ATTACHMENT 5, PAGE 1
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24th, 2023
CALL TO ORDER 6:03 p.m.
INVOCATION
Mr. Monaco gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE
Mr. Rizzotti led the flag salute.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
HEARINGS
1. Project No.22-
0004305 | A
Conditional
Use Permit to
Operate a
Restaurant/
Drinking
None.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a restaurant/ drinking establishment (“Magnolia Corner”) within an approximate 1,708 square -foot building located at 2623 West Magnolia Boulevard. Approval of the CUP request would allow the sale of alcoholic beverages for on or off -premises consumption under a Type 47 Alcohol License. The Applicant has also submitted a request for an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) to allow a reduction in required parking from the standard restaurant par king
ROLL CALL
Present- - - -
Planning Board Members: Chair, Christopher Rizzotti;
Members, Michael Elric, Samantha Wick; and Robert Monaco.
Absent- - - - Vice-Chair, Apraham Atteukenian.
Also Present- City Attorney, Lisa Kurihara ; Assistant Community Development Director, Fred Ramirez ; Assistant Community Development Director- Transportation, David Kriske; Principal Planner, Leonard Bechet ; Senior Planner, Amanda Landry; Associate Planner, Joseph Onyebuchi ; Associate Planner, Greg Mirza -Avakyan; Assistant Planner, Joseph Pangilinan; Principal Planning Clerk, Griselda Sandoval; and Intermediate Clerk, Diana Arias.
ATTACHMENT 5, PAGE 2
Establishment
(Magnolia
Corner) and
an
Administrative
Use Permit to
Allow a
Parking
Reduction at
2623 West
Magnolia
Boulevard.
requirement of providing 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area to reduce ratio of 3.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the Project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines pertaining to an existing facility and the negligible expansion of an existing us. The Class 1, categorical exemption is applicable because the Project involves minor interior changes to the restaurant floor plan to accommodate alcohol storage and no exterior alterations, and the nature of the current operations as neighborhood serving restaurant will remain the same. Therefore, there are no unusual circumstances that would preclude the use of this exemption.
Meeting Disclosures:
Mr. Rizzotti informed the Commission he had residents reach out to him via text and email and that he would read out the public comments he received during the public comment period.
Notices Given:
Mr. Ramirez confirmed that notices were given per applicable local and state law.
Written Communication:
Mr. Ramirez confirmed that there was no written communication received by staff.
Staff Report:
Joseph Onyebuchi presented this item to the Commission.
Applicant Presentation:
Mr. Lu, the applicant, explained the property and business owner (the “owner”) is aware he must be a good member of the community to gain support and business from residents and there is no relationship between the previous Tinhorn Flats restaurant owner and this new establishment.
Mr. Stev ie, the owner, expresses his passion to open a neighborhood serving restaurant that his customers can walk to and thanked the Commission for the ir consideration of his project request.
Public Comment:
ATTACHMENT 5, PAGE 3
David Donahue, resident and business owner, hopes the intent of the new owner is to be welcoming to the community; he is excited to see what the new ownership might to bring to Burbank to make Magnolia more exciting.
Mary French, resident, conveys that the community needs local neighborhood businesses that they can walk to ; thinks it would be wonderful and look forward to having a new business.
Diana Goulding, resident, is excited for new business , her concern is about potential filming at the establishment and its effects parking availability in the surrounding neighborhood.
Chad Beck, resident, expresses support for the new business. His concern was parking availability in an around the project site. He also inquired about possible permit only parking on Naomi.
Chair Rizzotti read the email s received from resident that focused primarily on potential parking impacts the neighborhood from employee and customer parking.
Linda Griffith, resident, shared her support for the business that helps the growth of the comm unity; she a cknowledges that the parking is a concern but know this is a different operation from Tinhorn Flats.
Jeff, resident, expressed he has never had parking problems on Magnolia and w anted to welcome owner and his family to the community; he asked the commission why parking is now required.
