Loading...
PC - Minutes - 06-07-21Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2021 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Lopez at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Berry INVOCATION — Chair Lopez ROLL CALL — Commissioners Berry, Leung, Tang, and Chair Lopez STAFF PRESENT — City Attorney Thuyen, Chair Lopez, Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo, Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela, Associate Planner Lao, and Commission Liaison Huang 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS There being no comments, Chair Lopez opened and closed the Public Comment period. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-02, ZONE CHANGE 19-02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82870, DESIGN REVIEW 19-08, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20.08 — The Taiwan Center Foundation of Greater Los Angeles has submitted entitlement applications requesting to develop a new residential/commercial mixed-use development. The project consists of the demolition of all existing structures for the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 18,646 square feet of commercial use, which includes a community hall (commercial recreation and entertainment), cafe, retail, and office units on the first and a portion of the second floor, and 42 residential units on a portion of the second through fourth floors. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface, mezzanine, and one level of subterranean parking. The project also includes a density bonus application under Rosemead Municipal Code Chapter 17.84 and Senate Bill (SB)1818, which permits density bonuses up to 35%. The property is located at 3001 Walnut Grove Avenue and 8589 Garvey Avenue in the Medium Commercial (C-3) zone. PC RESOLUTION 21-06 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-02, ZONE CHANGE 19-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-08, DESIGN REVIEW 19-08, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82870, AND A DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WHICH CONSISTS OF 18,646 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA AND 42 RESIDENTIAL UNITS (SEVEN OUT OF THE 42 UNITS WOULD BE LOWER INCOME). THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3001 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE AND 8589 GARVEY AVENUE (APNS: 5288-001-040, 041, 042, AND 043), IN THE MEDIUM COMMERCIAL (C-3) ZONE. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2021 Page 1 of 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission; Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-06 with findings (Exhibit "A"), a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt City Council Resolution No. 2021-23 (Exhibit "B") and Ordinance No. 999 (Exhibit "C") for the approval of General Plan Amendment 19-02, Zone Change 19-02, Conditional Use Permit 20-08, Design Review 19-08, and Tentative Tract Map 82870; and the adoption of the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit "E"). Associate Planner Lao presented the Staff Report. She recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing wand receive public testimony; and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-06 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt City Council Resolution No. 2021-23 and Ordinance No. 999 for the approval of General Plan Amendment 19-02, Zone Change 19-02, Conditional Use Permit 20-08, Design Review 19-08, and Tentative Tract Map 82870; and the adoption of the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing. Commissioner Tang asked staff to clarify the changes to Exhibit A that was provided to the Commission. Associate Planner Lao said the changes made to the Exhibits consisted of adding language that pertains to 12 commercial condominium units. Commissioner Tang asked what the difference is between a commercial condominium unit and a residential condominium unit. Associate Planner Lao asserted that the applicant has the option to sell the commercial and residential condominium units. The 12 commercial condominiums can each be sold if the Taiwan Center wishes. For example, if they wanted to sell the community hall to a separate owner, then they would be able to buy it. Commissioner Tang asked why the word condominium is being used instead of labeling them as commercial units. Associate Planner Lao replied it's currently four lots and they are consolidating the lots to one lot, so they will have to do a tentative tract map, which subdivides it into 54 legal condominium parcels to be sold. For clarification, Commissioner Tang asked if it is 12 commercial units for commercial uses plus 42 residential units. If so, what is the purpose of including the word condominium next to commercial. Associate Planner Lao answered yes and noted by adding the word condominium would allow the property owner to sell each commercial unit individually. Commissioner Tang commented that the uses do not change; it is not for residing, but rather utilized as commercial use. Associate Planner Lao replied that is correct. Chair Lopez asked if this is the retail part of it and questioned if these condominiums can vary in size. To his understanding, it will not be the same size, it will be a variation of different sizes. He asked if the 42 residential are condominiums and if they Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2021 Page 2 of 9 will be sold or leased. Associate Planner Lao replied that is correct. The applicant is proposing a tentative tract map, so it will be sold in the future. Chair Lopez asked if the commercial units could be sold part residential, or if it is strictly for retail use. Associate Planner Lao responded the commercial units will remain commercial and will not be residential. Chair Lopez stated that he now understands the difference. Commissioner Tang asked if its normal practice for developers to ask for a condominium commercial or for them to be allowed to sell that space. