Loading...
CC - Item 5B - Public Hearing on Modification 17-05, A City Initiated Request ReviewROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BILL R. MANIS, CITY MANAGER DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON MODIFICATION 17-05, A CITY INITIATED REQUEST FOR REVIEW Sh,VLA r IN,VA The City is initiating a Request for Review, requested by Council Member Margaret Clark, under Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.160.060, to further review Modification 17-05. On October 16, 2017, the Planning Commission approved Modification 17-05, a request to modify the commercial component of a previously approved mixed-use project to a shopping center use, for the incorporation of restaurant use. DISCUSSION On August 21, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Modification 17-05, a request to modify Design Review 14-06. Design Review 14-06 was previously approved by the 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 applicant submitted a modification application to re-classify the retail use to a shopping center use. The Planning Commission Staff Report and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are included in this report as Attachments "A" and "B", respectively. During the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission expressed their concerns relating to the number of proposed restaurants and potential parking impacts. At the end of the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued Modification 17-05 and directed staff to work with the applicant to ensure that the existing conditions are sufficient to incorporate restaurant use into the previously approved retail building. Subsequently, staff worked with the applicant to find a potential solution to mitigate any off- street parking impacts that may result from incorporating restaurant use. Staff directed the applicant to obtain timeframes and cost estimates from at least three traffic engineering firms for a parking study. The applicant presented staff with three parking study proposals from KOA Corporation, Stantec Consulting Services Inc., and K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. (attached as Attachment "C"). ITEM NUMBER: 15 FJ City Council Meeting November 14, 2017 Page 2 of 3 An update was provided to the Planning Commission on September 18, 2017. The update included the applicant's request to limit the potential restaurant use to three out of the five units, in lieu of requiring a parking study. After hearing the update, the Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant to bring back Modification 17-05 with standard operational conditions for restaurant use and to perform a parking analysis utilizing a hypothetical floor plan for a fast -serve restaurant based solely on the dining area, instead of the gross unit area. The Planning Commission Staff Report and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are included in this report as Attachments "D" and "E", respectively. On October 16, 2017, the Planning Commission held the continued public hearing and received all oral and written testimony relative to Modification 17-05. At the end of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved Modification 17-05 and removed the limitation of permitting restaurant use to only three out of the five units. The Planning Commission Staff Report, Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-17, and Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are included in this report as Attachments "F", "G", and "H", respectively. On October 26, 2017, Council Member Clark submitted a Request for Review under RMC Sectionl7.160.060, to further review the parking requirements for Modification 17-05. A copy of Council Member Clark's letter is included in this report as Attachment "I". According to the letter, Council Member Clark is concerned that the proposed parking may not be sufficient for the incorporation of restaurant use. She is also concerned that other jurisdictions have more stringent requirements for off-street parking than the City of Rosemead. In addition, Council Member Clark requested to conduct the Request for Review in December, however, due to the public hearing scheduling requirements outlined in RMC Section 17.160.050(D)(2), staff is presenting the item at this meeting. Off -Street Parking Requirements According to RMC Table 17.112.040.1, a shopping center that has more than four tenants is parked at a ratio of 1 parking space for every 250 square feet of floor area if the total combined floor area of all structures on the parcel is up to 100,000 square feet. Based on the parking requirement, the retail building could be classified as a shopping center, as it consists of five tenant spaces and the required parking for a shopping center use is consistent with the required parking for retail use. The re-classification of the 6,500 square foot retail building to a shopping center would require 26 parking spaces. Use ' Total Building Parking Required Parking Provided Area Ratio Spaces Parking Spaces Retail 6,500 s.f. 1 space/250 26 26 s.f. Shopping Center 6,500 s.f. 1 space/250 26 26 s.f. City Council Meeting November 14, 2017 Page 3 of 3 Staff is aware that surrounding cities are utilizing more stringent parking requirements than the City of Rosemead. For this reason, staff is currently working on improving the City's existing off-street parking requirements (adopted in 2013) to mitigate the potential parking issue within shopping centers. Staff is hoping to present any amendment to the off-street parking requirements and other zoning code sections to the Planning Commission and City Council during the first quarter of 2018. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council either uphold or reverse the Planning Commission's decision for Modification 17-05. FISCAL IMPACT - None STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT - None PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300' radius public hearing notice to twenty-six (26) property owners, publication in the newspaper on November 2, 2017, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations and on the subject site. Prepared by: Annie ao Assistant Planner Submitted by: Be Community Development Director Attachment A: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 21, 2017 (without attachments which are on file with the City Clerk's Office for review) Attachment B: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated August 21, 2017 Attachment C: Parking Study Proposals Attachment D: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 18, 2017 (without attachments which are on file with the City Clerk's Office for review) Attachment E: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated September 18, 2017 Attachment F: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 16, 2017 (without attachments which are on file with the City Clerk's Office for review) Attachment G: Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-17 Attachment H: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated October 16, 2017 Attachment I: Council Member Clark's Request for Review Letter, dated October 26, 2017 Attachment A Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 21, 2017 (without attachments which are on file with the City Clerk's Office for review) OSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: AUGUST 21, 2017 SUBJECT: MODIFICATION 17-05 9036-9038 GARVEY AVENUE SUMMARY 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 applicant is 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 17.120.1101, 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 processed in compliance with [RMC Chapter 17.120]. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Accordingly, Modification 17-05 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA guidelines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17-17 with findings (Exhibit "A"), and APPROVE Modification 17-05, subject to the 102 conditions outlined in Attachment "A" attached hereto. Planning Commission Meeting August 21, 2017 Page 2 of 24 PROPERTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION The subject site is located on the south side of Garvey Avenue, between River Avenue and Lee Avenue. The commercial component of the mixed used development totals approximately 22,663 square feet. On September 15, 2014, the Planning Commission approved applications for a design review, two zone variances, and a tentative tract map pertaining to a mixed used project consisting of a 6,500 square foot retail building fronting Garvey Avenue and 48 residential units in the rear. In 2015, it was brought to staff's attention that Preface, LLC had sold the residential component of the mixed use project to Benchmark Communities. Subsequently, in early 2017, staff was informed that the commercial component of the mixed use project was sold to Connecticut Ave. XB, LLC. According to the Building and Safety Division records, building permits were issued on April 25, 2017 for construction of the 48 residential units in the rear. On July 10, 2017, a permit was issued to utilize the garage of one of the residential units for a temporary sales office. On August 16, 2017, building permits were issued for the construction of the 6,500 square foot retail building fronting Garvey Avenue. View from Garvey Avenue Planning Commission Meeting August 21, 2017 Page 3 of 24 SITE & SURROUNDING LAND USES The project site is designated in the General Plan as Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (60 du/ac) and on the Zoning Map it is designated C-3/MUDO/D-0 (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North General Plan: Mixed Use: Industrial/Commercial Zoning: Medium Commercial (C-3) Land Use: Commercial South General Plan: Office/Light Industrial and Public Facilities Zoning: Light Manufacturing and Industrial (M-1) and Open Space Land Use: Industrial and Rio Hondo Wash East General Plan: Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (60 du/ac) and Public Facilities Zoning: Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay (C-3/MUDO/D-0) and Open Space Land Use - Commercial and Rio Hondo Wash West General Plan: Mixed Use: Residential/Commercial (60 du/ac) Zoning: Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay (C-3/MUDO/D-0) Land Use: Commercial ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYSIS Design Review 14-06 was approved with 102 conditions of approval. A copy of the Planning Commission Staff Report, Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-12, and meeting minutes have been included as Exhibit "D", "E", and "F", respectively. The applicant is requesting to modify condition of approval number 1, which currently states: "Design Review 14-06, Zone Variance 14-02, Zone Variance 14-03, and Tentative Tract Map 72871 are approved for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed use development, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "C", dated August 28, 2014. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division." The purpose of modifying condition of approval number 1 is to re- classify the retail use to a shopping center use, in order to allow for the incorporation of restaurant use. The original site plan, included as Exhibit "G", was only approved for retail use. For this reason, the applicant is proposing to revise the plans to re-classify the retail use to a shopping center use. Preface, LLC, the original applicant for the project, had only planned to develop the commercial building as retail use. For this reason, parking was calculated based on the retail use at 1 parking space per 250 square feet of floor area. Since purchasing the commercial component of the mixed use project, Connecticut Ave. XB, LLC has received letters of interest from restaurant chains, such as Waba Grill and Fins or Tails Poke Bar. Due to the confidential nature of the letters of interest from these two restaurants, the applicant has opted not to share the letters. Planning Commission Meeting August 21, 2017 Page 4 of 24 After receiving interest from Waba Grill and Fins or Tails Poke Bar, the applicant made the decision to submit a modification application to incorporate restaurant use into the commercial development. After reviewing the off-street parking requirements and consulting with the City Attorney's Office, staff has determined that the applicant's request to convert the commercial component of the mixed use project into a shopping center is compliant with the Rosemead Municipal Code. In addition, the applicant is not required to provide a parking study.. The mixed use project is unique in that the development is designed as a horizontal mixed use, where the commercial component stands alone along the front of the lot and the residential row townhomes is situated in the rear. The retail building may be defined as a shopping center as it consists of five tenant spaces. Per RMC Section 17.04.050, a shopping center means a commercial site with two or more separate businesses managed as a total entity, sharing common access, circulation, signage, and pedestrian and parking areas so that a public right-of-way does not need to be used to get from one business to another in the C-1, C-3, and CBD zones. In addition, parking will not be impacted as a shopping center (less than 100,000 square feet) with more than four tenants is parked at a parking ratio of 1 parking space per 250 square feet of floor area. This is consistent with the parking ratio for retail use. As illustrated in Exhibit `B", the applicant is not proposing any changes to the fagade or building floor plan of the retail building. Staff has also consulted the applicant's request with the City Engineer and since the commercial building is only 6,500 square feet, the City Engineer did not foresee any impacts to traffic. For this reason, the City Engineer did not request a traffic study. Parking Analysis The commercial component of the mixed 106, was originally approved for a E 17.112.040.1 requires retail uses to be p square feet of floor area. Based on this provided for the retail use. use project, approved under Design Review 14- ,500 square foot retail building. RMC Table irked at a ratio of 1 parking space for every 250 requirement, a total of 26 parking spaces were The re-classification of the retail use to a shopping center use would allow for restaurant use to be permitted without affecting parking requirements. According to RMC Table 17.112.040.1, a shopping center that has more than four tenants is parked at a ratio of 1 parking space for every 250 square feet of floor area if the total combined floor space of all structures on the parcel is up to 100,000 square feet of floor area. Based on the parking requirement, the retail building could be classified as a shopping center as it consists of five tenant spaces and the required parking is consistent with retail use. The re- classification of the 6,500 square foot retail building to a shopping center would require 26 parking spaces. Planning Commission Meeting August 21, 2017 Paqe 5 of 24 Use Total Building Area - ` Parking Required Parking Provided s.f. Ratio` Spaces Parking Spaces Retail 6,500 1 space/250 26 26 s.f. Shopping Center 6,500 1 space/250 26 26 s.f. Floor Plan The commercial portion of the mixed use project was approved for a 6,500 square foot retail building with five tenants. The proposed modification will not increase the square footage of the retail building or the number of tenants. Staff has carefully reviewed the applicant's modification request to verify that the modification would remain in conformity with the standards of the Rosemead Municipal Code if Condition of Approval No. 1 is modified. Condition of Approval No. 1 currently states: Design Review 14-06, Zone Variance 14-02, Zone Variance 14-03, and Tentative Tract Map 72871 are approved for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed use development, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "C", dated August 28, 2014. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. For this reason, it is recommended that Condition of Approval No. 1 be modified to state the following: Design Review 14-06, Zone Variance 14-02, Zone Variance 14-03, and Tentative Tract Map 72871 are approved for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed use development, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "C", dated August 28, 2014. Modification 17-05 would re-classify the retail use to a shopping center use, allowing for the incorporation of restaurant use. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. As a result of the applicant's request for this modification, it is recommended that the following condition be revised and added to the Conditions of Approval for this project to more accurately reflect both the nature of the project and the City's requirements for its use. All other conditions of approval from Design Review 14-06, Zone Variance 14-02, Zone Variance 14-03, and Tentative Tract Map 72871 will remain. Condition of Approval No. 1 will be modified to reflect the re-classification of the retail use to a shopping center use for the incorporation of restaurant use. Staff has verified that the proposed modification would be in compliance with the applicable development standards of the Rosemead Zoning Code. Planning Commission Meeting August 21, 2017 Paae 6 of 24 MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.020(A)(1), in the Design Overlay zone, Design Review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior fagade, or landscaping. On September 15 2014, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 14-06 for a mixed use project consisting of a 6,500 square foot retail building fronting Garvey Avenue and 48 residential units in the rear. Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.020(C) provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application. Per Rosemead Municipal Code 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 processed in compliance with [RMC Chapter 17.120]. The applicant has submitted a Modification Application requesting to modify Design Review 14-06. Design Review 14-06, along with Zone Variance 14-02, Zone Variance 14- 03, and Tentative Tract Map 72871, which 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. The applicant is proposing to re-classify the retail use to a shopping center use, in order to incorporate restaurant use. The commercial component of the mixed use project may be defined as a shopping center as it consists of five tenant spaces. Per RMC Section 17.04.050, a shopping center means a commercial site with two or more separate businesses managed as a total entity, sharing common access, circulation, signage, and pedestrian and parking areas so that a public right-of-way does not need to be used to get from one business to another in the C- 1, C-3, and CBD zones. In addition, parking will not be impacted as a shopping center (less than 100,000 square feet) with more than four tenants is parked at a parking ratio of 1 parking space per 250 square feet of floor area. This is consistent with the parking ratio for retail use. The re-classification of the 6,500 square foot retail building to a shopping center would require the same number of parking spaces (26 parking spaces). PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300 -foot radius public hearing notice to twenty-six (26) property owners, publication in the Rosemead Reader on August 10, 2017, and postings of the notice at the six (6) public locations and on the subject site. Planning Commission Meeting August 21, 2017 Page 7 of 24 Prepared by: Su mit by: 'Ahnie Lao`/ LilyT Valenzuela Assistant Planner Interim Community Development Director EXHIBITS: A. Planning Commission Resolution 17-17 with Attachment "A'(Conditions of Approval) B. Site/Floor Plans C. Assessor Parcel Map (APN: 5282-026.052) D. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 15, 2014 E. Resolution No. 14-12 F. Planning Commission Minutes, dated September 15, 2014 G. Site Plan for Design Review 14-06 Attachment B Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated August 21, 2017 Minutes 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 Deng STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela, City Engineer Fajardo, Assistant Planner Lao, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Murphy presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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 applicant is 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 tenantspace. Assistant Planner Lao replied they will not be exactly the same size because Suite 1 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 analysis in 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 did not have any intention of the mixed-use project property being sold to two owners. She explained they intended this as being one project, however, in '2015" it was brought to staff's attention that Preface LLC had sold the residential portion to Benchmark, and their intent was to sell the commercial portion. She added at this point the new owners contacted staff, stated they met the requirements for a shopping center, requested it, and this is why it's being presented. Commissioner Eng addressed the City Attorney and stated this was a subdivision and asked if the commercial building is on a separate parcel when it was developed. City Attorney Murphy replied one parcel was presented to the Planning Commission and it was subdivided into two and deferred the explanation to the Interim Community Development Director. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated when Tentative Tract Map 72871 came before the Planning Commission, the intent was to create two parcels with a shared easement. She explained that the original Tentative Tract Map that was approved by the Planning Commission, created the parcels. Commissioner Eng asked what the maximum capacity for the proposed 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 initially for a restaurant use. Interim Community 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 try to build these shopping centers with multiple tenants, and it's to say, given there are going to be multiple tenants; there are only two ways to figure out parking. He stated one is to set a single ratio for the entire center, and the second is to say that the center may have up to a certain square footage for restaurants, and restaurants maybe parked atone per 100 square feet. He added the remainder would be for retail and parking for retail would be one per 250 square feet. He explained then the numbers would be figured out and parking fields would be set. He added if this route is taken then a new owner may come in, want a new restaurant, may not know the restrictions, and the City may come in and say their lease may need to be invalidated, because it is against the Cities approval. He explained that it makes sense to set these 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. 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 commented that if it is four and below it is 100 and 250, five and above it is 250 flat, or less than 100,000. Commissioner Eng asked if a lot of shopping centers have been developed recently. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied there are a lot of shopping centers in the City 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. 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 Me replied there may be changes because the CC&R's were developed when the same developer had both projects. She added Connecticut 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 wishing to speak on this item. None Vice -Chair Tang closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions or comments. Commissioner Eng recommended that if this item is to be approved as a mixed use, then a condition of approval regarding the grease trap be included. City Attorney Murphy addressed the Planning Commission and suggested rather than him trying to read everything into the record, they can approve this item and give direction to staff to amend Condition of Approval number 17 to include a number of sub conditions that would be the standard conditions related to restaurants. He stated that it would be the grease trap, any changes to the trash, rubbish, garbage receptacles, venting to the restaurant and anything else the city normally applies to restaurants. He stated this can all be put into Condition of Approval number 17 and add them as Sub A, B, or C. 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 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 food establishments being allowed, but expressed concern that 26 parking spaces is not suitable 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 asked if it can be limited to three eating establishments. Commissioner Eng suggested that staff work with the applicant to help on how parking concerns can be mitigated if food establishments are approved. Commissioner Lopez expressed that these are not sit-down restaurants, these are drive-thru, or park, and get your food and leave. He added these establishments are not large enough to have sit-down restaurant and the Planning Commission is basing their facts on a lot of ifs. He stated most strip malls are like a Subway where you park, order your food, and leave, so the in and out traffic should not be a problem. He added whether there are three or five, they are small food establishments, and he does not foresee any issues with this item. He expressed there will always be parking concerns and reiterated that these are not sit-down style restaurants where the patrons will be staying for long periods of time. Vice -Chair Tang stated he agrees with Commissioner Lopez but the commercial property owner has not established yet if these will be quick serve establishments. He asked what if a Starbucks or an ice cream concept comes in where patrons want to sit-down for 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 91 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 One'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 that in the past, for shopping centers, the Planning Commission has dedicated a number of units to the shopping center. She added if the Planning Commission would like to request that three units are dedicated as fast food establishment out of the five, staff is supportive of that, if it will help mitigate this issue. She addressed Commissioner Eng's reference to quick serve and stated the municipal code does not define quick serve. It only refers to it as fast food and restaurant sit-down. She explained that it is difficult to decide what quick serve is and sit-down because a typical Poke Restaurant would have chairs and tables too and it would be considered sit-down. She stated it puts staff in a difficult stance in telling applicants what is allowed or what is not allowed. Vice -Chair Tang asked whether it is defined as fast food or a sit-down restaurant the parking requirement is still one per 100 square feet. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied yes, 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 awn 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 pedestrian friendly, 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 plan. 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 management plan that was approved by staff and the City Attorney's office just basically stated which parking stalls were dedicated to commercial and which are dedicated to residential. Commissioner Eng asked how long a parking study would take and what would it cost. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied she is not sure and explained that the applicant will have to send out an RFP to different consultants and based on, that they will determine who they would select. She added they will get estimates and it does take some time. Vice -Chair Tang asked if the parking study also provides some recommendations should those establishments not meet the adequate parking. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied it determines if the uses would accommodate the 26 parking stalls. Vice -Chair Tang asked if it does not provide recommendations should they want to go forward. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied no. 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. 12 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: Ayes: Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Noes: 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: Ayes: Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Noes: 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 & COMMISSIONERS 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. ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary John Tang Vice -Chair 0E! Attachment C Parking Study Proposals KOA CORPORATION PP PLANNING & ENGINEERING August 31, 2017 Mr. Billy Huang Connecticut Ave XB LLC 5581 Daniels Street, Suite B Chino, CA 91710 Subject: Parking Study Proposal — 9036-9038 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead (KOA Proposal NIB 71194) Dear Mr. Huang: 1 100 Corporate Center Dr., Suite 201 Monterey Park, CA 91754 t:323-260-4703 f. 323-260-4705 ww Aoacorporation.conn Thank you for requesting KOA Corporation to provide this proposal for a parking study of the proposed 9036- 9038 Garvey Avenue commercial project in the City of Rosemead. The project will provide a 6,500 sq.ft. commercial building, separate from an adjacent multi -family residential project directly to the south. The building will provide tenant space for retail and restaurant uses. KOA has defined the scope of work based on correspondence with you. It is provided below for review by Connecticut Ave XB LLC (Client), followed by a fee estimate. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter proposal. A. KOA will develop shared parking demand tables for weekday and weekend conditions, using a comparison between City Code parking requirements and ITE Parking Generation rates, and hourly intensity rates defined by the Urban Land Institute. B. KOA will provide analysis results that speak to the adequacy of the site parking supply with the development of the project, and will use shared parking analysis tools that estimate the hourly demand of the proposed uses based on demand estimates and typical hourly fluctuations. The summary of the analysis will be provided in a technical memorandum format. C. KOA will coordinate with the City and Client as needed for the completion, review, and approval of the parking document. Meetings KOA Corporation has not allowed for any in-person meetings within this contract, and they should not be needed for a project of this nature. KOA will be available for general coordination and short conference calls to discuss progress and results. 1011MIDI:a7411X9 KOA CORPORATION "�- PLANNING & ENGINEERING Fee Estimate KOA will perform the work specified in the work scope above for the fee defined below. KOA policies require on this project receipt of a deposit in the amount of $1,750 (50%) before the start of work, for new clients, which will be applied to the final invoice for the project scope defined in this proposal. Tasks Fee Parking Demand Calculations $ 1,200 Summary Document $ 1,500 Coordination with Client and City $ 800 Total: $ 3.500 The budget is based upon the work scope and level of effort presented above and includes the cost of all related technical and administrative services. The work scope is considered complete upon submittal of a final document by KOA. Any additional services requested after study submittal will be considered as extra work and those fees will be negotiated prior to start of work and secured in writing. If the work described within this letter is not authorized in 30 days, if changes occur in the work scope or level of effort, or if our work is suspended for more than 180 days due to any circumstances beyond KOA Corporation's control, we reserve the right to revise the work scope, budget and schedule to reflect current conditions. Such revisions will be effected through mutually agreed upon amendments or modifications to this agreement. The proposal is valid for 30 days and is subject to a 5% annual adjustment. Also, any individual tasks that are not authorized within 30 days of the date of this proposal are also subject to fee adjustments. Services rendered for out -of -scope work will be billed based on a negotiated fee schedule. Out -of -scope work generally includes items not specifically detailed in the work scope above, and specifically includes the following: ® Parking surveys outside of the site boundaries; ® Traffic counts data collection or traffic impact study efforts; Production of an expanded or modified study based on later City involvement in the parking study; Attendance of meetings, public hearings or participation in extended conference calls with the Client and/or City staff. Participation at future meetings with the Client/City staff and at public hearings can be provided under a contract addendum; and Staffing Brian Marchetti will be the project manager and the person to contact regarding the status of this project. KOA Corporation reserves the right to change the assigned staffing on this project if necessary. Invoicing Invoices will be submitted monthly, based upon our estimated percentage of completion. Accounts are past due after 30 days. All work will be immediately stopped if any invoice is unpaid for 60 days or more, and such Parking Study Proposal — 9036-9038 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead Page 2 Prepared for Connecticut Ave XB LLC M1371194 August 31, 2017 KOA CORPORATION a PLANNING & ENGINEERING delinquent invoice payments may be subject to a late payment penalty of 1.5 percent per month and/or turned over to a collections agency at our discretion. In any lawsuit brought to enforce the terms of this contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to their reasonable attorneys fees. Invoices will be sent from the Monterey Park office address of KOA. The Client or KOA may terminate this agreement by giving the other party ten days written notice of such termination. KOA shall receive fee payments from the Client proportionate to the services completed as of the date of termination. The Client will be entitled to receive deliverables at the level of completion relative to the fee payments received by KOA. All outstanding valid invoices shall be paid to KOA. Indemnification KOA Corporation and Connecticut Ave XB LLC each agree to indemnify and hold the other harmless from any and all losses, damages, awards, penalties or injuries or costs, including reasonable attorney's fees and cost of defense, which accrue or arise from or result by reason of a claim asserted by a third party which arises from any alleged breach of such indemnifying party's representations and warranties made under this Agreement or such indemnifying party's own negligent acts, errors, and omissions in the performance of their obligation under this Agreement or with respect to the Project. KOA Corporation is fully able to meet the insurance requirements of projects of this type. The firm has coverage in the following areas: Professional Liability ($1 million per claim, $2 million aggregate), Automobile Liability ($2 million) and General Liability ($5 million). Our Worker's Compensation coverage meets the insurance requirements of California State law. KOA Corporation envisions a five-day to seven-day schedule from the date of receipt of both written authorization of this contract letter and the required deposit, to the delivery of an initial summary report to the Client. Submittals to the Client are planned to be provided in PDF format via email, but hard copies can also be mailed by KOA if requested by the Client. Incorporation of comments can be accomplished within one to two business days. Parking Study Proposal — 9036-9038 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead Page 3 Prepared for Connecticut Ave XB LLC MB71194 August 31, 2017 KOA CORPORATION ''- PLANNING & ENGINEERING Authorization The receipt by KOA of both a signed copy of this proposal letter and the required deposit indicate acceptance of this proposal and authorization to proceed. Sincerely, Joel Falter Chief Operating Officer KOA CORPORATION Parking Study Proposal — 9036-9038 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead Prepared for Connecticut Ave XB LLC August 31, 2017 Connecticut Ave XB LLC (Client) has carefully reviewed this proposal and hereby authorizes KOA Corporation to commence work as indicated within the terms and conditions of this proposal. Signature Name (Please Print) Title (Please Print) Date Page 4 MB71194 August 31, 2017 File: 631676 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 46 Discovery Suite 250, Irvine CA 92618 Attention: Mr. Ben Long Connecticut Ave XB LLC (314) 489-4408 longxinxing 1987@gmail.com Dear Mr. Long, Reference: Parking Analysis Memo Report, 9048 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, CA Thank you for providing Stantec Consulting Services Inc. the opportunity to submit this proposal to Connecticut Ave XB LLC (Client) to provide traffic engineering services for evaluation of on-site parking associated with development of the 9048 Garvey (Project) in Rosemead, CA. This proposal has been prepared based on information provided by you via phone conversation and email on August 29 and discussion with Ms. Lily Valenzuela of the City of Rosemead on August 30, 2017. We understand that the Project was approved for development of 6,500 square feet of retail use with 26 on-site parking spaces (4/1000 sf). The approved retail use does not allow restaurant use.. Due to interest of potential tenants, Client has requested modification of the zoned site use from retail to shopping center which would allow restaurant use. Shopping center use requires the same number of on-site parking spaces, 26 (4/1000 sf), as retail use. However, the Planning Commission has requested a study be performed to evaluate if the provided 26 spaces would be adequate for inclusion of on-site restaurant use prior to the zone change approval. Approximately one-half of the 6,500-sf building area would be developed as restaurant use. t ) i; OF SERVICES ES Parking Analysis Memo Report Stantec will prepare a letter format memorandum that identifies the anticipated peak parking demand for each use and the internal trip capture rate between the considered retail and restaurant uses of the project. This internal trip capture dynamic is anticipated to reduce external trips to the site by up to 35% and reduce the demand for on-site parking accordingly. Internal trip capture estimates will be based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) guidelines. This methodology was discussed with Ms. Lily Valenzuela of the City Planning Department and is considered relevant in addressing potential Planning Commission issues and concerns. The parking analysis memorandum will be prepared by Mr. Keith Rutherfurd, a California licensed Traffic Engineer. No parking or traffic volume counts are included in this scope of work. Design with ccmmunsty in mind ME - August 31, 2017 Mr. Ben Long Page 2 of 3 Reference: Parking Analysis Memo Report, 9048 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, CA 2. Planning Commission Meeting Attendance Stantec will attend one (1) Planning Commission meeting to discuss the findings of our analysis and to represent the Client. If attendance at additional meetings is required, it will be billed on a time - and -materials basis with prior Client authorization. We will provide our services for a fixed -fee of $3,500. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to being of service to you on this Project. If this proposal is acceptable, please indicate your approval by signing and returning a copy to our office. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 923- 6952. Regards, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Keith R. Rutherfurd Senior Associate Phone: (949) 923-6952 Fax: (949) 261-8482 keith.rutherfurd@stantec.com Design with rom-nunlfy in mind August 31, 2017 M August 31, 2017 Mr. Ben Long Page 3 of 3 Reference: Parking Analysis Memo Report, 9048 Garvey Avenue, Rosemead, CA By signing this proposal, Connecticut Ave XB LLC, authorizes Stantec Consulting Services Inc. to proceed with the services herein described and the Client acknowledges that it has read and agrees to be bound by the attached Professional Services Terms and Conditions. This proposal is accepted and agreed on the 31 st day of August 2017. 'er: Connecticut Ave XB LLC Ben Lona, Owner Print Name & Title Attachment: Rate Schedule Professional Services Terms and Conditions dz documenf2 Design with community in mind Signature W= SCHEDULE OF BILLING RATES — 2017 Billing Hourly Description Level Rate Junior Level position 3 $75 ❑ Independently carries out assignments of limited scope using standard procedures, methods and 4 $83 techniques ❑ Assists senior staff in carrying out more advanced procedures 5 $93 ❑ Completed work is reviewed for feasibility and soundness of judgment ❑ Graduate from an appropriate post -secondary program or equivalent ❑ Generally, one to three ears' experience Fully Qualified Professional Position 6 $101 ❑ Carries out assignments requiring general familiarity within a broad field of the respective profession ❑ Makes decisions by using a combination of standard methods and techniques 7 $109 ❑ Actively participates in planning to ensure the achievement of objectives 8 $117 ❑ Works independently to interpret information and resolve difficulties ❑ Graduate from an appropriate post -secondary program, with credentials or equivalent ❑ Generally, three to six years' experience First Level Supervisor or first complete Level of Specialization 9 $125 ❑ Provides applied professional knowledge and initiative in planning and coordinating work programs 10 $135 ❑ Adapts established guidelines as necessary to address unusual issues 71 $144 :1 Decisions accepted as technically accurate, however may on occasion be reviewed for soundness of judgment ❑ Graduate from an appropriate post -secondary program, with credentials or equivalent o Generally, five to nine ears' experience Highly Specialized Technical Professional or Supervisor of groups of professionals El Provides multi -discipline knowledge to deliver innovative solutions in related field of expertise 12 $154 ❑ Participates in short and long range planning to ensure the achievement of objectives 13 $165 ❑ Makes responsible decisions on all matters, including policy recommendations, work methods, and financial controls associated with large expenditures 14 $175 ❑ Reviews and evaluates technical work ❑ Graduate from an appropriate post -secondary program, with credentials or equivalent ❑ Generally, ten to fifteen ears' experience with extensive, broad experience Senior Level Consultant or Management ❑ Recognized as an authority in a specific field with qualifications of significant value 15 $184 ❑ Provides multi -discipline knowledge to deliver innovative solutions in related field of expertise ❑ Independently conceives programs and problems for investigation 16 .