Eric, resident, is excited about having a new neighborhood serving business; h e noted concerns with business hours of operation including hours that the proposed patio area would be open and the limitation regarding no amplified sound.
Owner/Applicant Comments
Mr. Stevie acknowledges all the communities’ concerns and promises to do everything to not have a repeat of incidents associated with the past restaurant operator.
Commission/ Staff Q&A
Mr. Monaco asked staff if there was any consideration given to the amount of street parking.
Mr. Onyebuchi stated a parking study per se was not done but that staff had conducted a survey of the neighborhood and the availability
ATTACHMENT 5, PAGE 4
of on-street parking and parking available at t he proposed off -site parking facility and determined that there is ample parking the during the proposed business hours of operation.
Mr. Elric asked if there is going to be signage informing patrons about additional parking and if televisions would be c onsidered as amplified noise in the patio area.
Mr. Onyebuchi confirmed that the proposed conditions of project approval would require the installation of onsite signage informing patrons of the location of additional parking at 811 N. Buena Vista .
He also c onfirmed that any kind of television , stereo, live entertainment will be prohibited in the patio area.
Ms. Wick inquired if the parking restrictions wanted by the residents could be added to the Conditional Use Permit and how could residents pursue parking restrictions.
Mr. Onyebuchi responded that would be separate matter and that the City has a process for local residents to initiate an application process for residential parking permits. He also informed them at an future request would be forwarded to the appropriate City department for review and processing.
Mr. Rizzotti asked if the board had any control over how many filming shoots they can have at the project site.
Mr. Ramirez clarified that because this is a Conditional Use Permit if the commission decided there are conditions that must be imposed to pr otect neighboring land use from potential impacts the commission can consider a range of conditions of appral.
Mr. Rizzotti inquired if there was any way to institute permit parking as part of the project.
Mr. Ramirez confirmed that any permit parking would be separate issue from the current conditional use permit request. He noted that a neighborhood request for permits would have to go through the city’s application process.
Ms. Kurihara clarified about City’s the filming permit process. She also noted that if the public had concerns about filming on private property, they can contact the City’s film permit office and the production company.
Commission/ Applicant Q&A
ATTACHMENT 5, PAGE 5
Mr. Monaco asked Mr. Lu what his relationship with the restaurant.
Mr. Lu explained he was brought on the project as a consultant to help the owner navigate the entitlement process.
Mr. Elric welcomed the owner and wants to make sure he follows any health ordinances applicable to the future business operation.
Mr. Stevie agree d that he intended to comply with all applicable regulations.
Mr. Rizzotti asked why the applicant had applied for a Type 47 liquor license instead of a Type 41 liquor license.
Mr. Lu answered that he made that recommendation to owner because that type of liquor license made most sense for the proposed restaurant.
Mr. Rizzotti stated that the owner disclosed he had no experience running a restaurant. He inquired if has ever worked in a restaurant.
Mr. Stevie responded that his wife has generational restaurant experience.
Mr. Rizzotti asked if he had any concern of over-served patrons.
Mr. Stevie expressed his confidence in his people skills to help prevent over served patrons.
Mr. Lu clarified that the State Alcoholic Beverage Control license requires staff training for bar tenders and others serving alcohol to patrons. He also noted that the owner would make sure to undergo the same training.
Mr. Rizzotti asked how many employees he will have and where will they park.
Mr. Stevie explained he anticipated having ten employees; his goal is to hire people from within the community and noted that workers that needed to drive could find ample parking along the commercial corridor along Magnolia.
Mr. Rizzotti asked if he would have a problem with a condition that employees cannot park on residential streets.
Mr. Stevie answered he would not.
ATTACHMENT 5, PAGE 6
2. Project No.
23-0001258 |
A Zone Text
Amendment
(ZTA) to
establish
objective
design and
development
standards for
Mixed-Use
Mr. Rizzotti inquired the importance of the filming permit.
