Loading...
PC - Item 4A - Minutes 10-04-21 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 4, 2021 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Berry at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Berry INVOCATION Commissioner Ung ROLL CALL Commissioners Leung, Lopez, Ung, Vice-Chair Tang, and Chair Berry STAFF PRESENT City Attorney Thuyen, Interim Director of Community Development Persico, Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela, Associate Planner Lao, and Commission Liaison Huang Commission Liaison Huang introduced Interim Director of Community Development Persico. 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 Berry opened and closed the Public Comment period. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 21-03 - Timmy Chiang and Jane Lee have submitted a Design Review application, requesting to construct a new two-story, 2,785 square-foot single-family dwelling unit with an attached two-car garage. The granting of a Discretionary Site Plan and Design Review is required for any dwelling unit to be constructed that equals or exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of developed living area. The subject site is located at 7731 Wasola Street (APN: 5285-030-022) in the Single-Family Residential (R-1) zone. PC RESOLUTION 21-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 21-03, PERMITTING A NEW, TWO-STORY, 2,785 SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT, WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 7731 WASOLA STREET (APN: 5285-030-022), IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-14 with findings, and approve Design Review 21-03, subject to the 29 conditions. Associate Planner Lao presented the Staff Report. Chair Berry opened the Public Hearing and asked if we received any public comment. Commission Liaison Huang replied two public comments were received for this item. 1. Interim Director of Community Development Persico read the first public comment received via email from R Zuniga on October 2, 2021. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2021 Page 1 of 7 As a neighbor of the site, R Zuniga completely disagree with the construction of such a residence. R Zuniga stated that the neighborhood has lost its suburban charm with the construction of the many "McMansions", structures that have depleted the urban fabric destroying the look and charm of the neighborhood/city. R Zuniga stated if the home is being considered for a single-family use, one does not need such a huge home, and asked if this "McMansion" be converted to small apartments once the final inspection is completed like others in the surrounding streets or will this be a home where large family rooms house recently arrived immigrants, where beds are rented? R Zuniga is very aware of the lack of housing but does not believe this is a way of doing it. R Zuniga stated if the City continues allowing such residences to be build, the charm that attracted my parents and most of my family to this city almost 50 years ago will be gone. 2. Resident April Fung participated via Zoom and provided her public comment. Ms. Fung is the adjacent property owner to the subject property. She said she noticed that the subject property was purchased six or seven months ago and has been vacated for a long time. She also said she almost attempted to call the police to put a tight watch on the property because she noticed transients coming around the neighborhood. She added that it was okay because the property is now fenced up. Ms. Fung then addressed her concern that the subject property will generate a lot of debris, dust, and dirt during construction, which could affect her property. She inquired on measures that will prevent or minimize the dirt during the construction. City Attorney Thuyen made a quick point to the members of the public. He stated this is an opportunity to give comment to the Commission, but the Commission does not go back and forth. He added that what typically happens is after your public comment is received, the Commission would ask staff to address those questions as part of the public record. He also added, if Ms. Fung is expecting a Q&A section, that is not what public comment is for. There being no additional public comment, Chair Berry closed the public comment period. Ms. Fung continued to address her concern regarding the noise factors. She is currently working from home and the construction will cause a lot of noise. She added, building a two-story home will cause dirt and dust everywhere and questioned if the owners have considered these factors. She asked the Commission to take this into consideration before giving the green light to construct the two-story home. Chair Berry reminds Ms. Fung that the public comment period is now closed and informs her that staff will explain the mitigation and things that happen during construction. Associate Planner Lao addressed Ms. Fung noise concern. She stated, the applicant would have to abide by our noise standards which is Chapter 8.36.060 of the Rosemead Municipal Code which states in single-, double-, or multiple residential zones, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., they are only allowed to go up to 45 decibels. She added, between 7:00 a.m. through 10: 00 p.m., they are allowed to go up to 60 