$212 ❑ Participates in discussions to ensure the achievement of program and/or project objectives 17 $242 ❑ Makes responsible decisions on expenditures, including large sums or implementation of major programs and/or projects ❑ Graduate from an appropriate post -secondary program, with credentials or equivalent ❑ Generally, more than twelve years' experience with extensive experience Senior level Management under review by Vice President or higher 18 $283 ❑ Recognized as an authority in a specific field with qualifications of significant value ❑ Responsible for long range planning within a specific area of practice or region 19 $319 ❑ Makes decisions which are for reaching and limited only by objectives and policies of the 20 $354 organization ❑ Plans/approves projects requiring significant human resources or capital investment 21 $390 ❑ Graduate from an appropriate post -secondary program, with credentials or equivalent ❑ Generally, fifteen years' experience with extensive professional and management experience T-2 2017 ZABC2073\Table 22017 Rate 20170120.doc ® Stantec PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TERMS AND CONDITIONS Page I of 2 The following Terms and Conditions are attached to and form part of a proposal for services to be performed by Consultant and together, when the CLIENT authorizes Consultant to proceed with the services, constitute the AGREEMENT. Consultant means the Stantec entity issuing the Proposal. DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Consultant shall render the services described in the Proposal (hereinafter called the "SERVICES") to the CLIENT. DESCRIPTION OF CLIENT: The CLIENT confirms and agrees that the CLIENT has authority to enter into this AGREEMENT on its own behalf and on behalf of all parties related to the CLIENT who may have an interest in the PROJECT. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: No terms, conditions, understandings, or agreements purporting to modify or vary these Terms and Conditions shall be binding unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the CLIENT and Consultant. In the event of any conflict between the Proposal and these Terms and Conditions, these Terms and Conditions shall take precedence. This AGREEMENT supercedes all previous agreements, arrangements or understandings between the parties whether written or oral in connection with or incidental to the PROJECT COMPENSATION: Payment is due to Consultant upon receipt of invoice. Failure to make any payment when due is a material breach of this AGREEMENT and will entitle Consultant, at its option, to suspend or terminate this AGREEMENT and the provision of the SERVICES. Interest will accrue on accounts overdue by 30 days at the lesser of 1.5 percent per month (18 percent per annum) or the maximum legal rate of interest. Unless otherwise noted, the fees in this agreement do not include any value added, sales, or other taxes that may be applied by Government on fees for services. Such taxes will be added to all invoices as required. NOTICES: Each party shall designate a representative who is authorized to act on behalf of that party. All notices, consents, and approvals required to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be given to the representatives of each party. TERMINATION: Either party may terminate the AGREEMENT without cause upon thirty (30) days notice in writing. If either party breaches the AGREEMENT and fails to remedy such breach within seven (7) days of notice to do so by the non - defaulting party, the non -defaulting party may immediately terminate the Agreement. Non-payment by the CLIENT of Consultant's invoices within 30 days of Consultant rendering same is agreed to constitute a material breach and, upon written notice as prescribed above, the duties, obligations and responsibilities of Consultant are terminated. On termination by either party, the CLIENT shall forthwith pay Consultant all fees and charges for the SERVICES provided to the effective date of termination. ENVIRONMENTAL: Except as specifically described in this AGREEMENT, Consultant's field investigation, laboratory testing and engineering recommendations will not address or evaluate pollution of soil or pollution of groundwater. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY: In performing the SERVICES, Consultant will provide and exercise the standard of care, skill and diligence required by customarily accepted professional practices normally provided in the performance of the SERVICES at the time and the location in which the SERVICES were performed. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: The CLIENT releases Consultant from any liability and agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Consultant harmless from any and all claims, damages, losses, and/or expenses, direct and indirect, or consequential damages, including but not limited to attorney's fees and charges and court and arbitration costs, arising out of, or claimed to arise out of, the performance of the SERVICES, excepting liability arising from the sole negligence of Consultant. It is further agreed that the total amount of all claims the CLIENT may have against Consultant under this AGREEMENT, including but not limited to claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation and/or breach of contract, shall be strictly limited to the lesser of professional fees paid to Consultant for the SERVICES or $50,000.00. No claim may be brought against Consultant more than two (2) years after the cause of action arose. As the CLIENT's sole and exclusive remedy under this AGREEMENT any claim, demand or suit shall be directed and/or asserted only against Consultant and not against any of Consultant's employees, officers or directors. Consultant's liability with respect to any claims arising out of this AGREEMENT shall be absolutely limited to direct damages arising out of the SERVICES and Consultant shall bear no liability whatsoever for any consequential loss, Injury or damage incurred by the CLIENT, including but not limited to claims for loss of use, loss of profits and/or loss of markets. INDEMNITY FOR MOLD CLAIMS: It is understood by the parties that existing or constructed buildings may contain mold substances that can present health hazards and result in bodily injury, property damage and/or necessary remedial measures. If, during performance of the SERVICES, Consultant knowingly encounters any such substances, Consultant shall notify the CLIENT and, without liability for consequential or any other damages, suspend performance of services until the CLIENT retains a qualified specialist to abate and/or remove the mold substances.. The CLIENT agrees to release and waive all claims, including consequential damages, against Consultant, its subconsultants and their officers, directors and employees arising from or in any way connected with the existence of mold on or about the project site whether during or after completion of the SERVICES, The CLIENT further agrees to indemnify and hold Consultant harmless from and against all claims, costs, liabilities and damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, arising in anyway from the existence of mold on the project site whether during or after completion of the SERVICES, except for those claims, liabilities, costs or damages caused by the sole gross negligence and/or knowing or willful misconduct of Consultant. Consultant and the CLIENT waive all rights against each other for mold damages to the extent that such damages sustained by either party are covered by insurance. Professional Services Terms and Conditions on Stan Net Forms> Company Forms>Rlsk Management> Standard Form Agreements ® Stantec PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TERMS AND CONDITIONS Page 2of2 DOCUMENTS: All of the documents prepared by or on behalf of Consultant in connection with the PROJECT are instruments of service for the execution of the PROJECT. Consultant retains the property and copyright in these documents, whether the PROJECT is executed or not. These documents may not be used for any other purpose without the prior written consent of Consultant. In the event Consultant's documents are subsequently reused or modified in any material respect without the prior consent of Consultant, the CLIENT agrees to defend, hold harmless and indemnify Consultant from any claims advanced on account of said reuse or modification. Any document produced by Consultant in relation to the Services is intended for the sole use of Client. The documents may not be relied upon by any other party without the express written consent of Consultant, which may be withheld at Consultant's discretion. Any such consent will provide no greater rights to the third party than those held by the Client under the contract, and will only be authorized pursuant to the conditions of Consultant's standard form reliance letter. Consultant cannot guarantee the authenticity, integrity or completeness of data files supplied in electronic format ("Electronic Files"). CLIENT shall release, indemnify and hold Consultant, its officers, employees, Consultant's and agents harmless from any claims or damages arising from the use of Electronic Files. Electronic files will not contain stamps or seals, remain the property of Consultant, are not to be used for any purpose other than that for which they were transmitted, and are not to be retransmitted to a third party without Consultant's written consent. FIELD SERVICES: Consultant shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with work on the PROJECT, and shall not be responsible for any contractor's failure to carry out the work in accordance with the contract documents. Consultant shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of any contractor, subcontractor, any of their agents or employees, or any other persons performing any of the work in connection with the PROJECT. Consultant shall not be the prime contractor or similar under any occupational health and safety legislation. GOVERNING LAW/COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: The AGREEMENT shall be governed, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the majority of the SERVICES are performed. Consultant shall observe and comply with all applicable laws, continue to provide equal employment opportunity to all qualified persons, and to recruit, hire, train, promote and compensate persons in all jobs without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, disability or national origin or any other basis prohibited by applicable laws. - DISPUTE RESOLUTION: If requested in writing by either the CLIENT or Consultant, the CLIENT and Consultant shall attempt to resolve any dispute between them arising out of or in connection with this AGREEMENT by entering into structured non- binding negotiations with the assistance of a mediator on a without prejudice basis. The mediator shall be appointed by agreement of the parties. If a dispute cannot be settled within a period of thirty (30) calendar days with the mediator, if mutually agreed, the dispute shall be referred to arbitration pursuant to laws of the jurisdiction in which the majority of the SERVICES are performed or elsewhere by mutual agreement. ASSIGNMENT: The CLIENT and Consultant shall not, without the priorwritten consent of the other party, assign the benefit or in anyway transfer the obligations under these Terms and Conditions or any part hereof. SEVERABILITY: If any term, condition or covenant of the AGREEMENT is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of the AGREEMENTshall be binding on the CLIENT and Consultant. Professional Services Terms and Conditions on Stan Net Farms> Company Forms>Risk Management> Standard Form Agreements K2 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, Inc. Traffic Control. Signal, Synchronization. Parking. Study August 29, 2016 Billy Huang & Xingxing'Ben" Long Connecticut Ave. XB, LLC 903 6-3 8 Garvey Ave Rosemead, CA 91770 T.626-633-8199 Re: Parking Study- 6,500 SF Shopping Center 9036-38 Garvey Ave, Rosemead Hi Billy and Ben, Thank you for the opportunity proposing our services for the above project. Based on information you provided, we have put together the following proposal. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING For the proposed shopping center at 9036-38 Garvey Ave, Rosemead, a parking study prepared by a traffic engineer is required by the City that shows the impacts the proposed shopping center and a off-site panting lot can jointly provide sufficient parking associated with the applicable uses. The project site provides 26 parking spaces on site. The adjacent residential development is not a part of project and will share parking spaces. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. Prepare a parking analysis to display various parking demand associated with the proposed uses, e.g, retail, restaurant, etc. Assist owner in exploring parking alternatives. 2. Owner will be responsible for contacting nearby property owners in search of available parking spaces for rent in order to provide additional parking spaces required by the project. Conduct on-site observations if necessary to demonstrate availability of off-site parking. 3. Prepare shared parking analysis and memorandum to demonstrate availability of parking spaces and discuss parking strategies, if necessary. 4. Stamp and sign study results by State of California licensed Traffic Engineer. 5. Address review comments from the City of Rosemead, if applicable and within scope. WRIMILYI71-1UJIM The consultant should perform due diligence but does not thereby guarantee the outcome of the study report in any way. 2. Attendance of public hearing or meeting is not included in this proposal. 3. The final report will be provided in PDF format. K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. 1442 Irvine Blvd, Suite 210, Tustin, CA 92780 Tel. 714-832-2116 email: kay@k2traffic.com Parking Study - Shopping Center 9036-38 Garvey Ave, Rosemead CONSULTING FEE K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. August 29, 2016 Page 2 of 2 The consulting fee for the project is $3,000 on a hunp-sum basis. If the above proposal is acceptable, please return signed agreement and retainer check of $3,000. If there are any questions, please feel free to call me at your convenience. Sincerely, K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. Kay Hsu P.E., T.E., Principal THIS PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTED BY Print Name Title Connecticut Ave. XB, LLC The Client signing above is solely responsible for the full payment promptly regardless whether there are other parties or Interests involved in the project. K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc. 1442 Irvine Blvd, Suite 210, Tustin, CA 92780 Tel. 714-832-2116 email: kay@k2traffic.com Attachment D Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 18, 2017 (without attachments which are on file with the City Clerk's Office for review) ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2017 SUBJECT: MODIFICATION 17-05 (UPDATE) 9036-9038 GARVEY AVENUE SUMMARY On August 21, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Modification 17-05, a request to modify Design Review 14-06 to incorporate restaurant use by proposing to re-classify the retail use to a shopping center use (Exhibit "A!'). During the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission expressed their concerns regarding the number of proposed restaurant uses and how off- street parking could potentially be impacted as the proposed number of restaurant uses could result in a shortage of off-street parking spaces. At the end of the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued Modification 17-05 and directed staff to work with the applicant to ensure that the existing conditions are sufficient to incorporate restaurant use into the commercial building. To avoid re -noticing the public hearing, the Planning Commission motioned for staff to provide an update on Modification 17-05 at the September 18th Planning Commission meeting. The motion resulted in a vote of four ayes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission provide staff with direction on how to proceed with Modification 17-05. PROGRESS UPDATE Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff has been working with the applicant on a potential solution to mitigate any off-street parking impacts that may result from incorporating restaurant use. Staff directed the applicant to obtain timeframes and cost estimates from at least three traffic engineering firms for a parking study. The applicant has presented staff with three parking study proposals from KOA Corporation, Stantec Consulting Services Inc., and K2 Traffic Engineering, Inc., as attached in Exhibit `B". The range in cost is from $3,000- $3,500. Due to the cost and time, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission limit the potential restaurant use to three out of the five units, in lieu of requiring a parking study. Planning Commission Meeting September 18, 2017 Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Prepared by: Submitted by: Annie Lao Lily T. Valenzuela Assistant Planner Interim Community Development Director EXHIBITS. A. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 21, 2017 B. Parking Study Proposals Attachment E Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated September 18, 2017 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 18, 2017 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Dang in the Council Chambers located at 8B38 E, Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herrera INVOCATION - Chair Deng ROLL CALL - Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Chair Deng ABSENT - Vice -Chair Tang STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Thuyen, Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela, Associate Planner Hann, Assistant Planner Lao, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedures and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-02 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 17.18 - Frank Contreras of Open Bible Church has submitted a Condltional Use Permit and Minor Exception application, requesting to enlarge the existing legal nonconforming church, located at 7915 Hellman Avenue. The proposed project would add 3,092 square feet to the existing 13,595 square feet church, for a total of 16,687 square feet of floor area. The project site is located in a Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zone. In the R-2 zone, approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required for place of religious assembly use and approval of a Minor Exception is required for enlargement of a legal nonconforming structure. PC RESOLUTION 17-18 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 15-02 AND MINOR EXCEPTION 17-18, PERMITTING THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING LEGAL NONCONFORMING PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY USE AND ENLARGEMENT OF AN EXISTING LEGAL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, LOCATED AT 7915 HELLMAN AVENUE (APN: 5287.015.022), IN A LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL (R-2) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION -11 is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17-18 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 15-02 and Minor Exception 17.18, subject to the 28 conditions. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report. Chair Dang asked if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked for clarification on the modifications and asked if one is for the rear yard setback and is it less than what is required under the municipal code. Associate Planner Hanh replied the first modification is for the front yard setback. Commissioner Eng asked if the deficiency is a result of the addition that they are proposing. Associate Planner Hanh replied no, Commissioner Eng asked if the existing is what nonconforming is. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if the addition is to the south, which is the back of the building. Associate Planner Hanh replied it is to the north and to the west. Commissioner Eng asked if the minimum 35 parking spaces take into account and include the 3,000 square feet addition. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Lopez asked if the applicant is adding an off the premise parking area, which includes 54 off-street parking spaces, besides what is included on the church. Associate Planner Hanh replied no, all parking will be on-site. Chair Deng asked for clarification in terms of the existing site plan verses the proposed site plan. He referred to the area to the far east of the property, which appears to be a residential propertylgarage, and asked what happened to it, because it seems to have disappeared. Associate Planner Hanh replied that a portion of the property to the east went through a lot line adjustment (by Public Works Dept.). He added the parking that was to the rear of the residential area will now be for the residential property. Chair Dang asked if that property had always been part of the house. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Chair Dang asked if in actuality there is no change in the residential house. Associate Planner Hanh replied the residential home is not part of this scope of work. Chair Dang asked if the lot line adjustment affected this residential home. Associate Planner Hanh replied the residential property met all the minimum requirements, but the house itself was not affected. Chair Dang asked if the land that was cleared off is just a part of the residential house parcel lot area, Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Chair Deng opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Frank Contreras, applicant, thanked the Planning Commission and gave a brief summary of what they are proposing, which consist of better quality of floor space for their classrooms, nursery, multi-purpose room, lobby, and to beautify, the community. Chair Deng asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments for the applicant. Commissioner Eng asked if the building is currently one-story or is it two-stories. Frank Contreras replied some small areas are two-stories and it will remain the same. Commissioner Eng asked if the addition will be for the one-story only. Frank Contreras replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if the church currently has classrooms. Frank Contreras replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if they are adding more classrooms. Frank Contreras replied that they are reconfiguring the space that they currently have. Commissioner Eng asked how many classes they will have after the expansion is completed. Frank Contreras replied there will be four classrooms and one room for a nursery. Commissioner Eng asked if this is a non-academicltradillonal school or is it basicafly bible study classes. Frank Contreras replied currently the facility is used for church purposes only. Commissioner Eng asked if there are plans to expand the educational purpose and become a private school. Frank Contreras replied that is something to consider for in the future, but currently he just wants to complete this project. He added they would like to make sure the classrooms have adequate space for the students. Commissioner Eng stated if there are intentions and plans on becoming a traditional school, then there may be additional considerations to lock at due to traffic impacts, Frank Contreras stated if that was the case, then they will look into those conditions at that time. Commissioner Herrera asked how long the church has been at this location. Frank Contreras replied the church itself has been there since 1948 and next year will be their 70 year celebration. Chair Dang congratulated Mr. Contreras on their 70th year. He added that the rendering is beautiful and likes that they are adopting the earth tone colors. He stated there is a block wall that is being installed around the perimeter and requested that the block wall match the earth tone colors of the building. Frank Contreras agreed and stated he likes earth tone colors. Chair Dang stated that in other developments where block walls surround the area, it has been recommended to add split -face. He added it is fairly inexpensive and it helps to break up the big massing effect. He recommended that he work with staff and they have samples they can show him if he agreeable to adding the split -face. Frank Contreras agreed to the split -face and that he is sure staff will be helpful. Chair Dang addressed the City Attorney and asked if the recommendations will have to be conditioned or will staff just work with the applicant. City Attorney Thuyen replied that if the Planning Commission would like to add that as a condition of approval it would have to be added at this time. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela referred to Condition of Approval number 21 regarding fencing and recommended the requirement for split -face be added to this condition. Chair Deng requested that Condition of Approval number 21 be modified to include both sptit-face and earth tone colors requirements. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela agreed to the recommendation. Chair Deng asked if there were any further questions or comments. Resident Margaret Halt stated her properly is located directly behind the church property and currently construction is taking place on Del Mar and Hellman Avenue. She asked if the construction for this project will add to the traffic and create more problems. She expressed that currently traffic is bad on Hellman Avenue due to construction and is scheduled to be completed in September. She asked when this projects construction will begin and if it will interfere with the current traffic. Chair Deng invited Mr. Contreras back to the podium and asked him when his construction will begin. Frank Contreras replied he understands the concerns and he would be concerned also. He stated that he is willing to work with the City's schedule and is not sure when that project on Hellman Avenue will be completed and it would also be a concern for them. Chair Dang asked Ms. Holt if the street construction on Hellman will be completed in September Margaret Holt replied there is a flashing sign stating it will be completed on September 51h, so she has been exiting on Brighton Street. Chair Deng asked Frank Contreras if they had submitted plans to Building & Safety yet, or is everything still in the preliminary stages. Frank Contreras replied they have not submitted for construction permits, as they were waiting for this approval to move forward. If the Hellman project is not completed they are willing to wait before commencing work. Chair Deng commented that it looks like there will be a large area to stage materials and for construction parking after the residential property on the west is demolished, so that may help alleviate some of the concerns. Commissioner Eng commented she lives in that area and the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Hellman Avenue is under construction. She added she saw a sign that said it would be completed by October 311t. Resident Margaret Holt stated the sign she saw stated September 5th and it looks like a lot of work still needs to be completed. Commissioner Eng recommended that staff request an update and timeline from Public Works. Associate Planner Hanh stated that if this project is approved the applicant will also need to apply for a plan check from the Building and Safety Department. He added this may take some time, so it could possibly provide enough time for the project on Hellman to be completed. City Attorney Thuyen suggested that a list be complied and if there are other speakers have each one come up one at a time, so that it is clearer for the record. Chair Dang asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if they had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Lopez stated he likes the project and made a motion to approve this item. City Attorney Thuyen clarified that this motion includes the resolution recommended by staff and the modification to Condition of Approval number 21, regarding aesthetics, adding the split -face, and earth tone colors. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 17-18 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 15-02 and Minor Exception 17.18, subject to the 28 conditions. (Condition of Approval number 21 was modified by the Planning Commission 9-18-M. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: Tang Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes and 0 Noes and explained the 10 -day appeal process. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A- MODIFICATION 17-05 (UPDATE) - On August 21, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Modification 17-05, a request to modify Design Review 14-06 to incorporate restaurant use by proposing to re-classify the retail use to a shopping center use. During the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission expressed their concerns regarding the number of proposed restaurant uses and how off-street parking could potentially be impacted as the proposed number of restaurant uses could result in a shortage of off-street parking spaces. At the end of the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued Modification 17-05 and directed staff to work with the appllcant to ensure that the existing conditions are sufficient to incorporate restaurant use into the commercial building. To avoid re -noticing the public hearing, the Planning Commission motioned for staff to provide an update on Modification 17-05 at the September 18th Planning Commission meeting. The motion resulted in a vote of four ayes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission provide staff with direction on how to proceed with Modification 17.05. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng stated Vice -Chair Tang is not present this evening and he had concerns with this project and it may be appropriate to discuss this item when he Is present. She expressed that when this Item returns to the Planning Commission for approval of restaurant use, she requested operational conditions be included in the conditions of approval to help mitigate with impacts from a restaurant use. She recommended staff to use the guidelines from previously approved mixed use projects. She stated she is recommending this to be fair to everybody because this project was approved as a mixed use. She referred to Condition of Approval number 19, read it, and asked if it is consistent with previous mixed use projects with restaurant use. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied yes, it is a standard condition of approval for mixed use projects. Commissioner Eng referred to page 18 of 24 in the staff report (PC Mtg., of 8-21-17), Utilities number 62, and in terms of lighting, requested that in case restaurant use is incorporated, there may be outdoor seating, and lighting may be necessary. Commissioner Lopez stated this item is an update and asked if staff will bring this item to the Planning Commission at a later date. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied this item was previously heard at the last Planning Commission meeting of August 21, 2017. She explained that City Attorney Murphy recommended bringing this item back as an update, so the next step would be for the Planning Commission to give staff direction to bring this item back as a Public Hearing to the Planning Commission for either an approval or a denial. Commissioner Lopez recommended that staff bring the item back as a Public Hearing. City Attorney Thuyen stated the purpose for this item is to provide an update per the direction from the Planning Commission from the previous Planning Commission meeting. He added this is the opportunity for the Planning Commission to hear staff's update, for further comments, ask questions, express concerns, and to have information included for the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Dang stated he was not present at the Planning Commission when this was first presented and asked if the progress update request is to have three out of the five tenant spaces be restaurant use. He asked if the original request was to switch the retail use to restaurant use. . Commissioner Lopez explained that the request was to have restaurant use in all five units Chair Dang asked what the parking ratio for a restaurant is. 11 Assistant Planner Lao replied one per 100 Chair Dang asked if the definition of a shopping center per the zoning code is five or more tenant spaces less than a certain square feet. Assistant Planner Lao replied the off-street parking requirements states, if the shopping center has more than four tenants then it is parked at the following ratio, but since this commercial/shopping center is 6,500 square feet it is parked at the ratio of one per 250. Chair Dang asked if every single tenant space of this complex is restaurant, does it fit the definition of a shopping center. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes Chair Dang stated there was a zoning code update in the year of "2013" and asked if this was part of that zoning update. Assistant Planner Lao replied the verbiage changed a little, but the language, numbers, and the parking ratio remained the same. Chair Dang asked Assistant Planner Lao to elaborate on the verbiage and if the old code verses the new code is available for comparisons. Assistant Planner Lao replied that the old code is not available. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela explained the definition is basically the same, but the new code is now clearer on the size of the square footage of a shopping center, where the old code stated "up to 100,000 square feet". Chair Dang asked so the fact that this is 6,500 square feet is irrelevant whether it is new code or old code, it will stifl be applied as the old code. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Chair Dang asked staff if they had an internal memo regarding the background behind the shopping center having a blanket of one per 250 to narrate this type of determination. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied when the Zoning Code Update was completed, staff looked at all the parking calculations, surveyed other cities, and because the City of Rosemead was consistent with other cities the parking ratio was kept at this number. Chair Dang requested that the applicant approach the podium. Billy Huang stated he is representing Connecticut Avenue LLC, Chair Dang asked if he is the owner of the commercial property. Representative Billy Huang replied yes, they are the current owner of the commercial project. Chair Dang asked if the residential property is owned by a separate entity. Representative Billy Huang replied yes, it is owned by a different company. Chair Deng stated he looked at the site plan from the original development and it shows guest parking. He added there is a portion of the guest parking that goes into the commercial portion, it shows there will be a gate, and questioned who will have control of that portion and will it be the other company. Representative Billy Huang replied there is a gate and there is also a parking agreement between the HOA residential portion and with them as the owner of the commercial portion. He stated they have 26 parking spaces strictly allocated for their use and there is residential guest parking for strictly the residential use. Chair Dang asked if the gate that separates the residential guest parking is going to be controlled by Century Homes or by Connecticut Avenue LLC. Representative Billy Huang replied the gate belongs to Century Homes, Chair Dang stated he would like to have a Planning Commission meeting where all the Planning Commissioners are present for further discussion. He would like to consider proposing that some of the residential guest parking also have the flexibility of having Billy Huang's patrons using the guest parking at the same time. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela addressed Chair Dang and stated because of the way the code is written, the guest parking stalls are required for the residential. She added that this recommendation may not be possible, because it would not meet the standards of the municipal code. Chair Dang stated that is correct, but this would be an action item that the Planning Commission would pick up, and asked the City Attorney if this would be legal or allowed. City Attorney Thuyen replied that this project was completed before he started participating in the Rosemead Planning Commission, so he is not familiar with the actual details. He added those parking spaces may have been set up specifically reserved for those residents and the users of the shopping center would have a different set of spaces. He recommended since this is an update the Planning Commission may direct staff to summarize the history of the project and how those parking spaces came into being reserved for residential use and have it as a topic for future discussion. Chair Dang stated for future discussion and the reason he has asked if the parking may be shared, is because there are 48 units and out of 46 units half of it will be guest parking. He added 24 spaces will be guest parking and it does not seem likely that all 24 families will have guest at the same time. He explained if the commercial patrons were allowed to use the guest parking also it may add flexibility to the availability of parking and signage could be installed stating, "preferred guest parking". Commissioner Lopez stated there is an assumption that the owners of the condominiums would agree to that. Chair Dang commented that this is a topic for future discussion. Commissioner Eng stated at this pofntthe governing documents and CC&R's have probably already been recorded. She added for a project like this the OUR's has probably already stipulated the parking requirements. She shares Commissioner Lopez's point of view. She added as a homeowner that has bought a project, which included a two -car garage, plus a guest parking, and it was a consideration when she bought this home. She added that has value and as a properly owner that is something that she would not want to give up, Chair Deng stated he does not have any further questions for Mr. Huang and asked if Mr. Huang would like to add any further comments. Representative Billy Huang stated that he was present at the previous Planning Commission meeting and heard both sides of the debate. He added his goal is to add his perspective as developers and to answer the Planning Commission's questions. He added that they share the same concerns and goals and they do not want to rent too just anybody and allow parking wherever patrons want. He stated as owners of this building and to be successful they have to have tenants that are successful. As a consumer he would also be concerned with if he could not find a parking space in a plaza that he would shop in. He staled that the City, the Planning Commission, the developer, his realtor, his tenants and franchisees all have the same concerns and goals and are all working to resolve them. He explained they are not the original developers and they purchased the entitled land from Preface with a goal of building and owning this property in their long term portfolio. They are here for the long term and addressed Commissioner Eng's concern of requiring structural requirements and restaurant use. He added they have already drafted plans for grease interceptors for the building and they are willing to work with the City to follow all the guidelines for food establishments or retail use. If this is to remain as retail building there is likelihood that the tenants will be local related businesses, such as professional services, small retail boutiques, or massage parlors. He stated the parking concerns do not diminish if they are using these types of services or related businesses, however the quality of visitors and the services provided to the local residents will, He added that you lose the opportunity to have local residents and neighboring visitors spend their money here in Rosemead. He reported that they had reached out to several agencies for a parking study based on conversations that took place and the traffic studies are hypothetical calculations that are based on a specific tenant use and mix. He added they cannot have a study done for every combination of mixed use for their tenants at this time because they have no tenants and they do not know what that mix will be at this paint. 