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated the City has had several mixed-use projects where the developer has chosen to lease them out. In this case, the Taiwan Center is choosing to possibly sell their commercial units. Commissioner Tang inquired if you own a condominium in the building, does that mean you are responsible only for that space. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes, it is more airspace. So, they do record CC&R's and each of the condominium owners would share the responsibility of maintaining the site. Commissioner Tang stated that there are four retail/service units, one manager's office, cafe, community hall and office. He questioned if converting it to a commercial condominium would allow them to sell each unit, including the five office units. Associate Planner Lao responded yes, on the bottom floor there are seven commercial units and five offices on the second floor, so each one of those units can be sold separately if the owner wishes to. Commissioner Tang inquired how our code defines allowable uses for retail services. Associate Planner Lao responded common allowable uses include retail and indicated that the site only has space for one cafe. Associate Planner Lao stated the ground floor can contain services such as nail salons, beauty shops, and retail. She added that office use is not permitted on the ground floor, however, the second -floor permits office use. Commissioner Tang addressed a Council Member's concern about preserving the Taiwan Center. He added, if we are allowing the Taiwan Center to be able to sell all 12 commercial units, then they may not have an office or community hall. He questioned how that will help preserve the Taiwan Center, Associate Planner Lao stated in speaking with Bill Pham, the Subdivision Attorney for the project, even though they have a tentative tract map to subdivide the commercial units, the Taiwan Center does not intend to sell the community hall. Commissioner Tang questioned that if they do not intend to sell it, could we allow only 11 commercial condominiums, and designate which units can be sold. Associate Planner Lao deferred that question to Bill Pham. She stated that during her conversation with Bill, he stated that it was like a strategy to subdivide the units. Commissioner Tang asked if Mr. Pham is the applicant. Associate Planner Lao stated Mr. Pham is the applicant's representative. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2021 Page 3 of 9 Commissioner Tang asked if this project includes any solar panels. Associate Planner Lao answered yes, there are solar panels being proposed; it is indicated on the roof plans. Commissioner Tang asked where the receptor for the solar panels will be located, Associate Planner Lao deferred the question to Simon Lee, the applicant's Architect. She added that typically, solar panels are reviewed during Building plan check. Commissioner Tang noted the reason he asked is because we have had that issue in the past with Walmart's solar battery receptor, as it was too close to their neighbors and created a ringing sound. He added that he wanted to ensure it does not reoccur. He then questioned where the trash enclosures would be located and how would it be accessible to the waste hauler. Associate Planner Lao stated the trash is located at the western portion of the site. She added there are doors that open into the surface level parking, which provides the hauler to haul the trash out that same way. Commissioner Tang asked if that is enough space for a trash hauler truck to be able to maneuver in and out of the trash enclosure area. Associate Planner Lao responded there are conditions of approval that cover trash hauling requirements. A pickup truck would be equipped to lift the dumpsters and move it to Garvey Avenue, and at the end of the day the private pickup truck would return the dumpsters to their respective locations. Commissioner Tang questioned if a red curb will be installed where they can move the trash bin out. Associate Planner Lao referred to the plans; it would be along Garvey Avenue towards the west portion of the site. She said she was unsure if a red curb would be required and will check with the Public Works Department to ensure that trash will be in a safe location. Commissioner Tang noted it is just right down the corner so he was trying to figure out how that would work. He appreciates the Traffic Report and the condition of no left -turns and no left -turns out on certain times. Commissioner Tang also asked if staff could confirm if the City Engineer were to find the set-up problematic, would the applicant need to build a center divider. Associate Planner Lao answered yes, that is correct. She sent those conditions of approval to the applicant; asserted that the applicant has reviewed them. Commissioner Tang questioned storm drain capacity for a development