decibels, and would have to follow this noise ordinance during their hours of construction. Chair Berry questioned if the hours different on the weekends. Associate Planner Lao replied no, they are the same. She added, there should be no construction on Sundays and holidays. Commissioner Lopez questioned if there will be a noise barrier all the way around the house to contain the noise and dust. Associate Planner Lao expressed that during the Building and Safety plan check phase, the applicant is required to submit plans, which details how the applicant will contain their property, so no runoff will spill into the storm drains. She added the City requires a chain link fence with the green mesh screening around the property during construction. Vice-Chair Tang provided a quick summary addressing Ms. Fung concerns and said she was concerned that debris spilling Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2021 Page 2 of 7 out of the construction zone area of the property and into the adjacent properties, which is where the constituent is from. He added, City staff assured that prior to construction, they must submit plans for construction, which includes ensuring that all construction work and materials is done on site and that there's no spill over to the adjacent property. He also added, should there be a case, the resident is encouraged to call and inform the City, so we can adequately mitigate that. He then said, as far as the noise is concerned, which is the second concern that the Ms. Fung had brought up, the City code already has an ordinance that details how loud noise can take place in any given property, whether it's construction or non-construction, and those hours of construction work should only take place 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and that no construction should take place on Sundays and holiday. Vice-Chair Tang referred to the site plan and questioned if the existing garage near the setback will be demolished and landscaped and if so, will the new construction have a garage attached to the existing building. Associate Planner Lao stated that is correct; the existing garage will be demolished, and the new construction will have an attached garage. There being no questions from the Commission, Chair Berry closed the Public Hearing. ACTION: Vice-Chair Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-14 with findings, and approve Design Review 21-03, subject to the 29 conditions. Interim Director of Community Development Persico explained the 10-day appeal process. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, Tang, and Ung Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 21-02 - Danny Ma, representing Blooming VIP Restaurant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application for a new On-Sale General (Type 47-Beer, Wine, and Distilled Spirits) ABC license in conjunction with a proposed bona fide sit-down restaurant located at 8118 Garvey Avenue, Suite A (APN: 5284-001-030). Per Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Table 17.21.020.1, alcohol sales for a sit-down restaurant is subject to Conditional Use Permit per RMC Section 17.30.040. The proposed project would not increase the floor area of the existing building. The project site is located in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed-Use (GSP-MU) zone. PC RESOLUTION 21-15 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 21-02, PERMITTING A NEW ON-SALE GENERAL (TYPE 47 - BEER, WINE, AND DISTILLED SPIRITS) ABC LICENSE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A BONA FIDE SIT-DOWN RESTAURANT AT 8118 GARVEY AVENUE, SUITE A (APN: 5284-001-030), IN THE GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN, INCENTIVIZED MIXED-USE (GSP-MU) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 21-15 with findings, approving Conditional Use Permit 21-02, subject to the 34 conditions. Associate Planner Lao presented the Staff Report. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2021 Page 3 of 7 Chair Berry opened the Public Hearing and asked if we received any public comment. Commission Liaison Huang replied no public comment was received for this item. Commissioner Ung questioned if there will be any outdoor seating at this property for future use. Associate Planner Lao replied no, the restaurant is not proposing outdoor eating Commissioner Lopez questioned how many beer licenses are in the area. Associate Planner Lao answered, wthere are five on sale consumption licenses. She added, in the shopping center, there is currently one Type 41 for Chef Geng Restaurant, and the Great Wall Supermarket sells alcohol, but it is off sale. Commissioner Lopez inquired about the police activities in the area. Associate Planner Lao stated she discussed the crime statistics with the Chief of Police Lieutenant Hernandez, and based on the crimes that were reported in the Staff Report, it was related to alcohol uses, such as DUI and open cans in public spaces. Commissioner Lopez questioned if there was crime reports specific to the restaurant. Associate Planner Lao replied no, Lieutenant Hernandez did not state any major or minor crimes from the restaurant itself. Chair Berry noted that those crimes could be drunk driving or had their alcohol somewhere else and got caught in that spot. Associate Planner Lao