5o having a study done at this time will be a waste of time, money, and effort to get to where they want to go, which is a solution to this current situation. He stated what they are requesting is a modification to the zoning code and they will make sure with staff that they are within compliance of the current codes within the City guidelines. He reminded the Planning Commission that Connecticut Ave., LLC was not privy to the initial meeting with Preface and Planning Commission so they do not know why they did not initially request what they are requesting to fix. These franchises want to be in Rosemead and they would like to help them accomplish this, so working with their partners, the City, the Planning Commission, and staff, to find and provide the best tenants for this space for the City of Rosemead. He added at the next Planning Commission hopefully the expressed concerns can be shared, provide solutions, they are willing to compromise and reduce their request for three units instead of five for fast serve use. He explained they are not even certain they will have three fast serve at this location and they will let the market decide. He stated with letting the market decide they will let the franchisees, business owners, and franchisers do their own studies to see if parking is adequate, the traffic count is adequate, to have their business here and to be successful. He commented that they are also looking out for the residents and thanked the Planning Commission. Chair Deng thanked Mr. Huang for his comments and for stating they are going to be a strong stakeholder in this and not just a casual developer that wants to make a quick buck and move out of the City. He asked staff what is the parking ratio for an office. Assistant Planner Lao replied office parking ratio is one per 250. Chair Dang asked if retail is one per 250. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes. Chair Dang asked staff if this is a restaurant, do they take the entire tenant space or do they just take the dining area. Assistant Planner Lao replied they take the entire tenant space. Chair Dang recommended that the parking analysis be taken based on the dining room area only, because most of the kitchen is filled with equipment and that eats up about 95% of the space. He recommended that staff consider this and requested the Planning Commission to consider this to discuss at the next Planning Commission meeting. He added if this ratio works out then it is a rational compromise that will work. He stated when you have a retail and restaurant combination in a strip center like this you will rarely have that perfect storm where the retail and restaurant tenant is packed with people. He added this part of town the night time activity is low, so it is important to have some kind of eatery in this area to bring out the night life, especially if the goal is to revamp the Garvey Avenue area. He stated when you compare Valley Boulevard and Garvey Avenue; you can sense a difference in terms of activities, people, and pedestrian traffic. If you have all retail that night time pedestrian traffic will diminish quite a bit, people want go out and take their families out to enjoy the night time activities, so having a restaurant would be good, especially for this part of town. Commissioner Eng thanked Mr. Huang for his comments, appreciates his investment into the City, and the Planning Commission wants him to succeed. Chair Deng opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on this item. Resident Brian Lewin recommended that the parking study be looked at because it is required for a reason and often they are speculative. He stated he does not agree that this is seen as useless in this context because many parking studies that are required under many codes would be by definition useless. He added a parking study in this context would be useful and illuminating to these purposes. Betty M. Kwon, stated that it is important for the City to review the Memorandum of Understanding between the HOA and commercial property to make sure that even if the board changes the contract will not be revoked, so that the parking agreement will be consistent. Chair Dang asked the City Attorney if requesting to view the MOU would be a civil matter. City Attorney Thuyen stated this issue may be related to the comments earlier regarding site, guest, parking, and the parking agreement. He added this can be discussed at the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Deng asked if this is a document that would have to be reviewed by the City even though it is an agreement between the residential and commercial developer. City Attorney Thuyen deferred this question to Interim Community Development Director Vaienzuela. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the applicant submitted CC&R's to the City, it was reviewed by the City Attorney's office, and has been approved. Betty M. Kwan clarified that she is not referring to the CC&R's, but to the agreement of the two parties, which would be the commercial property owner and HOA. She explained that the GC&R's belong to the HOA and she is suggesting that the City review the Memorandum of Understanding between those two parties to make sure the zoning code is complied with. Chair Dang asked if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing and questioned if the recommendation is to bring this item to the next Planning Commission meeting. City Attorney Thuyen stated this item is an update and the request for the recommendation is to direct staff with their direction on how to approach this item. He explained the directions are: 1) to bring this item to the next Planning Commission meeting, 2) address the standard operational conditions for restaurant use and include this with any 10 resolution improving this item, 3) recommendation for staff to review with the applicant any outdoor seating uses that may require any tweaks to the lighting conditions of approval, 4) and review/briefing to the Planning Commission about parking, parking agreements, to ensure that parking ratios are consistent to the code. Chair Dang stated he would like to add an item and requested staff do a quick analysis (the applicant will need to work with staff with this) with a hypothetical model with parking for restaurants based on the dining room use only, excluding the kitchen. He reiterated that the kitchen is 95% equipment and employees ffowing around the kitchen are just bumping into each other. He stated he would like to see how those numbers pan out and a hypothetical floor plan will have to be given to staff and this will be purely for a discussion topic for the Planning Commissioners that may help the project work out. He asked the Planning Commission if there was anything else. None Chair Dang closed the item and asked Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela what date this will be on the Agenda to be heard. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 2, 2017, but staff is not sure if items will be ready to present. She added in that case the next Planning Commission will be on Monday, October 16, 2017. She stated this item will be brought back for an approval or a denial Chair Dang requested exhibits using the model analysis of using the dining room be given to staff, so that they may be available for the October 2nd or 16th Planning Commission meetings. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR 6. MATTERS FROM STAFF Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela announced the date, time, and location of the following City events: 1) The Moon Festival, 2) The Mayor's City Address, and 3) Fall Fiesta. 7. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Eng announced the date, time, and location of the "NAMI Walk" which stands for National Alliance for Mental Illness. She added she will be participating in this event and invited all to join her or to please contribute to the cause, which raises awareness of mental illness, raises funds, provides education, advocacy, and support, to families and loved ones living with mental illness. She also thanked Commissioner Herrera for supporting her cause. Commissioner Herrera recommended that if the Planning Commission see's any safety issues within the City to please contact the City Council members. She explained she had two incidents that she reported to City Council and it was addressed immediately. Chair Deng thanked the Planning Commission for their work while he was on vacation. 11 r t _ . UIT3I4.1>t➢ The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Mondactober 2, 2017, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. YO ATT T: x � c �✓�' Y Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary Sean Chair 12 Attachment F Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 16, 2017 (without attachments which are on file with the City Cleric's Office for review) ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2017 SUBJECT: MODIFICATION 17-05 (CONTINUED) 9036-9038 GARVEY AVENUE SUMMARY On August 21, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Modification 17-05, a request to modify Design Review 14-06 to incorporate restaurant use by proposing to re-classify the retail use to a shopping center use. At the end of the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued Modification 17-05 and directed staff to work with the applicant to ensure that the existing conditions are sufficient to incorporate restaurant use into the commercial building. To avoid re -noticing the public hearing, the Planning Commission motioned for staff to provide an update on Modification 17-05 at the September 18th Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission Staff Report and Meeting Minutes are included in this report as Exhibits `B" and "C". ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Accordingly, Modification 17-05 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA guidelines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17-17 with findings (Exhibit "A"), and APPROVE Modification 17-05, subject to the 105 conditions outlined in Attachment "A" attached hereto. DISCUSSION At the Planning Commission meeting on September 18, 2017, staff provided the Planning Commission with an update on Modification 17-05. The update included the applicant's request to limit the potential restaurant use to three out of the five units, in lieu of requiring Planning Commission Meeting October 16, 2017 Page 2 of 23 a parking study. The Planning Commission Staff Report and Meeting Minutes are included in this report as Exhibits `D" and "E". The Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant to bring back Modification 17-05 with standard operational conditions for restaurant use and to perform a parking analysis utilizing a hypothetical floor plan for a fast -serve restaurant based solely on the dining area. At the end of the update, the Planning Commission directed staff to conduct the following: Bring back the public hearing to the October 16th Planning Commission meeting for action; 2. Incorporate standard operational conditions of approval for restaurant use into the resolution; 3. Review any proposed outdoor seating to ensure lighting conditions of approval are incorporated into the resolution; 4. Review the Parking Agreement to determine if the residential guest parking spaces adjacent to the commercial parcel can be utilized by the commercial guests; 5. Based on the restaurant use parking ratio, create hypothetical parking calculations of net dining area utilizing typical fast -serve restaurant floor plans. Parking Management Plan Staff has reviewed the recorded Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's), which includes a Parking Management Plan for the mixed use development. The Parking Management Plan outlines the agreement that was made for the division of parking spaces for the residential and commercial areas. Ilei :11 a i I �.crosvvccoccswoccc��:�ad ec v ma ui��� L®� MOM ■ own e (NOT A PART MI f P-15 ®P-16 \� -P--17 AM MI ����ac�ccoeavocevccsavcooccsmc- cgmocs�svccc�ccNsrfcvocoms�uv C� Planning Commission Meeting October 16, 2017 Page 3 of 23 Staff has also contacted Century Communities, the owners of the residential portion of the mixed use development, and they are not in agreement to modify residential parking spaces, as 24 guest parking spaces have been set aside for the residential property owners. In addition, the recorded CC&R's have already been distributed to the new residential property owners of the mixed use development. Hypothetical Parking Analysis As directed by the Planning Commission, staff has received two typical fast -serve restaurant floor plans from the applicant (illustrated below and attached as Exhibit "F). Restaurant "A" Restaurant "B" Based on these floor plans, should off-street parking requirements solely be calculated based on net dining area, the development would be sufficient to accommodate three fast -serve restaurants and two office/retail use. The table below illustrates the parking analysis. .............. /NTS///rNTY.,WUF -------------- 1 • �O^ O oernaucc ea— h! — ® p 4 II Unit Square Footage: 1,649 L= Dining Area: 617 sq. R. Percentage of Dining Are a: 61711649=37% O Based on these floor plans, should off-street parking requirements solely be calculated based on net dining area, the development would be sufficient to accommodate three fast -serve restaurants and two office/retail use. The table below illustrates the parking analysis. t �fla G Unit Square Footage: ZU413 sq. Dining Area: 897 sq. R h Percentage of Dlning Area: 8972413=37% �> SIE X.�Y*iF 1F*Ir#Fµ 441k : e 1r'� .�. Based on these floor plans, should off-street parking requirements solely be calculated based on net dining area, the development would be sufficient to accommodate three fast -serve restaurants and two office/retail use. The table below illustrates the parking analysis. Planning Commission Meeting October 16, 2017 Page 4 of 23 Use Total Building Area (s.0 Dining Area NJ.) Parking Ratio Required Parking Spaces Restaurant 1,300 481 1 space/100 s.f. 5 Restaurant 1,300 481 1 space/100 s.f. 5 Restaurant 1,300 481 1 space/100 s.f. 5 Office/Retail 1,300 N/A 1 space/250 s.f. 5 Office/Retail 1,300 N/A 1 space/250s.f. 5 Total 6,500 25 As illustrated in "Restaurant A" and "Restaurant B", approximately 37% of a typical fast - serve restaurant floor plan consists of dining area. If the parking analysis was calculated based on the net dining area of the proposed fast -serve restaurant use (37% of each unit) the 6,500 square foot retail building would require 25 parking spaces. Currently, the commercial development provides 26 parking spaces. Outdoor Dining The applicant is not requesting outdoor dining for the three restaurants. For this reason, staff did not incorporate a condition of approval to require the applicant to revise their approved lighting plan for the development. Modification Request The applicant is requesting to modify Condition of Approval No. 1, which currently states: Design Review 14-06, Zone Variance 14-02, Zone Variance 14-03, and Tentative Tract Map 72871 are approved for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed use development, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "C", dated August 28, 2014. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. The purpose of modifying Condition of Approval No. 1 is to re-classify the retail use to a shopping center use, in order to allow for the incorporation of restaurant use in three out of the five units. The original site plan, included as Exhibit "G", was only approved for retail use. Staff has carefully reviewed the applicant's modification request to verify that the modification would remain in conformity with the standards of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) if Condition of Approval No. 1 is modified. For this reason, it is recommended that Condition of Approval No. 1 be modified to state the following: Design Review 14-06, Zone Variance 14-02, Zone Variance 14-03, and Tentative Tract Map 72871 are approved for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed use development, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "C", dated August 28, 2014. Modification 17-05 would Planning Commission Meeting October 16, 2017 Page 5 of 23 re-classify the retail use to a shopping center use, allowing for the incorporation of restaurant use in three out of the five units. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division. All other conditions of approval from Design Review 14-06, Zone Variance 14-02, Zone Variance 14-03, and Tentative Tract Map 72871 will remain. MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.020(A)(1), in the Design Overlay zone, Design Review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior fagade, or landscaping. On September 15, 2014, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 14-06 for a mixed use project consisting of a 6,500 square foot retail building fronting Garvey Avenue and 48 residential units in the rear. Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.020(C) provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application. Per Rosemead Municipal Code 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 processed in compliance with [RMC Chapter 17.120]. The applicant has submitted a Modification Application requesting to modify Design Review 14-06. Design Review 14-06, along with Zone Variance 14-02, Zone Variance 14-03, and Tentative Tract Map 72871, 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. The applicant is proposing tore -classify the retail use to a shopping center use, in order to incorporate restaurant use in three out of the five units. The commercial component of the mixed use project may be defined as a shopping center as it consists of five units. Per RMC Section 17.04.050, a shopping center means a commercial site with two or more separate businesses managed as a total entity, sharing common access, circulation, signage, and pedestrian and parking areas so that a public right-of-way does not need to be used to get from one business to another in the C-1, C- 3, and CBD zones. In addition, parking will not be impacted as a shopping center (less than 100,000 square feet) with more than four units is parked at a parking ratio of 1 parking space per 250 square feet of floor area. This is consistent with the parking ratio for retail use. The re-classification of the 6,500 square foot commercial building from retail use to a shopping center use, in order to incorporate restaurant use in three out of the five units would require the same number of parking spaces (26 parking spaces). Planning Commission Meeting October 16, 2017 Page 6 of 23 PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Prepared by: Submitted by: C�*4;�� 4 k Annie Lao Lily T. Valenzuela Assistant Planner Interim Community Development Director EXHIBITS: A. Planning Commission Resolution 17-17 with Attachment "A" (Conditions of Approval) B. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 21, 2017 C. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated August 21, 2017 D. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 18, 2017 E. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated September 18, 2017 F. Hypothetical Fast -Serve Restaurant Floor Plans G. Original Site Plan from Design Review 14-06 Attachment G Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-17 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 IN FIVE OUT OF THE FIVE UNITS. 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). WHEREAS, on July 18, 2017, Connecticut Ave. XB, LLC submitted a Modification application requesting to modify Design Review 14-06 to re-classify the retail use of the commercial building to a shopping center use, for the incorporation of restaurant use at 9036-38 Garvey Avenue; WHEREAS, 9036-38 Garvey Avenue is located in a Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay (C-3/MUDO/D-O) zone; WHEREAS, Sections 17.120.110 and 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code provide the criterias for authorizing changes to an approved project and Design Review; WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.120.110 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve changes to development or new use authorized through a permit granted in compliance with the zoning code; WHEREAS, on August 10; 2017, twenty-six (26) notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader, and notices were posted in six (6) public locations and on site, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Modification 17-05; WHEREAS, on August 21, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Modification 17-05; WHEREAS, on August 21, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to September 18, 2017, for an update from staff; WHEREAS, on September 18, 2017, the Planning Commission directed staff to bring back the public hearing to the October 16, 2017, Planning Commission meeting for action; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2017, the applicant and public provided additional oral testimony and the Planning Commission further discussed the matter; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that Modification 17-05 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15301. Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines exempts projects consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Accordingly, Modification 17-05 is classified as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of CEQA guidelines. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Modification 17-05, in accordance with Section 17.120.110 and 17.28.020(A)(1) of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. Per Rosemead Municipal Code, 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 processed in compliance with [RMC Chapter 17.120]. FINDING: The applicant has submitted a Modification Application requesting to modify Design Review 14-06. Design Review 14-06, along with Zone Variance 14-02, Zone Variance 14-03, and Tentative Tract Map 72871, 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. The applicant is proposing to re-classify the retail use to a shopping center use, in order to incorporate restaurant use in five out of the five units. The commercial component of the mixed use project may be defined as a shopping center as it consists of five units. Per RMC Section 17.04.050, a shopping center means a commercial site with two or more separate businesses managed as a total entity, sharing common access, circulation, signage, and pedestrian and parking areas so that a public right-of-way does not need to be used to get from one business to another in the C-1, C-3, and CBD zones. In addition, parking will not be impacted as a shopping center (less than 100,000 square feet) with more than four units is parked at a parking ratio of 1 parking space per 250 square feet of floor area. This is consistent with the parking ratio for retail use. The re-classification of the 6,500 square foot commercial building from retail use to a shopping center use, in order to incorporate restaurant use in five out of the five units would require the same number of parking spaces (26 parking spaces). SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY APPROVES Modification 17-05 for the modification of Design Review 14-06 to re-classify the commercial component of the mixed use project to a shopping center for the incorporation of restaurant use in five out of the five units at 9036-38 Garvey Avenue, and subject to the conditions listed in Attachment "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. This action shall become final and effective ten (10) days after this decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.160.040 — Appeals of Decisions. SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on October 16, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: HERRERA, LOPEZ, AND TANG NOES: DANG ABSTAIN: ENG ABSENT: NONE SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead Cit Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 16th day o Oct ber, 2017. Sean Dang, Chair CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 16th day of October, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: HERRERA, LOPEZ, AND TANG NOES: DANG ABSTAIN: ENG ABSENT: NONE Lily T. Valenzuela, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP ATTACHMENT "A" (PC RESOLUTION 17-17) MODIFICATION 17-05 (ORIGINALLY DESIGN REVIEW 14-06, ZONE VARIANCE 14-02, ZONE VARIANCE 14-03, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 72871) 9036-38 GARVEY AVENUE (APN: 5282-026-052) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OCTOBER 16, 2017 Planning Conditions of Approval 1. Design Review 14-06, Zone Variance 14-02, Zone Variance 14-03, and Tentative Tract Map 72871 are approved for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed use development, in accordance with the plans marked Exhibit "C, dated August 28, 2014. Modification 17-05 would re-classify the retail use to a shopping center use, allowing for the incorporation of restaurant use in five out of the five units. Any revisions to the approved plans must be resubmitted for the review and approval of the Planning Division (Modified by the Planning Commission on October 16, 2017). 2. Approval of Design Review 14-06, Zone Variance 14-02, Zone Variance 14-03, and Tentative Tract Map 72871 shall not take effect for any purpose until the Applicant has filed with the City of Rosemead a notarized affidavit stating that he/she is aware of and accepts all of the conditions of approval as set forth in the letter of approval and this list of conditions, within ten (10) days from the Planning Commission approval date. 3. The onsite public hearing notice posting shall be removed by the end of the 10 - day appeal period of Design Review 14-06, Zone Variance 14-02, Zone Variance 14-03; and Tentative Tract Map 72871. 4. Design Review 14-06, Zone Variance 14-02, Zone Variance 14-03, and Tentative Tract Map 72871 are approved for a period of one (1) year. The Applicant shall commence the proposed use or request an extension within 30 -calendar days prior to expiration. The one (1) year initial approval period shall be effective from the Planning Commission approval date. For the purpose of this petition, project commencement shall be defined as beginning the permitting process with the Planning and Building Divisions, so long as the project is not abandoned. If Design Review 14-06, Zone Variance 14-02, Zone Variance 14-03, and Tentative Tract Map 72871 have been unused, abandoned, or discontinued for a period of one (1) year it shall become null and void. 5. The Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Division to make and/or approve minor modifications. 6. The following conditions must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Planning Division prior to final approval of the associated plans, building permits, occupancy permits, or any other appropriate request. 7. Design Review 13-02 and Tentative Tract Map 72347 is granted or approved with the City and its Planning Commission and City Council retaining and reserving the right and jurisdiction to review and to modify the permit, including the modification of existing or imposition of new conditions of approval based on changed circumstances. Changed circumstances include, but are not limited to, the modification of the use, a change in scope, emphasis, size, or nature of the use, or the expansion, alteration, reconfiguration, or change of use. This reservation of right to review is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and City Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved under the Rosemead Municipal Code for any violations of the conditions imposed on Design Review 14-06, Zone Variance 14-02, Zone Variance 14-03, and Tentative Tract Map 72871. 8. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Rosemead or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set side, void, or annul, an approval of the Planning Commission and/or City Council concerning the project, which action is brought within the time period provided by law. 9. The Applicant shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws relative to the approved use including the requirements of the Planning, Building, Fire, Sheriff and Health Departments. 10. Building permits will not be issued in connection with any project until such time as all plan check fees, and all other applicable fees, are paid in full. 11. Occupancy will not be granted until all improvements required by this approval have been completed, inspected, and approved by the appropriate department(s), including but not limited to all improvements required to file a final tract map and the filing and recordation of that final map. 12. The numbers of the address signs shall be at least 6" tall with a minimum character width of 3/4", contrasting in color and easily visible at driver's level from the street. Materials, colors, location, and size of such address numbers shall be approved by the Planning Division, prior to installation. 13. All requirements of the Planning Division, Building Division, and Public Works Department shall be complied with prior to the final approval of the proposed construction. 14. The hours of construction shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday. No construction shall take place on Sundays or on any federal holidays without prior approval by the City. 15. The Planning, Building, and Public Works staff shall have access to the subject property at any time during construction to monitor progress. 16. The site shall be maintained in a graffiti -free state. Any new graffiti shall be removed within twenty-four (24) hours. A 24-hour, Graffiti Hotline can be called at (626) 569-2345 for assistance. 17. The site shall be maintained in a clean, weed, and litter free state in accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code. All trash containers shall be stored in the appropriate trash enclosure at all times. All trash, rubbish, and garbage receptacles shall be regularly cleaned, inspected, and maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition. 18. A detailed elevation drawing shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval all trash enclosures prior to submittal of construction drawings. All trash enclosures shall be of an integral part of the building design, and incorporate complementary colors and materials. All trash enclosures shall have a solid roof cover and doors shall be opaque, self-closing, and self -latching. 19. All commercial loading activities and trash pickup for the mixed use project shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily. 20. All off-street parking shall comply with the relevant section of the Rosemead Municipal Code applicable as of the date these Conditions of Approval are adopted. The parking area, including loading and handicapped spaces, shall be paved and re -painted periodically to City standards to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. In accordance with the currently applicable section of the Rosemead Municipal Code, all designated parking spaces shall be double striped. Such striping shall be maintained in a clear, visible, and orderly manner. 21. The Applicant shall keep the electrical and mechanical equipment and/or emergency exits free of any debris, storage, furniture, etc., and maintain a minimum clearance of five (5) feet. 22. All roof top appurtenances and equipment shall adequately be screened from view to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. There shall be no mechanical equipment located on the sides of the building. Such equipment shall not exceed the height of the parapet wall. All ground level mechanical/utility equipment (including meters, back flow preservation devices, fire valves, A/C condensers, furnaces, utility cabinets and other equipment) shall be located away from public view or adequately screened by landscaping or screening walls so as not to be seen from the public right of way or other public space within the development. The Planning Division shall approve said screening prior to inspection. 23. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall comply with the City's storm water ordinance and storm water mitigation plan requirements with respect to the proposed project. 24. Prior to issuance of any building permit related to this project, the Applicant shall prepare Covenant Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) or other similar recorded instrument indicating how and who will maintain proposed common areas. The CC&R's shall be prepared by the Applicant and approved by the City Attorney and shall include the following statements: "This statement is intended to notify all prospective property owners of certain limitations on construction to residential dwellings contained in this planned development project. Any necessary modifications or additions must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and approved or denied by the Community Development Director or his/her designee at his/her discretion". The CC&R's will coverall aspects of property maintenance of the common areas, including but not limited to driveways, fencing, landscaping, lighting, parking spaces, open space and recreational areas. All applicable City Attorney fees shall be at the responsibility of the Applicant. 25. The Applicant shall include provisions in the CC&R's to provide maintenance of all building improvements, on -grade parking and landscaping, and maintenance of the driveway, in a manner satisfactory to the Planning Division, and in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 26. The subdivider shall include provisions in the CC&R's to require regular trash pickup service at least once a week for the residential condominium trash bins, and twice a week for the commercial tenant space trash bins. 27. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit a comprehensive Parking Management Plan for review and approval by the Planning Division or designee. The Parking Management Plan shall be incorporated into the CC&R's and shall be enforced by the property owners association. Said Parking Management Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following provisions: • Designated parking for customers and employees. . Parking permit procedures for overnight guest parking. Every homeowner shall be allowed to keep up to two (2) vehicles on the premises. The parking monitor/security guard shall be responsible for issuing overnight guest parking permits when there are excess parking spaces available. Employee parking shall be restricted to the retail parking areas only. 28. All open areas not covered by concrete, asphalt, or structures shall be landscaped and maintained on a regular basis. Maintenance procedures of such landscaped and common areas shall be specifically indicted in the CC&R's prior to issuance of any building permit. 29. Prior to the issuance of any sign permit, the Applicant shall submit a Master Sign Program to the Planning Division for review and approval. The sign program shall address sign materials, colors, height, width and location. It shall also address the use of temporary signage such as banners as well as appropriate window signage. Any proposed monument signs shall accommodate to obstructing sight lines (Modified by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2014). 30. A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The new planting materials shall include a combination of colorful and drought tolerant trees, large potted plants, shrubs, and low growing flowers. The landscape and irrigation plan shall include a sprinkler system with automatic timers and moisture sensors. 31. Violations of the conditions of approval may result in citation and/or initiation of revocation proceedings. 32. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The lighting plan shall include a schematic depicting the location of lighting sources, as well as type of lighting proposed. The lighting plan shall address the following criteria: • Lighting shall be fully shielded to minimize glare and painted to match the surface it is attached to. • Light fixtures shall be architecturally compatible with the structure's design. • Structure entrances should be well lit. • Lighting and trees should not conflict with one another. • The design of exterior parking lot lighting fixtures shall be compatible with the architecture used in the development and not be on poles over 25 feet high. • Solar power lighting shall be used for common areas where feasible (Modified by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2014). 33. Exterior glass to be used for the project shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. No exterior glass shall be approved if it creates significant light and glare spillage to adjacent properties or highways. 34. Two weeks prior to commencement of construction, notification shall be provided to the immediate surrounding off-site residential, school, and church uses that discloses the construction schedule, including the types of activities and equipment that would be used throughout the duration of the construction period. 35. The property owner/business operator shall provide a grease interceptor at a location where it shall be easily accessible for inspection, cleaning and removal of accumulated grease. The sizing and installation shall conform to the current California Plumbing Code (Added by the Planning Commission on October 16, 2017). 36. A locking device shall be installed on the proposed grease interceptor (Added by the Planning Commission on October 16, 2017). 37. The property owner shall not, at any time, allow grease to run into public sanitary sewer systems (Added by the Planning Commission on October 16, 2017). Engineering Conditions of Approval GENERAL 38. Details shown on the tentative map are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City Engineer's policies must be specifically approved in the final map or improvement plan approvals. 39. A final tract map prepared by, or under the direction of a Registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying, or a Licensed Land Surveyor, must be processed through the City Engineer's office prior to being filed with the County Recorder. 40. A preliminary subdivision guarantee is required showing all fee interest holders and encumbrances. An updated title report shall be provided before the final parcel map is released for filing with the County Recorder. 41. The final tract map shall be based on a field survey, and monuments shall be set to permanently mark parcel map boundaries, street center lines and lot boundaries to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The basis of bearing used for the field survey required for the final map shall include two survey well monuments found or set. The City Engineer may waive this requirement upon petition should this be impractical. Well monuments shall be set in accordance with standard plan No. S08-001, if required. 42. Final tract map shall be filed with the County Recorder and one (1) Mylar copy of filed map shall be submitted to the City Engineer's office. Prior to the release of the final map by the City, a refundable deposit in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted by the developer to the City, which will be refunded upon receipt of the Mylar copy of the filed map. 43. Comply with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 44. Approval for filling of this land division is contingent upon approval of plans and specifications mentioned below. If the improvements are not installed prior to the filing of this division, the developer must submit an Undertaking Agreement and a Faithful Performance and Labor and Materials Bond in the amount estimated by the City Engineer guaranteeing the installation of the improvements. 45. The City reserves the right to impose any new plan check and/or permit fees approved by City Council subsequent to tentative approval of this map. 46. The project plans indicate that the airspace in the six buildings shall be subdivided (a condominium) requiring the filing of a tentative tract map with the City of Rosemead to be followed by the recording of a final map. The final map shall be based on a field survey performed by a Licensed Land Surveyor (or by a registered Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying), with all monuments (horizontal control) being set to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and/or City Land Surveyor of the City of Rosemead. 47. Prior to performing any grading, obtain a permit from the Engineering Department. Submit grading and drainage plans pre the City's grading guidelines and the latest edition of the Los Angeles County Building Code. The plans shall be stamped and signed by a California State Registered Civil Engineer. 48. Prior to the recordation of the final map, grading and drainage plans must be approved to provide for contributory drainage from adjoining properties as approved by the City Engineer, including dedication of the necessary easements. 49. A grading and drainage plan must provide for each lot having an independent drainage system to the public street, to a public drainage facility, by means of an approved drainage easement, or by the existing drainage channel (Modified by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2014). 50. Historical or existing storm water flow from adjacent lots must be received and directed by gravity to the public street, to a public drainage facility, by means of an approved drainage easement, or by the existing drainage channel (Modified by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2014). 51. Prepare and submit hydrology and hydraulic calculations for sizing of all proposed drainage devices. The analysis shall also determine if changes in the post development versus pre development conditions have occurred. The analysis shall be stamped by a California State Registered Civil Engineer and prepared per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Method. 52. All grading projects require an Erosion Control Plan as part of the grading plans. Grading permit will not be issued until and Erosion Control Plan is approved by the Engineering Department. 