of this size and if they took this into account building the capacity for that. Associate Planner Lao stated these plans were routed to Public Works, and there are conditions in place. In addition, they received clearance from the LA County Sanitation District. Commissioner Tang questioned one of their concession requests as to why they are requesting a height and stories increase. He then questioned if they could proceed with their project in a three-story manner by reducing the number of units. Associate Planner Lao replied yes, the applicants are requesting a concession from three-story to four-story, because they are proposing seven lower income households. She said, the applicant has stated in their density bonus application that the extra height is needed to accommodate the units. She added, the project would not be feasible if we did not have the height. She also added the 75 feet, two inches in height is just one tower element which is the focal point of the mixed -use -project and the project to the top of the parapet will be 63 feet, two inches. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2021 Page 4 of 9 Commissioner Tang said they are still asking for a 14 -foot increase in height to the roof and to the parapet, it would be close to an 18 -foot height increase. Associate Planner Lao replied the parapet is needed to cover the mechanical elements. Commissioner Tang stated that they are pretty much asking for the height increase for decorative purposes. Chair Lopez questioned the number of trash containers needed to sustain the trash for the development and if all containers located in the same area. He also questioned if they would utilize a trash chute from each floor, where it will drop into the containers. Associate Planner Lao replied yes, there will be four trash enclosures and they are located to the west side of the project by stairs #2 on the ground floor plans. On the second -story floor plan, there is a trash room for the residential units. Chair Lopez noted the pickup truck will back in there and be able to pull each one out; inquired what is the width distance from where they enter to grab it because you have to back-up and be able to use the forklift. Associate Planner Lao stated in the negative MMD, it does adjust the truck routes and stated that the pickup truck would have adequate access. Chair Lopez asked about the site's trash pickup process. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated the trash bin will be hauled to the street, then Republic Services will pick it up. There being no further questions, Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and opened the Public Comment period. Paul Chen, President of the Taiwan Center Foundation of Greater Los Angeles, introduced consultant Bill Pham, and architect Simon Lee to address some of the questions. Bill Pham, Attorney from the Pham Law Group, represented the applicant and elaborated more on the project. He stated with respect to the commercial condominium, they wanted to clarify that the commercial units are also condominiums because under the California Subdivision Map Act, a party can own a lot that is shown on a subdivision map, which in this case, they consolidated everything into one lot so there is just one legal lot on the map. The other way to own property is not a lot, it is to own a condominium airspace, which is authorized under the Subdivision Map Act. If there are only residential units, the 42 residential units would be the only legal airspace that can be created and everything else at the property would then be considered common area, owned by the Residential Association. To create legal airspace for the commercial side so the commercial portion can be owned separate from the residential portion, they will need clarity that there will be 12 commercial units. The commercial condominium units then can be owned separate from the residential, and it will be a separate commercial project with 12 commercial condos, and the residential will be a separate residential project with the 42 residential condos. Mr. Pham also addressed Commissioner Tang's question regarding the 12 commercial units and preserving the community center. He expressed that the 12 commercial condominiums are needed so that they can be owned separately. The Taiwan Center Foundation is a nonprofit organization, and there may be a need after construction to be able to sell off certain portions of the residential to recoup the funds and pay off the loans and other costs incurred. The commercial portion can then be sold off as needed to the various end user who would like to use that space and own it themselves. However, the Foundation wants to also retain ownership of the community center and the only way the community center can be owned and retained separately from everything else is for it to be its separate commercial condo unit, then it can be owned by the Foundation separately from all the other units. If they do not have the ability to create that separate condominium for the community center, theywould not Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2021 Page 5 of 9 be able to own it separately from everything else. It would then become a common area for either the residential or the commercial condo portion, but it would lose the ability to be a separate airspace reserve for a specific use. Chair Lopez questioned if the 42 residential units are sold as residential, who will