Mr. Stevie explained that he is not familiar with that , he would not know what he is losing out on. Discussion ensued regarding how many film events have occurred in the past and any possible limitation.
Mr. Stevie stated that he would be amenable to a limitation on film permits at the project site.
Deliberation:
Mr. Elric supports the project and the proposed conditions of approval.
Mr. Monaco made a motion to approve Project No. 22 -0004305 | A Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Restaurant/ Drinking Establishment (Magnolia Corner) and an Administrative Use Permit to Allow a Parking R eduction at 2623 West Magnolia Boulevard, seconded by Mr. Elric.
Mr. Rizzotti adds the conditions to limit filming permits to six times a calendar year and that employees are not permitted to park on residential streets.
Chair asked the commission if they accepted the inclusion of these conditions to the motion.
Commissioners that made the first and second accepted the added conditions into the motion.
Mr. Rizzotti stated the motion is as stated as amended.
Ms. Wick expresses her support and due to the history of the property she would like to make clear to the owner the importance of “getting it right” when operating the new business at the subject site.
Motion carried by a 4-0 vote. Motion passes.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) to establish objective design and development standards for Mixed -Use and Residential -Only Projects in Nonresidential Zones.
ATTACHMENT 5, PAGE 7
and
Residential-
Only Projects
in
Nonresidential
Zones.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm that pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65912.144(o) and 65912.124(o), a local government may adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of California Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.1, Article 2 (Affordable Housing Developments in Commercial Zones) and Article 3 (Mixed -Income Housing Developments Along Commercial Corridors (enacted by AB 2011), and the adoption of such ordinance shall not be considered a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore, the proposed ZTA is not a “project” subject to CEQA.
Additionally, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they find the proposed ZTA is Categorically Exempt from CEQA under the “common sense
exemption’ Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines in which the activity in question has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The proposed ZTA will establish objective design and development standards that preserve local control in local land use decision by provided tailored objective standards for infill multifamily and mixed-use projects in compliance with state law while also protecting established neighborhoods that would otherwise be adversely impacted by this type of by right developments in the absence of these objective design and development standards.
Meeting Disclosures:
Mr. Rizzotti informed the Commission he had received emails from members of the community , which he will read during the public comment period.
Notices Given:
Mr. Ramirez confirmed that notices were given.
Written Communication:
Mr. Ramirez confirmed that there was no written communication other than the comments received by Chair Rizzotti.
Staff Report:
Amanda Landry presented this item to the Commission.
Public Comment:
Ben Beckler, resident, inquired if this Zone Text Amendment will stay in place regardless of what happens at the state level.
ATTACHMENT 5, PAGE 8
David Donahue, resident, asked the commission to instruct staff to give examples of SB 35 projects to better understand the law ; he asked the commission to do what they can to preserve local control.
Chair Rizzotti read the first email: it inquired about why the materials on the item were not uploaded on the day the public notice was published and requested a before and after chart of the proposed area, a lso asked why in Exhibit 1 R -1-H is not listed with other residential zones lastly, they inquired about why there was no mention of equestrians on priority streets.
Second email read asked about what regulatory protections will be in place where mixed-use is not currently applicable but may now be allowed and what potential impact it would have to adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Response to Public Comment:
Ms. Landry clarified the following: The final review authority for SB 35 and AB 2011 projects is intended to be the City Council. She noted that the City Council will be considering a separate code amendment to clarify the ministerial design review process, which is eminent due to the short window to implement local objective design and development standards before AB 2011 goes into effect on July 1st, 2023. She also clarified that staff report materials are never available when the public noticed are published , which is 10 business days ahead of the meeting , but instead they are made available the Thursday or Friday of the week before the Planning Commission Meeting . Lastly, she clarified that the proposed objective s tandards for the multifamily residential and mixed-use developments in non -residential zones are completely new standards and therefore, there are no changes to compare them to in this instance.
