that the tenants will all be restaurant uses. This will just be an opportunity for the applicant to allow a restaurant and asked if this is the only reason the modification is being requested. Associate Planner Lao replied yes. Chair Eng asked if in the current 28,878 square footage applied for the parking standard for just Building A and B or does it include McDonalds. Associate Planner Lao replied it also includes McDonalds. Chair Eng asked if the three buildings add up to the 28,878 square footage. Associate Planner Lao replied yes. Chair Eng stated the applicant approached the city in"2013"for a restaurant use requesting 10,000 square feet and asked if that was per the request of the applicant and not something the City imposed on them. Associate Planner Lao replied yes. Chair Eng stated this may be a question for the applicant. She asked what additional square footage the applicant anticipate. She also questioned if the existing grease inceptors would be sufficient for the additional restaurant use. She added that she likes Condition of Approval number fourteen and her concern is with additional restaurant use is trash. She read Condition of Approval number forty and asked how that requirement will be determined. Associate Planner Lao replied if an applicant were to submit plans for a new restaurant use (vacant tenant) and they are not replacing an existing restaurant,then staff would route out the plans to Building and Safety,they would disperse the plans to the fire department, and all the reviewing agencies. Staff will route it out to the disposal company and the disposal company makes the determination if additional trash facilities are required. 3 Chair Eng asked what the current trash situation is in this shopping center with the existing three trash enclosures. Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim replied a lot of time that is a Code Enforcement issue. He explained staff will seldom receive Code Enforcement complaints when shopping centers do not have enough trash enclosures or an overflow of trash. He added an example of a shopping center that staff did have issues with overflow trash and runoff from the site.He stated with this shopping center,he does not recall receiving a complaint and since mitigated, he's personally visited the site he has not seen any issues with overflow of trash outside of the enclosure. Chair Eng questioned if there are any code issues in terms of trash with the current existing service level of trash being able to accommodate the existing tenants. Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim replied not that he can recall. Commissioner Vuong asked if a trash enclosure needs to be added to this development would it come back to the Planning Commission at all for any modifications, in addition to another restaurant coming in. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied that can be at staff approval, and if necessary, the owner can request additional trash pick-up service from the disposal company. Commissioner Tang asked staff to explain the process of a parking study. Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied the applicant would have to hire a traffic consultant to do the parking study. She added they will monitor all the cars drive in and out,parking counts are conducted,and then they will determine if there is sufficient parking. She explained that a parking study is not required, and is only an alternative method if a developer chooses to do it. Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim added that parking studies are typically required in two folds. He added that if a project is significant and additional CEQA analysis is needed, a parking study can be rolled into the traffic study. He gave an example of a significant hotel project in the works that has some CEQA impacts,so a traffic study would be rolled into that assessment. Another example of when a parking study is required is when a proposed development doesn't meet the parking requirement and they need twenty parking spaces, but the applicant is proposing ten parking spaces. A parking study is done to justify if the applicant's request would be warranted or not. He added in a typical project, if the development meets code, then it meets code. He said when a project is designed,staff meets with the designer to discuss what the city standards and codes are for parking,driveway widths, configurations,etc. He explained that each city has its own codes and reiterated if the design meets the city code then it is code compliant. Chair Eng asked staff what the best practice in terms of looking at parking for different types of use and intensity of uses for a shopping center of this size. Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim reiterated that it would be the same answer. He explained this project is not a significant site. In a significant size site, staff would discuss the design standard and provide sections of the code to with the applicant/architect, so they could design it according to what the city development standards are. Chair Eng asked if the parking standards and intensity of the uses depends on the size of the shopping center. Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim replied that it can trigger a CEQA analysis, depending on the size of what the project is. 4 Chair Eng stated that this project is 28,878 square feet and asked City Attorney Thuyen if this Modification request for this shopping center would trigger a CEQA review. Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim clarified that every project that comes before the Planning Commission would be reviewed under CEQA. He explained there are different levels of CEQA analysis and what he is saying is that a 28,878 square foot,three-acre site, is not a terribly large commercial development. Chair Eng thanked Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim for the clarification and asked the Commissioners if they have additional questions. Commissioner Berry asked at the time these conditions of approval were put into place and are possibly amending, have there been any changes to the law or codes to spur that decision. He also asked if there have these restrictions been put on any other shopping centers built after this one since then. Associate Planner Lao replied no,there have not been any changes in regard to the parking ratio back in"2003"when this was approved. She also replied that there have not been any restrictions placed on shopping centers built after this one. Chair Eng asked if there were any further questions or comments for staff. None Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Mike Lewis, Land Use Consultant, stated he is here representing Mr.Yang's application and with him are Simon Lee, the architect, and Cindy Lau, Mr.Yang's assistant. He thanked the Planning Commission and staff for reviewing this item and all their help. He gave a brief summary and history of this project and explained why the applicant is requesting the Modification. He added their request is simple and to eliminate the square foot restriction on restaurant use and to give them the same opportunity to compete for tenants that everyone else in the city has. He thanked the Planning Commission for their time and added that he hopes the Planning Commission approve staffs recommendation and he would be happy to answer any questions. Chair Eng thanked Mr. Lewis and asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions. Commissioner Berry questioned when the shopping center was constructed, did the tenants occupy quickly or did it take a while to get to where they are today. Mike Lewis replied 15 years ago,the retail market was a lot different than it is currently,so they were able to fill it during that time. He added, since it started to transition, the applicant is coming back and requesting some relief for that restriction, because they could not fill their vacancies,and keep the places leased without restaurants. Commissioner Tang thanked Mr. Lewis and stated he agrees that there is something about a restaurant and fast food use that spurs economic vitality to any area or community. He added in regard to this project, he understands the limitations of attracting retail tenants given the current climate and his concern is the parking. He explained that it doesn't do anyone any good if there are good restaurant tenants, but nobody can find parking,so nobody will go back to that plaza. He added he is trying to find that right balance of giving the plaza the opportunity but making sure it is sustainable. Mike Lewis stated every shopping center at some point and time whether its Christmas season, a Friday night, or whatever the case might be, it is going to fill up,and that's a good thing. He added but the question is does it fill up all the time or does it become a problem. He stated that it is the owners interest to make sure people continue to come 5 back, make his tenants happy, and a solution would be is to hire a parking attendant or valet service, so those cars can be accommodated. Commissioner Tang asked if the two vacancies have been vacant for two months. Mike Lewis replied it is somewhere between four and six months. Commissioner Vuong asked if there were two potential tenants that are restaurant businesses. Mike Lewis replied there are three, but there are only two vacancies. He explained the businesses may have approached the city and they have tenants that would like to come in, but the owner is not able to release them because of current restrictions. Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated that some regional tenants have approached the city but had to be turned down. She added Share Tea(Boba)was interested and wanted to open a second store on the north side of town in this shopping center. Commissioner Vuong stated he does not want to prevent an owner from doing whatever business they want to do in the city,but he wants them to be successful. He added growing up and living around this community, he sees that this plaza has a problem with parking and traffic. He sees people flowing into the plaza by"Tip Top Sandwiches", but he can understand Mr.Yang's concern about making sure that he has low vacancy rates in his plaza. He added the past Planning Commission probably had the same concerns given the traffic on Valley Boulevard in regard to plazas even if it was 2013. Chair Eng asked if there were anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing. She asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Tang commented that shopping centers,designations need to be consistent with the code. He referred to the parking ratio of retail, restaurant's,and shopping centers, and he understands that in regard to shopping centers the city is trying to attract businesses that will provide growth economically and recommended that a study be conducted on how to tailor the incentive purpose. Chair Eng stated she was on the Planning Commission for the last Modification for this project and there had been a number of residents from the west of this property that attended and spoke in regard to the project. She asked staff if those property owners had been served Public Hearing Notices in regard to this item. Associate Planner Lao replied notices were mailed within the 300 feet radius. Chair Eng asked if staff had received any comments, complaints, or any concerns regarding the notice from the residents. Associate Planner Lao replied no, staff did not receive any comments. Chair Eng commented that she shares Commissioner Tang's concern and the applicant meets the parking standards but in reality, parking at certain times in this plaza is difficult. She added she is one of those individuals that if she has to keep circling around the parking lot looking for a parking space she will not go there. She understands the developments concern in regard to having the flexibility and she is in favor of giving that flexibility, but it is up to the 6 property owner to make sure the businesses coming in will be sustainable,because we do want businesses coming in to be successful. Commissioner Tang stated he echo's the same sentiment and wants to be able to offer the owner the opportunity,to do good business here in the city,be business friendly,and give them the flexibility. He stated he also agrees with Mr. Lewis and that the parking lot is not full every single second, there will be peak times with customers, and that is a good thing. Commissioner Berry stated he agrees with Chair Eng and Commissioner Tang. He added he is a proponent of more parking and larger parking spots. He said we need to have our businesses be successful and we also need to treat this shopping center the same as other shopping centers. If changes need to be made, he recommended that the Planning Commission go through the proper channels ti see what the city actually needs and put those rules in place. Chair Eng asked if there were any further questions. None Chair Eng asked for a motion. Commissioner Tang made a motion,seconded by Commissioner Vuong to ADOPT Resolution No. 19-12 with findings and APPROVE Modification 19-01,subject to the 40 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Eng, Lopez,Tang,and Vuong Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with the vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. He explained the 10-day appeal process and reminded the applicant to remove the onsite Public Hearing Notice. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC MINUTES 10-21-19 Commissioner Vuong made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tang,to approve PC Minutes 10-21-19 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Eng, Lopez,Tang,and Vuong Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim announced the date,time, and location of the Annual Christmas Tree Lighting and Dinner with Santa. Vice-Chair Lopez commented that he will not be able to attend this event because the City of San Gabriel will be honoring his son Lieutenant Lopez with a certificate for being the Active Shooter Instructor throughout San Gabriel. The Planning Commission and staff congratulated Vice-Chair Lopez on his son's accomplishment. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Vuong asked if there are any policies or ordinances related to when a Modification dramatically changes the use of a property, such as increasing the intensity, and does it go to CEQA. He added those were his thoughts surrounding this issue. Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim replied all actions except for ministerial and statutory are reviewed under CEQA. He added that categorical, statutory, and ministerial actions are not subject to CEQA and those are the typical by-right projects, permits pulled over the counter,or other similar items. He said CEQA applies to all discretionary approvals regardless if it is a significant project or a small project. He added the level of CEQA depends on the scope of the project and the environmental impact, so when a project first comes in, staff reviews it, checks for exemptions,and if it is not exempt,then staff would conduct a CEQA analysis internally. He added there is a full process for CEQA analysis. Commissioner Vuong questioned if the concern comes up in the future and the project dramatically changes, is it something the Planning Commission can address. Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim replied that it is staffs analysis. He explained that before the items go to the Planning Commission for review or analysis, a lot of work goes into the analysis, which is then formulated into a staff report. City Attorney Thuyen added that he and Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim are available usually an hour before the Planning Commission meeting if the Commission has any particular concerns or questions. He added if the Commission would like to come in a little earlier to have an office conversation to discuss or clarify any question, please feel free to do so. Commissioner Vuong thanked City Attorney Thuyen and stated that he appreciates all the work staff does. Commissioner Tang stated that the shopping center identification is a loop hole and requested that a working group be formed or somehow study shopping center designations that narrowly tailors the Commission's intent to attract properties converting into shopping centers,and provided a comparison of retail and restaurant use at 1 per 250 square ' feet and restaurant only use parking at 1 per 100 square feet. He wants to make sure the owners don't bypass the code, but have the owners still meet the needs of the community. City Attorney Thuyen stated that this policy discussion on a potential zoning amendment and recommended that staff notes these concerns be discussed at a later time. Chair Eng expressed that Commissioner Tang's intent was to realistically look at the impact and to have guidelines,so the City has the diversity of uses wanted and at the same time, be able to mitigate impacts to the community and for businesses to be successful.She added she share's Commissioner Tang's thoughts and also requested this be looked into. She recommended looking into the best practices in terms of shopping centers and how to go about addressing the different intensity of use,such as a staggering scale,or something like that. Commissioner Tang stated he is not trying to point out any one project or property, he is just saying that on a broad scale in terms of the city's code, we need to find some consistency because if it is going to be designatedas a 8 shopping center with a mix of different uses then that should be its intent. He added, if you are going to allow the flexibility for a development to be a 100%restaurant use then technically it is not a shopping center anymore. Commissioner Berry asked staff if a shopping center is considered as a number of separate businesses regardless of what they actually are. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes, it is five or more businesses. She also let the Planning Commission know that staff is currently searching and reviewing shopping center parking. She added it will take some time because it is a lot of work and they are analyzing what regional, national, tenants are requiring for parking to make it work for everyone. Chair Eng thanked staff and added that is a productive and constructive project to take on because she sees some of those small business's turnover like crazy. She added that tentative improvements are expensive. She expressed that these are not national businesses, but are are mom and pop shops that rely on the success of their businesses. She added she is supportive of small businesses and they need to be able to survive. She stated those were her comments and adjourned the meeting at 7:50 pm. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, December 16,2019,at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. Nancy Eng Chair ATTES . et.cA Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 9