53. The project is greater than one acre; therefore, a Storm Water Pollution Plan is required. A Notice of Intent (NO]) shall be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board. When submitting the SWPPP for the City's review, please include the NO[ and the Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number. ROAD 54. New drive approaches shall be constructed at least 3' from any above -ground obstructions in the public right-of-way to the top of "x" or the obstruction shall be relocated. New drive approaches shall be limited to the frontage of the parcel. The drive approach is intended to serve, and is designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 55. All work proposed within the public right-of-way shall require permits from the Public Works Department. 56. Remove and replace existing curb and gutter from westerly property line to easterly property line. 57. Remove and replace sidewalk from westerly property line to easterly property line, minimum seven feet wide. 58. Remove and construct driveway approaches as indicated on the plans. 59. Remove existing trees and replace with 48 -inches box min. Contact City Arborist for tree species recommendations. SEWER 60. Approval of this land division is contingent upon providing a separate house sewer lateral to serve each lot of the land division. 61. Prepare and submit a sewer calculations analysis for sizing of proposed laterals including capacity conditions of existing sewer trunk line. The analysis shall be stamped by a California State Registered Civil Engineer and prepared per the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Guidelines. 62. All existing laterals to be abandoned shall be capped at the public right of way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Building Official of the City of Rosemead. UTILITIES 63. All power, telephone and cable television shall be underground. 64. Any utilities that are in conflict with the development shall be relocated at the developer's expense. 65. Existing street lights are not shown on the proposed project plans, nor are proposed street lights shown. A street lighting plan shall be developed using ornamental lights with underground services as necessary to accommodate the proposed development and to obtain the approval of the City Engineer. The applicant shall bear all costs to provide street lighting, etc., if required. In addition, all utility services to serve the proposed project shall be placed underground. WATER 66. Prior to the filing of the final map, there shall also be filed with the City Engineer, a statement from the water purveyor indicating subdivider compliance with the Fire Chief's fire flow requirements. Traffic Conditions of Approval 67. The applicant shall construct the on-site circulation system in substantial compliance to the site plan submitted in the traffic impact study. 68. Vehicle access shall be left turn in, right turn in, and right turn out only. Outbound left turns shall be prohibited by construction of a raised center median (See Traffic Impact Study Exhibit Q), and appropriate turn restriction signs to the satisfaction of the City. 69. A stop sign, stop bar, and stop legend shall be installed and maintained at the project exit, and traffic calming devices shall be installed in the primary access drive consistent with the existing easement conditions (Modified by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2014). 70. The applicant shall be responsible for the design and modification of the existing raised center median on Garvey Avenue at the project driveway to prohibit outbound left turns. The median shall be constructed per City standards prior to occupancy of any buildings. 71. A sight distance analysis at the driveway along Garvey should be prepared. 72. All residential parking spaces shall be signed and marked as noted in the Traffic Impact Study (Exhibit O). 73. Radiused curbs shall be constructed on the raised planters adjacent to all parallel parking spaces and shall not extend deeper than 7 -feet from the inside edge of the parking space for improved parking access. 74. All improvements recommended by the Traffic Impact Study, prepared by RK Engineering Group, LLC shall comply prior to the Building and Safety final inspection (Added by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2014). Fire Department Conditions of Approval (Added by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2014) 75. Provide the bond verification for the improvements prior to the clearance of the Final Map. 76. Submit the Final Map to the Land Development Unit for review. 77. Submit the Grading Plan to the Land Development Unit for review. 78. Submit a minimum of three (3) copies of the water plans indicating the new fire hydrant locations to the Fire Department's Land Development Unit for review. All required PUBLIC fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to beginning construction. ACCESS 79. The Tentative Tract Map, as submitted, meets current Fire Department requirements for access. 80. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the required Fire Apparatus Access Roads and the fire hydrants shall be inspected for compliance by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. 81. All on-site Fire Department vehicular access roads shall be labeled as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the site plan along with the widths clearly depicted on the plan. Labeling is necessary to assure the access availability for Fire Department use. The designation allows for appropriate signage prohibiting parking. 82. Fire Department vehicular access roads must be installed and maintained in a serviceable manner prior to and during the time of construction. Fire Code 501.4 83. All fire lanes shall be clear of all encroachments, and shall be maintained in accordance with the Title 32, County of Los Angeles Fire Code. 84. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads and designated fire lanes shall be measured from flow line to flow line. 85. Provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Department vehicular access to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building when the height of the building above the lowest level of the Fire Department vehicular access road is more than 30 feet high, or the building is more than three stories. The access roadway shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. Fire Code 503.1.1 & 503.2.2 86. The dimensions of the approved Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be maintained as originally approved by the fire code official. Fire Code 503.2.2.1 87. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved Fire Department turnaround. Fire Code 503.2.5 88. Fire Department vehicular access roads shall be provided with a 32 foot centerline turning radius. Fire Code 503.2.4 89. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing 37 1/2 tons and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Fire apparatus access roads having a grade of 10 percent or greater shall have a paved or concrete surface. Fire Code 503.2.3 90. Provide approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE". Signs shall have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads, to clearly indicate the entrance to such road, or prohibit the obstruction thereof and at intervals, as required by the Fire Inspector. Fire Code 503.3 91. A minimum 5 foot wide approved firefighter access walkway leading from the fire department access road to all required openings in the building's exterior walls shall be provided for firefighting and rescue purposes. Fire Code 504.1 92. Fire Apparatus Access Roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including by the parking of vehicles, or the use of traffic calming devices, including but not limited to, speed bumps or speed humps. The minimum widths and clearances established in Section 503.2.1 shall be maintained at all times. Fire Code 503.4 93. Traffic Calming Devices, including but not limited to, speed bumps and speed humps, shall be prohibited unless approved by the fire code official. Fire Code 503.4.1 94. Security barriers, visual screen barriers or other obstructions shall not be installed on the roof of any building in such a manner as to obstruct firefighter access or egress in the event of fire or other emergency. Parapets shall not exceed 48 inches from the top of the parapet to the roof surface on more than two sides. Fire Code 504.5 95. Approved building address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification shall be provided and maintained so as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. The numbers shall contrast with their background, be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters, and be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. Fire Code 505.1 96. Multiple residential and commercial buildings having entrances to individual units not visible from the street or road shall have unit numbers displayed in groups for all units within each structure. Such numbers may be grouped on the wall of the structure or mounted on a post independent of the structure and shall be positioned to be plainly visible from the street or road as required by Fire Code 505.3 and in accordance with Fire Code 505.1. WATER SYSTEM 97. All fire hydrants shall measure 6"x 4"x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal, and shall be installed in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 8. 98. All on-site fire hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25' feet from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour rated firewall. Exception: For fully sprinkled multi- family structures, on-site hydrants may be installed a minimum of 10 feet from the structure. Fire Code Appendix C106 99. All required PUBLIC fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to beginning construction. Fire Code 501.4 100. All private on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and approved prior to building occupancy. Fire Code 901.5.1 Plans showing underground piping for private on-site fire hydrants shall be submitted to the Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation. Fire Code 901.2 & County of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 7 FIRE FLOW 101. The required fire flow for the public fire hydrants for this project is 3750 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure for 3 hours. Three (3) public fire hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow. Fire Code 507.3 & Appendix 8105.1 102. The required fire flow for the on-site private fire hydrants for this project is1250 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure for 2 hours. One (1) on-site fire hydrant flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow. PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANTS 103. Install one (1) public fire hydrant as noted by the Fire Department on the plan dated August 20, 2014. 104. The fire flow for the existing public fire hydrant is adequate per the fire flow test dated May 20, 2014 by the San Gabriel Valley Water Company is adequate. PRIVATE ON-SITE FIRE HYDRANTS 105. Install one (1) private on-site fire hydrant as noted on the plan dated August 20, 2014. Attachment H Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated October 16, 2017 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 16, 2017 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by Chair Dang in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Commissioner Lopez INVOCATION — Commissioner Eng ROLL CALL — Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Lopez, Vice -Chair Tang and Chair Dang STAFF PRESENT — City Attorney Thuyen, Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela, Assistant 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 17.05 (CONTINUED) - On August 21, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Modification 17- 05, a request to modify Design Review 14.06 to incorporate restaurant use by proposing to re-classify the retail use to a shopping center use. At the end of the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued Modification 17.05 and directed staff to work with the applicant to ensure that the existing conditions are sufficient to incorporate restaurant use into the commercial building. To avoid re - noticing the public hearing, the Planning Commission motioned for staff to provide an update on Modification 17.05 at the September 18th Planning Commission meeting. 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 IN THREE OUT OF THE FIVE UNITS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 9036.38 GARVEY AVENUE, IN THE MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A MIXED USE AND DESIGN OVERLAY (C- 31MUDO/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 105 conditions. Assistant Planner Lao presented the staff report. Chair Dang asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if the commercial building had been constructed yet. Assistant Planner Lao replied no. Commissioner Eng asked if staff knows when construction will begin. Assistant Planner Lao replied the applicant can address that question, but they have pulled permits Vice -Chair Tang asked if the trash enclosure initially approved for retail use will accommodate the combination of retail/restaurant usage. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied the applicant/tenants will have to follow Republic Services requirements. Vice -Chair Tang asked if the plans will be revised due to the trash enclosure size. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied no, it shouldn't. Vice -Chair Tang referred to the parking ratio provided in the staff report using the dining room square footage rather than using the restaurant parking ratio and using the total square footage area of the building and asked staff to explain why this was done. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela explained that the hypothetical parking analysis was calculated in accordance to just the dining area, which was requested by Chair Deng. She added it is hypothetical and is not required by code. Vice -Chair Tang stated he appreciates Chair Deng's approach to this and it is a good way to explore that, but this may set a bad precedent for future developments in terms of setting the dining room ratio verses the total unit square footage. He asked staff if this practice has been done before in this city or other cities where they only look at just the dining room square footage verses total unit square footage. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that staff did not survey other cities to see if that is something that they do and this was just a hypothetical concept that Chair Deng requested. She added that Chair Dang may explain his request for further clarification. Vice -Chair Tang stated he just wanted to make sure a new precedent was not being set and wanted to see if this had been practiced in the past. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated as a clarification the shopping center does meet the parking requirements and Chair Dang wanted staff to justify further why this would work. City Attorney Thuyen addressed Vice -Chair Tang and stated the current classification for it being a retail use is something that is allowed under the code and is something that staff went with. He added based on the discussion of the past two Planning Commission meetings the Commission gave staff direction to provide this information to help give some context as to the actual customers coming in and out. He stated this was not a requirement under the code and this is not a traditional analysis but it is included to give the Planning Commission more context based on the direction of the last Planning Commission meeting. Vice -Chair Tang stated he understands and he just wants to be careful on how this is approached because he does not want to set a precedent in future developments where it may come back and be said that conditions for parking ratios were set for this development and not theirs. He asked staff if in the future there is a request for outdoor dining will it be required that the applicant reapply for another modification. Assistant Planner Lao replied yes, but the code does state if it is under a certain square footage then staff may review it and approve it. Vice -Chair Tang asked what that square footage is. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that outdoor dining up to 800 square feet will not require administrative approval and anything more than 800 square feet will require an Administrative Use Permit, which can be approved by the Community Development Director. Vice -Chair Tang asked if that should be included in the conditions of approval if in the future they should request outdoor dining. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied it is included in the Municipal Code, so it is not necessary, but if the Planning Commission requests that it be included, it can be added. Commissioner Eng asked staff if there is something in the Administrative Use Permit that pertains to outdoor dining. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied yes, and explained that if the outdoor dining area is over 800 square feet, requires an Administrative Use Permit. Commissioner Eng asked if it is for per unit or for the total building. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied it is for outdoor dining room area as a total. Commissioner Eng asked for clarification if outdoor dining is requested in the future the process is not so intense and they would only have to go through the Administrative Use Permit process if it is less than 800 square feet. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied yes. Chair Dang thanked the City and staff for providing the theoretical parking ratio model and he also echo's Vice -Chair Tang's concerns. He stated he does not want this theoretical model to set precedent and explained this was created to just add more contexts to the business arrangement where if you have a dining room it would generate these types of trips. This was just to help the Planning Commission show a real world scenario and was not meant to provide precedent. He added if the Planning Commission feels this is a concern a condition of approval may be added if necessary. He thanked staff for thinking out of the box and calling this a shopping center, still living within the confides of the zoning code, and helping the applicant obtain the project they are looking for. He asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Planning Commission. None Chair Dang opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Representative Billy Huang thanked staff and addressed Commissioner Eng's question regarding construction. He stated that construction began two weeks ago and the foundation is currently been laid. He added he may answer any further questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Lopez asked if retail vendors have already been assigned to this shopping center. Representative Billy Huang replied they have inquiries and potential candidates, however, because of the current situation pending approval for restaurant use there has been concerns, and they do not have set tenants yet. He explained that they are trying to find the perfect tenant mix, so that parking is not overwhelmed, and also to make sure they do not make a promise to a potential candidate that they cannot deliver. Vice -Chair Tang stated he was not present at the previous Planning Commission meeting that was held, but he did read the minutes, and stated that he does not want to restrict their opportunity for growth, or to restrict bringing in businesses to make this a vibrant area. He stated his only concern was that the Planning Commission was initially under the impression that this was going to be a retail use only and it was asked if food establishments were a consideration and were told no. He added he is agreeable to having food establishments at this site and the applicant has voluntarily agreed to have three food establishments and two retail uses, and asked what have they have envisioned the retail to be. Representative Billy Huang replied there has been a lot of interest from cell phone retail stores like Verizon, T -Mobile, and Boost Mobile. He added professional services like State Farm has also shown an interest. Vice -Chair Tang stated based on what he has just said in terms of not limiting the applicant and what the applicant can bring into this plaza. He asked if they would be open to the idea if they cannot find retail tenants then their option would be to have five food establishments. Representative Billy Huang replied yes, the more flexibility they get it would be better for them, but they are there to work with the City for any tenancy or parking requirements. He added they are willing to have three out of the five, but five would allow more flexibility in locating the right tenants for spacing and timing. Vice -Chair Tang stated that flexibility is very important for them to bring in the right mix of tenants for that plaza. He asked if outdoor dining is being considered, even if it a small one. Representative Billy Huang replied they have had interested parties in outdoor dining, but they will work with the tenants, city, and staff. He added as the tenant improvements come in. He added they will see what they will want to do and see what the city will allow. Vice -Chair Tang asked the applicant if outdoor dining is incorporated, they understand they will have to come back to the City to work with staff, because this is not set in the conditions of approval today. Representative Billy Huang replied yes. Chair Dang stated there is a speakers request and invited resident Brian Lewin to the podium. Resident Brian Lewin requested that the Planning Commission not approve this item. He stated just because you don't want something to be precedent does not mean that it will not become one. He added allowing a conversion of a horizontal mix use project into a shopping center that sets a serious precedent and if you allow this, then others will try to do it also in way to intensify their uses in skirting the parking requirements. He added this loop hole in the Rosemead Municipal Code and the solution is to reject this item and put this on a list of things to fix. He stated parking limitations in that center can easily result in that sites single driveway backing up, this is not uncommon in small to medium mixed use places, especially with popular food establishments with insufficient parking, but in this case it would also impact the residents in the rear when they are coming home from work because they will not be able to get in. He stated this will also impact the resident to the east because they rely on that same driveway as part of an access easement. He stated regarding the hypothetical parking analysis, just because you don't want this to be precedent, does not mean it won't be, and that people will say let's do this instead. He expressed concern that staff did not look to see what one actually looks like and only took in ones provided by the applicant. He expressed concern that once this has been changed there may be request for a third, fourth, or fifth use in the future because the city shopping center code does not have specific limitations on use and regardless stated intent of the applicant and if the Planning Commission allows food establishments, they can be any food service establishments. He requested that the Planning Commission consider those distinctions because the city code does not. He expressed that allowing this parcel to be split into two parcels in the first place to be sold as two parts was a mistake that no one saw coming and lead to effects that no one saw coming. He requested that the Planning Commission not compound it by allowing this and setting even more bad precedent. Chair Dang asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Public. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing and commented that this particular parking arrangement is in accordance with the Rosemead's Zoning Municipal Code and the Zoning Code is like a contract. He stated it is laid out for the public, so anyone wanting to business with the City, they can follow it to the letter, and the City is obligated to respect those parking ratios. He stated whether they call it all retail or restaurants, it is considered a shopping center and the applicant can park it as a shopping center. He expressed they are in full compliance with the Municipal Code and there has been discussion on whether it is appropriate or not, but it is not part of this Planning Commission's meeting this evening. He added if it is a concern, it can be addressed to staff and staff can discuss it at the next Zoning Code update meeting. He added the parking ratio is in accordance with the Municipal Code and relevant that it be put on record. Commissioner Eng stated that she hopes the City/Planning has learned something from this project. Her concern is that the synergy of this project has been broken from when the project was initially envisioned. She stated in moving forward this is something that needs to be double-checked with these types of projects. She stated this applicant is not the original developer, this a new entity, and she appreciates that they have attended three meetings. She added the applicant want to be successful, is willing to work with the City, and she appreciates they are willing to meet the City halfway going through a traffic study, and agreeing with having only three units out of the five as restaurant use. She stated it is a good thing, will provide a variety for that area, and for the residents. She expressed she is comfortable with the proposal of three units, she also appreciates resident Brian Lewin sharing his concerns, and concluded that these are her comments. Vice -Chair Tang asked for clarification if the Public Hearing had been closed. City Attorney Thuyen explained that the preferably method is to officially close the Public Hearing, but once it is asked if there are no further public comments, and none appear then it is closed. Vice -Chair Tang stated he agrees with Chair Dang and Planning Commissioner Eng, the code does allow them to designate this as a shopping center, and unfortunately this is a loop hole. He added that this was allowed to be subdivided into two separate entities and it allowed the property owner to sell them as two separate entities. He added this does not stop the Planning Commission from trying to find a resolution as they are obligated to do this, because the city wants them to be successful, to grow in this community in terms of having that vibrancy, and having that development particularity in an area, which has been under developed. He added he appreciates that the applicant has agreed to restrict them to having three of the five units as food establishments and the remainder as retail, however, he would like them to be successful and he would like to give them as much flexibility as possible. He stated if the applicant thinks that five food establishments can go in there and there are five companies that are willing to go in there, in spite of the parking ratio, so then be it. He added he does not want to be that person that stymies that growth opportunity. He stated that initially, Commissioner Eng and he asked a question about food establishments because that would create that vibrancy and outdoor dining will also create that. He stated if it is restricted then that opportunity would not allowing the prospect of growth and good development, because a retail store may go in there and it may not even last. He recommended that the applicant be allowed that flexibility, not be limited, and he would like to discuss this if the Planning Commission is agreeable. He also would like to work with staff on how to address and define shopping centers and on how to make sure the proper parking requirements are made. Commissioner Lopez commented that originally when this project was approved by this Planning Commission, eateries were discussed. He stated this was discussed and the only thing difference is that it was subdivided and a new owner is there now. He stated that he agrees there is a need for growth in Rosemead and the Garvey Avenue district area needs more of them. He also agrees that there needs to be a detailed discussion and changes made to the Zoning Code, but the applicant is following the rules. He stated the applicant is working with staff, doing what they are supposed to do, so this needs to move forward. Vice -Chair Tang stated what he appreciates about this process, even though it took a couple of months (apologized for that) is that they did their due diligence to find creative solutions to address a situation that was presented. He added there were some good discussions and this was a good learning lesson. He stated that he would like to be supportive of ensuring that there is good opportunity and there is success at the end. Chair Deng stated he would like to reiterate Commissioner Tang's and Commissioner Lopez's thought process. He stated the applicant is in accordance with the Rosemead Municipal Code and it is kind of a contract between the City, property homeowners, and developers. He stated if there are five eateries all together it meets the language of a commercial shopping center and it should be parked at one per 250. He explained the reason he wanted to comment is because when he read the Agenda back when this project was initially developed the architect at that time used the parking ratio of 250 and called the project all retail because that's the way his numbers worked out. He stated this current City Planning staff thought out of the box and said this particular project and scope of work fits a mini -shopping center profile and can use the parking ratio for a mini -shopping center. He thanked staff for thinking out of the box and the dynamics of the project are still the same and recommended they should be able to park this at one per 250. Commissioner Eng asked what percentage of the residential units has been sold Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that Century Communities stated most of them have been sold. Commissioner Eng stated most of the purchasers that bought homes there were under the impression that the front units were going to be retail use and there will be impacts. She approves of the mix of three of the units to be food establishments and to have two retail uses to give this more variety and also to minimize the impact. She added since most of the units have been sold, she recommends the residents be considered due to the impacts because their quality of life is important also. Vice -Chair Tang asked if there was a way to reach Century Communities and request that they inform the buyers that there will be commercial use in front will be a mix of food establishments and retail. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela reported that the owners of Century Communities is in support of five restaurants and has informed the purchasers of the situation. Chair Deng asked if that has been put in writing or was it a phone call. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied staff was told while conducting a final inspection and was not in writing. Chair Deng asked the City Attorney for direction on how this should be motioned. Vice -Chair Tang proposed a motion to adopt Resolution Number 17-17 with Modification 17-05 subject to the 105 Conditions of Approval, but he would like to add to remove that the restrictions of three food establishments and two retail, so that they may decide how many food/retail establishments they may come up with. Commissioner Lopez stated he agrees with this motion City Attorney Thuyen stated if an alternative motion is suggested then that would be motion that is before the Planning Commission, so it has been suggested by Commissioner Tang to move and adopt the resolution with one amendment to Condition of Approval number one, changing the limitation of restaurant use from three out of five units, to allowing five out of the five units. He asked Commissioner Tang if that was correct. Vice -Chair Tang replied yes. City Attorney Thuyen stated that would be the motion. Commissioner Lopez stated he would like to second that motion. Chair Deng stated before a second is motioned he would like to recommend a potential language change and requested direction on how to procedded with that process from City Attorney Thuyen. City Attorney Thuyen replied the proper procedure, since it has been moved and seconded, would be to go ahead and do the vote, unless the Planning Commission would like to withdraw the motion and entertain the amendment or additional amendments to the current motion. Vice -Chair Tang agreed and withdrew his motion. Chair Deng stated he would like to echo Commissioner Eng's concern about the potential residential units not being able to have the opportunity to be present at this meeting to possibly voice any of their opinions. He added he also likes the approach of not restricting the potential owner of any number of food establishments. His amendment is to request that three out of the five units are approved as food establishments with the understanding that, if the residential owners gives the City or applicants something in writing to have a no contest in allowing five tenant food establishments. He stated that would allow staff to have that type of permitting process if possible. Commissioner Lopez stated the first modification states no restrictions and asked why restrictions are being made now. Chair Deng replied that it is not that restrictions are being made Commissioner Lopez stated that it is still allowing that something else needs to be brought. He added staff should be able to recognize any of that, and come to an agreement on whether three, four, or five eating establishments should be decided. Chair Deng thanked Commissioner Lopez and he does acknowledge that it is a by right project, but he is hearing what Commissioner Eng has said about these particular home owners, and when they bought the properties they bought them under the pretense that the exhibits showed retail. He added the fact that you have restaurant use makes it more intense and the parking demand is more intense. He stated trying to find a midway into this particular item and the fact that the applicant is agreeable to three units and it would be great if they got five, but to walk away with three this evening they would be happy. He stated if an amendment is added to get concurrence from the property owner of the residential company to say they have no contest in having all five units being food establishments that would give the applicant the green light to ahead and modify their plans to all five. Vice -Chair Tang stated the difference here would be getting the permission from the residential management company verses getting the permission from the future residents. He stated the residential property owners and the applicant would be agreeable. He added based on what Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated they are in support of this and he would support it. City Attorney Thuyen stated based on this conversation there are a few competing motions with: 1) the first is the one recommended by staff, 2) the second one being suggested by Commissioner Tang, to adopt the resolution with the modification to allow five out of five units for restaurant use, which for the record the applicant is willing to accept, 3) the third option made by Commissioner Dang to limit this to three out of five eating establishments, but to subject to limit it to some resident approval process. He added that caution be taken with the third option because it may not be as clean as just considering the recommendation as currently proposed by staff and maybe reset another hearing at a later date if the Planning Commissions wants to, so as to get more information from the homeowners or residents at that time. He recommends that the better option is to consider the recommendation made by staff as it stands or the recommendation as suggested by Commissioner Tang. Chair Dang thanked City Attorney Thuyen for the clarification. He asked Commissioner Tang if he would like to put his motion back on the table. Vice -Chair Tang replied yes, and asked if he should read the motion again City Attorney Thuyen replied yes, since the motion was withdrawn, and allowed for further Planning Commission discussion, the proper process is to go ahead and redo the motion again. Vice -Chair Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to ADOPT Resolution No. 17.17 with findings and APPROVE Modification 17.05, subject to the 105 conditions, including the removal of limiting potential restaurant use in all five units. (Modification made by the Planning Commission on 10-16.17). Vote resulted in: Ayes: Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Noes: Dang Abstain: Eng Absent: None Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with a vote of 3 Ayes, 1 Noe, 1 Abstain, and explained the 10 -day appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC Minutes 8.21.17 Commissioner Lopez asked if the Consent Calendar will be voted on separately or together. Vice -Chair Tang requested that the Consent Calendar be voted on separately because he was not present at one of the meetings. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eng, to approve PC Minutes 8.21.17 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Noes: None Abstain: Dang Absent: None Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, and 1 Abstain vote. B. PC Minutes 9.18.17 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Chair Dang, to approve PC Minutes 9.18.17 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: Tang Absent: None Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated the motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, and 1 Abstain. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela announced the date, time, and location of the following City Events: 1) Fall Fiesta and 2) Trunk or Treat. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Lopez requested that staff send someone to the Angelus Senior Housing to investigate because there is a rat infestation, the manager is not addressing the issue, and he has had 3-4 residents contact him. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated staff will address that concern. Vice -Chair Tang asked staff what the process is to update the Municipal Code as it relates to designation of shopping centers. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated that staff was intending to bring the Zoning Code Update sometime this quarter. She added due to this shopping center issue, staff is reviewing shopping centers and may develop new codes to address them. She stated surveys are being taken, staff is still investigating, and there's a process that it will have to go through. The information will then be given to the Planning Commission at the Zoning Code Update meeting. Vice -Chair Tang asked what the process is once staff completes their research and will it be brought back to the Planning Commission. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela replied that the process begins with staff providing rules/guidelines, and then a study session with the Planning Commission and City Council will take place. At this study session, comments and recommendations may be made for modifications. If there are no changes, then it will be ready for a Public Hearing with both the Planning Commission and City Council. Chair Dang stated Rosemead Boulevard is impacted by traffic and there are signs posted that vehicles may not be parked between certain hours (rush hours). He added there are vehicles that have been consistently parking there, which is jamming up traffic and blocking the line of sight, so it makes turning left a hazard. He asked if it is Code Enforcement that would investigate this issue and requested staff pass this information on to them. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela asked if there is a specific location. Chair Dang replied it is between the 10 -Freeway and Valley Boulevard. Everyone exits the 10 -Freeway, which jams up Rosemead Boulevard, and the vehicles are parked adjacent to the sidewalk, so it slows up traffic even more. Interim Community Development Director Valenzuela stated Rosemead Boulevard is maintained by Caltrans, but staff will speak with the Public Works Director and will give the Planning Commission an update. 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Dang adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:51 pm. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, November 6, 2017, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary Sean Dang Chair 10 Attachment I Council Member Clark's Request for Review Letter, dated October 26, 2017 Marc Donohue City Clerk, City of Rosemead 8838 E. Valley Blvd. Rosemead, CA 91770 October 26, 2017 Mr. Donohue, RECIEVED CITY OF ROSMEAD OCT 2 6 2017 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY:_�f�i -_ In light of the Planning Commission's action on October 16, 2017, 1 am respectfully requesting further review under RMC 17.160.060 (Request for Review) of Modification 17-05 9036-9038 Garvey Ave. I have concerns regarding the reduced parking allowed for potentially 5 restaurants. I have learned that the City of Temple City actually has more stringent standards than this allows and would like the Council to study the issue of parking requirements in our code as it relates to this and future projects. request that this be placed on the December agenda providing our new Community Development Director is able to be present and involved. Respectfully, Margaret Clark Councilmember, City of Rosemead CC: Rosemead City Council Bill R. Manis, City Manager Lily Valenzuela, Interim Community Development Director Rosemead Planning Commission