be in control of the 12 commercial condominiums until it is sold. He also inquired on the plan for selling them. Mr. Pham responds with respect to control of the units themselves, they will be owned and controlled by the Taiwan Center Foundation until the time they are sold. Upon the sale of the first condominium in the commercial portion of the 12 units, a commercial condo owners association would kick in and be responsible for any shared commercial common area. The association does not own any of the individual unit, it only manages and maintains any shared common area that the commercial units share together the same way with the residential side. The residential unit would be owned by the Taiwan Center Foundation until the day each of those units are sold. Until they are sold, the units remain under the control and ownership of the Taiwan Center. Upon the first sale of a residential condominium unit, the residential homeowner association would kick in, and start maintaining all the shared common area for the residential. Commissioner Tang thanked Mr. Pham for the detailed explanation and added that he would like City Attorney Thuyen to weigh in from a legal perspective during the Commission discussion. Commissioner Tang asked Mr. Lee to address his question regarding solar panels and receptor. Mr. Lee responded to his understanding of the current building codes; the current project must designate certain area/percentage of the roof area to future solar panel installation. He addressed the possible location of the solar panels on the plan, which must go through the building plan check to get the final building permit for this project. Mr. Lee indicated that the code may change and hope to install the solar panel during construction; he does not have the final details when the solar panel would be installed. He referred to Commissioner Tang's concern regarding the electrical charger box and stated if it created a humming noise, they would ensure it would not interfere with the residential nearby. Mr. Lee refers to the plan and noted that they are away from the residential on the north with setbacks of more than 30 feet of fire lane, plus the setback of the residential. He then refers to the plan A3.1; a total of 33 feet, separate from the north end residential, therefore, there is a very big separation from residential. Mr. Lee does not know the location of the batteries/charger but will take into consideration and be careful about where it is located at the time of the installation of the solar panel. Commissioner Tang thanked Mr. Lee for his response. City Attorney Thuyen asked if there were other callers on the line who would like to provide public comment on this item. Commissioner Liaison Huang responded no other callers are present. Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo read the five public comments related to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The public comments are on file with the Planning Division as part of the official record. 1. Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation 2. Department of Transportation 3. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) 4. Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts 5. County of Los Angeles Fire Department Commissioner Tang asked City Attorney Thuyen to weigh in on their strategy to allow the commercial condominiums. He added it may work in some cases to set up an association for residential homeowner's association, but he is not too familiar with how it is done in the commercial space and inquired if there have been problems in the past. He believes City Attorney Thuyen may have more experience on this item. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2021 Page 6 of 9 City Attorney Thuyen stated the City does not really differentiate the commercial rentals versus commercial condos, so land use is treated roughly the same. He added that there was a clarification by the applicant today that was their plan and stated that it is common for properties to have a separate commercial condo type of plan. Very often, you would have a bigger parcel where a big box store wants to come in, but they want to control their specific big box structure, so usually what happens is the landlords do so to facilitate commercial development. If they do commercial developments, certain retail stores that had preference get that accommodation, so it is not unusual. As the project moves forward, we should work with the applicant to get some type of similar plan in place to govern the orderly maintenance of the commercial common area as well; it would be very similar to a residential type of condo framework and where there are private units, common spaces and some type of association or entity that helps manage the common areas. Commissioner Tang stated he is curious as to how that is going to operate and provide an example that if the Taiwan Center does not want the land anymore and sells everything, who will maintain the parking lot, common spaces, and how do they divide between the residential and the commercial. He noted that this is not like a standalone residential or a standalone commercial and emphasized that this is a mixed use, so there are two different uses, and since it is combined, he foresees that there could be potential problems. Commissioner Berry noted that once the first unit is sold, then the commercial association are the ones in charge of maintaining it