replied yes, it is within the crime reporting district. Vice-Chair Tang asked the applicant to say a few words about the project. City Attorney Thuyen noticed a few different callers on the line and suggested to the Commission to do a last call for public comments. Chair Berry questioned if additional public comments were received. Commission Liaison Huang replied no public comment was received for this item. The applicantStanley Szeto, spoke about the Conditional Use Permit and the request for alcohol sales, specifically for full line distilled spirits. He added, the restaurant has been closed for more than three years due to rent increase, so the tenant decided to leave the premise, rather than pay the additional 40% hike. He then stated that the previous restaurant had a Type 41 beer and wine license and the restaurant is about 10,000 square feet. Mr. Szeto added, the restaurant will have some interior tenant improvement and because it is a fairly good size restaurant to host private banquet parties, weddings, and birthdays, they would like to have the convenience and option to serve a full line liquor. He also commended Planning staff on doing a very detailed and thorough analysis of this project and does not have objection to the conditions but would like to request some clarification to Condition Nos. 6, 18 and 20. Mr. Szeto then referred to Condition No. 6 and stated they are in the process of obtaining a Type 47 license. For this type of license, it cannot be applied for through the California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC), and they would have to purchase that license in the retail market or in the open auction. He said they recently solicited a seller about three months ago and they decided to back down on the offer, so they have another seller in line, but they have not signed the escrow paper to submit their application to ABC as there were changes to their corporate officers that needed to sign the escrow instructions and the clearance to transfer the ABC license. Since this project is good for one year, Mr. Szeto questioned if they would be able to downgrade their license to a Type 41, if they are unable to Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2021 Page 4 of 7 obtain the Type 47 license. Associate Planner Lao replied if the applicant is unable to obtain the Type 47 within one year and would like to request for a Type 41, a modification to the entitlement would have to be brought back to the Planning Commission to be approved. Mr. Szeto questioned if it will be a brand-new Conditional Use Permit (CUP). City Attorney Thuyen advised Mr. Szeto to list out his questions so staff could address each one to avoid going back and forth, which may create confusing records. He added, it would be a better procedure for the applicant to list out his comments and concerns so staff could address them altogether afterwards. Mr. Szeto stated that he is a consultant in many cities in Southern California and they usually do not require a brand-new CUP when you downgrade your privilege and is concerned about obtaining the Type 47 license by the one-year mark. Chair Berry reminded Mr. Szeto that staff will be able to answer his questions later and guide him through each of those items. Vice Chair Tang suggested to Mr. Szeto to address his specific concerns regarding those conditions, then staff can address those concerns during the Commission discussion or staff would be happy to work with you after the meeting. Mr. Szeto referred to Condition No. 18 and questioned if the 15% signage was advertisement signs only or including alcohol advertising signs. Chair Berry stated it is for all advertisements signs. Vice-Chair Tang stated that this is a standard condition in many projects that come before the Commission. He added, any commercial business that wishes to place any signage in front of their business must submit a signage plan to the City. Mr. Szeto referred to Condition No. 25 which indicates no alcohol beverage advertising signs shall be displayed conflicts with Condition No. 20. Vice-Chair Tang informed the applicant this would be marked down to be addressed. City Attorney Thuyen reminded the applicant that this is the opportunity to identify some concerns that need explanations, and staff can go through each of those concerns afterward. He added, if the applicant does not understand his application or needs more time before moving forward, the applicant can re-submit their application or continue this item. He added, it is really for the applicant to review the conditions of approval and have them addressed by staff, but if they are not aware of the conditions, do not understand them or need for time, the best option is for the applicants to consider continuing this item until they are aware of what the actual condition are. To make clear on the record, that applicant have addressed questions about Condition Nos. 6, 18, 20, and 25. Chair Berry noted the conditions he addressed and informed the applicant that this will be discussed during Planning Commission discussion, or it can be tabled for another time, so he has more time to understand each of the conditions and discuss with staff. Mr. Szeto would like to move forward with the item, however, needed clarification for these conditions. He added, if he accepts