Ms. Landry asked Assistant Community Development Director of Transportation, David Kriske, to address th e questions about the complete street objective design standards.
Mr. Kriske explained that his team collaborated with City planning staff in crafting the objective design standards for implementation of the City’s 2020 Complete Our Streets Plan goals and policies . He noted the intent of the objective design standards to try and capture the standards of primarily pedestrian and bicycle realm right of way improvements that come with land use and how we can be
implemented as objective standards per state law. He also noted that the equestrian section of the complete our streets plan does not lend itself to a basic prescriptive requirement that’s why they are not
ATTACHMENT 5, PAGE 9
included, currently. It is important to note that work is underway to address the need for new equestrian design standards.
Mr. Ramirez answered question regarding the Media Specific Plan , that new standards and specific language in the plan would apply to development within those planning areas, these are the standards that would apply and supersede other standard that are in effect ; however there are still areas along the City’s commercial and nonresidential corridors where developments under AB 2011 or SB 35 can occur . He noted that the proposed obje ctive design and development standards would help address these potential issues including in planning areas that are being contemplated as part of specific plan efforts, but which are not currently approved plans.
Ms. Kurihara further clarified that the way the state law was written, it requires the city to update its use table to reflect that the new state- mandated multifamily and mixed -use development land uses. She noted that if at any point in time the state law no longer requires these uses, then the City would revert back to our existing use table and the objective standard would still be in place. Lastlhy, she noted that the ability to submit an application pursuant to AB 2011or other streamlined ministerial reviews may change if state law changes.
Ms. Landry clarified the following: the inadvertent exclusion of R-1- H from the non-residential zones on Exhibit 2 Attachment A page 1, and the correction of this oversight in the proposed code amendment. She also noted that A B 2011 does not excuse developers from needing to go through the Conditional Use Permit application process for nonresidential land uses, it only requires the city to allow the structure to be built, but whatever nonresidential use still must be approved through the city’s permitting process.
Commission/ Staff Q&A
Mr. Rizzotti inquired if we have a specific plan in place that could exempt land from AB 2011.
Ms. Landry clarified that only if a specific plan was in place by the end of 2022; if not, they are subject to AB 2011 regulations.
Mr. Rizzotti noted that AB 2011 would effectively allow these types of projects throughout the corridors in nonresidential zones.
Ms. Landry expressed acknowledged the concern and
reemphasized the need to undertake this effort now and establish locally tailored objective standards before July 1 st effective date of
ATTACHMENT 5, PAGE 10
AB 2011 so that the City has a head start on anticipated application submittals.
Mr. Rizzotti inquired about the benefits of having the Zone Text Amendment.
Ms. Landry elaborated on the importance of have local objective design and development standard s that would incorporate standards for design and building modulation that could help reduce the impact of the new infill projects to adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Mr. Rizzotti expressed his continued concern that AB 2011 projects can be placed anywhere in the city.
Ms. Landry clarified that SB 35, which could also occur in all zones where the General Plan allows residential has a much broader applicability across the city and these regulations will apply to those projects as well; she again emphasized that it is better to implement these objective standard s in the near future than to have no regulations of this type when AB 2011 goes into effect on July 1st.
Mr. Monaco expressed frustration regarding the Commission and staff’s effort to develop and impose regulations objective standards that are tailored to addressing local concerns but the state set aside with new legislation.
Mr. Ramirez noted that he sympathized with commissioner and further explained that this is an ongoing debate between cities and the state. He also noted that the Commission and staff are on the same journey to try to address state -mandates by implementing local objective standards that preserve local control on this issue while still continue the community and councils efforts to advocate to the state legislature for preserving local control.
Mr. Monaco asked if the city should take responsibility to proactively make development the way the city wants under state regulations.