and fulfill the standards that we set forth. City Attorney Thuyen said yes, usually, when the framework is adopted, it is based upon who owns what, and they are all part of an ownership group; they all have something like an HOA. He was not sure exactly what it is called for commercial use, but it would be similar to that where there's an ownership group, which usually covers the main things in terms of common areas, who or how the commercial maintains the common area, and common parking areas for the commercial aspects of that property. But as far as whether it is common to have kind of a commercial group and a residential group, and separate HOA or ownership groups to manage separate common property, that is more and more common, especially because of the mixed- use aspect of property. He has seen that before where the commercial side, and owners have their own agreement and obligations to maintain the common areas that are specific commercial side of that parcel, and the residential owners have their own obligations and organization to manage residential side common areas. He does not believe it will be too much of an issue but think we will have to work with applicants in terms of developing those kinds of vehicles to manage the common areas. Commissioner Berry shared his concern that it is not one entity that we are holding accountable for the structure maintenance. For example, people may not understand why some areas might be better upkept than others but if they can hold to a standard, then he thinks that is fine. Commissioner Tang stated he agreed and used the AC units as an example. The AC units will be on the rooftop and there are some residential units in between the commercial and the residential. If there is an AC issue such as leakage into the residential units and questioned how that gets managed. He expressed that he trusts the City Attorney to work out the terms of stipulating how the entire property will be fully maintained. City Attorney Thuyen affirmed he would. He asked staff if we have any conditions that we are proposing to address that concept or if Mr. Pham and his team are agreeable to something like that. Associate Planner Lao responded that conditions number 34 through 37 addresses CC&R's and how the commercial and residential shall maintain all common open space, parking, and how it should be limited to the following provisions, assigned parking for each residence, designated parking for customers and employees for visitors for guest parking if applicable. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated in addition, the City Attorney will review the CC&R's and must approve it before they record it, Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2021 Page 7 of 9 City Attorney Thuyen said that is correct. He or someone from his office would review the proposed CC&R's to ensure it is consistent with the conditions of approval before it gets executed. Commissioner Tang asked the applicant if the cafe is interested in incorporating some type of outdoor dining element. Mr. Lee responded that they do not have much space in the outdoor area. If needed, a few tables and chairs would be possible. He explains that this cafe is mainly for a coffee shop. The future owner/tenant must perform based on the City's regulation for the establishment of this unit. He added that they do have a separate commercial parking, and a separate residential parking, In the lower level, they would have gate control for the condominium owner to use sensor key to get in the basement to their assigned parking space. Residential has residential homeowner's association, and commercial has commercial homeowner's association which combines the whole project as one. So, there is no area left behind. Commissioner encouraged the applicant to consider the outdoor dining aspect given that we have seen such an importance, and reliance on that this past year. ACTION: Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Berry, to: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-06 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt City Council Resolution No. 2021-23 and Ordinance No. 999 for the approval of General Plan Amendment 19- 02, Zone Change 19-02, Conditional Use Permit 20-08, Design Review 19-08, and Tentative Tract Map 82870; and the adoption of the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 4 Ayes and 0 Noes. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC MINUTES 05-17-21 Commissioner Berry made a motion, seconded by Chair Lopez, to approve PC Minutes 05-17-21 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 4 Ayes and 0 Noes. MATTERS FROM STAFF Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo reminded Commissioners of the Housing Element Update - Virtual Community Workshop on Thursday, June 10, 2021, from 5:30 p.m, to 7:00 p.m. For more information, the public can visit www.cityofrosemead.org/heu Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2021 Page 8 of 9 MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Tang recognized CEO/ Executive Director Ray Jan from the Rosemead Chamber of Commerce for joining the meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Lopez adjourned the meeting at 8:28 p.m. The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for June 21, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ATTEST: Angelica Fre Commission Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2021 Page 9 of 9