these conditions, he will have to thoroughly understand what those conditions are. City Attorney Thuyen reiterated to Mr. Szeto that this is the opportunity for the applicant to present his application to the Commission or identify questions that the applicant wants to ask the Commission to ask staff to fill out. He added, in terms of answering those specific questions, it is not to go back and forth. He also added, if Mr. Szeto has anything else other than Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2021 Page 5 of 7 clarification on how Condition Nos. 6, 18, 20, and 25 works, he asked him to wrap up his public testimony, so the Commission could continue hearing and deliberating on this item. Chair Berry asked staff to provide clarification on the concerns raised by Mr. Szeto. Associate Planner Lao clarified the listed conditions. She stated for Condition No. 6, if the applicant is unable to find a Type 47 within a year, the applicant has an additional 30 days to request for an extension. After the 30 days, the applicant will need to apply for a modification to the Conditional Use Permit, which would be heard by the Planning Commission. not a new Conditional Use Permit. She then referred to Condition No. 18 and said general signage and the applicant has already submitted a sign plan separate from this application that was approved and window signage w Associate Planner Lao then referred to Condition No. 20 and stated that dancing, live music, or other live entertainment is not permitted, without the approval of an entertainment permit. She added, if the restaurant wanted to do so, such as weekly live music from local organizations, they would have to apply for an entertainment permit, which would condition the hours of operation and duration. She then referred to Condition No. 25 and stated the City does not permit the display or advertisement of businesses serving alcohol and provided an example. Vice-Chair Tang questioned the differences between a Type 41 License versus a Type 47 License. Associate Planner Lao stated a Type 41 license only allows beer and wine with a restaurant use and a Type 47 license is for beer, wine, and distilled spirits with a restaurant use. Vice-Chair Tang asked if the alcohol is ancillary to the food that has been offered at the restaurant, and customers cannot come in and only order alcoholic beverages. Associate Planner Lao answered that is correct, food must be included. Vice-Chair Tang had additional question about the process of getting a Type 47 license. He questioned if businesses would have to obtain the license first before going to the Planning Commission to grant the Conditional Use Permit, or in this case, the applicant is applying for the CUP and is going on the market to buy a Type 47. He asked what the standard process is. Associate Planner Lao answered that since the licenses are expensive, the applicant will submit to the City first and during the process, apply with the State. She added that if they paid for a license and the City denies the project, then they would spend time and money. Vice-Chair Tang thanked Associate Planner Lao for the clarification. There being no questions from the Commission, Chair Berry closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Szeto questioned whether the Conditional Use Permit must be approved first or should they obtain the license first. Vice-Chair Tang advised the applicant if he still has concerns after the discussion and needs clarification, the Commission can table the item to a later date or would they like to proceed with the business of the Commission. He added public comments has closed. Mr. Szeto stated he understood the conditions and would like to move forward. Vice-Chair Tang stated he is happy to see that there are some businesses willing to come back, make investments to bring their business to our City. He said the restaurant has been vacant for a long time and he likes to see the vibrancy come back to that area as well. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2021 Page 6 of 7 ACTION: Vice-Chair Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-15 with findings, approving Conditional Use Permit 21-02, subject to the 34 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, Tang, and Ung Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. Interim Director of Community Development Persico explained the 10-day appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC MINUTES 09-20-21 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Chair Berry to approve PC Minutes 09-20-21 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, Tang, and Ung Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Interim Community Development Director Persico stated he is very happy to be here. He added, Staff has done a great job showing him around and he hopes to be here for a while. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Vice-Chair Tang welcomed Interim Community Development Director Persico and looks forward to working with him. 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Berry adjourned the meeting at 7:45 p.m. ATTEST: ______________________________________ James Berry Chair __________________________________ Mark Persico Commission Secretary Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2021 Page 7 of 7