Mr. Ramirez explained that to be exempt from streamlined ministerial review requirements, the City must meet at least half of its Reginal Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The City did not meet this obligation for the last housing cycle (5th Cycle). He discussed the City’s efforts to increase housing production across all household income levels to comply with ongoing product ion numbers in SB 35 legislation and to have an opportunity not have it apply to the city. He discussed further the importance to implement
ATTACHMENT 5, PAGE 11
the proposed objective design and development standards before the commission and how they would provide regulatory provisions to apply to AB 2011, SB 35 and other multifamily and mixed -use projects in nonresidential zones as a stop gap measure while specific plans are completed for large portions of the City including some of the areas currently affected by these noted regulations.
Mr. Rizzotti reiterated that none of the specific plans were completed before the AB 2011 deadlines and all future submittals can still occur in any neighborhood.
Ms. Landry showed a AB 2011 potentially eligible sites map and explained to the Commission that there were concentrated areas near the freeways and corridors , some, may possibly meet the eligibility criteria.
Mr. Ramirez explain ed the big concern is that there are a lot of variables that determine eligibility, but staff won’t know specifically if a site is eligible until it is submitted and the City undertakes project review to determine project eligibility and compliance with applicable objective design and development standards.
Mr. Mirza-Avakyan pointed out to the Commission that on the map, the two gray lines along the freeways show a five hundred feet buffer; every parcel in that zone would not be able to take advantage of AB 2011 and this includes many sites in the media district, downtown, and land close to the airport.
Ms. Landry further clarified that even though some projects may not be eligible under AB 2011 they could be eligible SB 35, and that the proposed regulations would also be in place for those instances.
Deliberation
Mr. Elric thanked staff for their work and indicated that he believes something is better than nothing at this point.
Ms. Wick agrees that SB 35 and AB 2022 challenges everyone, encourages everyone to ask questions to staff to better understand and reiterated that something is better than nothing.
Mr. Monaco conveys frustration that motions, regulations be passed but later must be changed based on changes to state laws.
Mr. Rizzotti explained he does not see the logic in the Assembly Bills; believes the problem is the city continues to agree to comply
ATTACHMENT 5, PAGE 12
with the state regulations and that the city response is to create regulations in response to these rules coming from Sacramento. He noted his view that the only way to stop the new state laws is to challenge new state regulations and therefore he will not make a recommendation to council to approve the proposed zone text amendment in response to state laws like AB 2011 that he feels destroy the community.
Mr. Monaco agreed with Chair Rizzotti’s views; warns staff they will become targets and need to simply this for the public; encourages the city to just say no to applications submitted pursuant to state laws.
Ms. Wick made a motion to approve Project No. 23-0001258| A Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) to establish objective design and
development standards for Mixed -Use and Residential -Only Projects in Nonresidential Zones, seconded by Mr. Monaco.
Chair Rizzotti acknowledged staff is trying to create some protections however the projects submitted for streamlined ministerial review are killers for the community, it is up to the leaders to start saying no to those projects.
Motion resulted in a 2- 2 vote. Motion did not pass.
ORAL
COMMUNICATIONS
David Donahue, resident, wants to support comments made by Commissioner Monaco; feels strongly about SB 35 as a community killer and it is important to shed light of the effects; will do his part to advocate to the city to support positions that give more local control.
Diane, resident, agrees with Chair Rizzotti comments ; wants to make sure that developments made should be done with a twenty five percent minimum affordable housing required.
REPORTS None.
APPROVAL OF
MINUTES
Mr. Monaco made a motion to approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of April 10th, 2023. Seconded by Mr. Elric, carried by a vote 3-0.
ATTACHMENT 5, PAGE 13
INTRODUCTION
OF ADDITIONAL
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
CITY PLANNER
COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING OF MAY
8, 2023.
Mr. Ramirez thanked the Commission for their input their decision will be recorded and taken to council; conveyed there is a general understanding that the commission is not happy with the state imposing regulations; asked commissioners to forward public comment to staff to print before future meetings.
Respectfully Submitted,
Secretary of the Planning Commission