La Mesa Planning CommissionMeeting MinutesMeeting #:Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 at 6:00 P.m. - 7:00 P.m.Location:City Council Chambers, 8130 Allison AvenueLa Mesa, CaliforniaPresent:Chair JonesVice Chair FrankelCommissioner TorpeyCommissioner CooperCommissioner HarrisStaff:Director of Community Development SantosAssociate Planner TraffenstedtJulia Carrillo1.CALL TO ORDER Public Comments: Chair Jones Call to Order 6:00 PM1.1PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Public Comments: 1.2INVOCATION Public Comments: 2.ADDITIONS AND/OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA Public Comments: No additions or deletions3.PUBLIC COMMENT - (TOTAL TIME - 15 MINUTES) Public Comments: Note: In accordance with state law, an item not scheduled on the agenda may be brought forward by the general public for discussion; however, the Commission will not be able to take any action at this meeting. If appropriate, the item will be referred to staff or placed on a future agenda.No public comments4.CONFLICT DISCLOSURES Public Comments: No conflict disclosures5.CONSENT CALENDAR Public Comments: (Items 5.1 through 5.3) The Consent Calendar includes items considered to be routine. Unless discussion is requested by members of the Commission or audience, all Consent Calendar items may be approved by one motion.5.1APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 6, 2023 MEETING MINUTES Attachments | Public Comments1.Post-Meeting Minutes - PC_Dec06_2023 - English.pdfMotion to approve - Cooper Second - Frankel5.2APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2024 MEETING MINUTES Attachments | Public Comments1.Post-Meeting Minutes - PC_Jan17_2024 - English.pdfMotion to approve - Cooper with correction to Commissioner's titles Second - Frankel5.3APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 2024 MEETING MINUTES Attachments | Public Comments1.Post-Meeting Minutes - PC_Feb07_2024 - English.pdfMotion to approve - Cooper Second - Frankel6.STAFF REPORTS Public Comments: 6.1PROJECT 2022-0898 Attachments | Public Comments1.2022-0898 (8923 La Mesa Boulevard) PC Report(1).pdf2.A. Draft Planning Commission Resolution(1).pdf3.B. Site Photographs(1).pdf4.C. DRB Certification of Action(1).pdf5.D. Development Plans(1).pdf6.E. Project Renderings(1).pdf7.F. Traffic and Parking Assessment Letter(1).pdfJohn CardenasThe Planning Commission should consider whether the parking requirements were correctly calculated and if traffic assumptions are correct. The staff report summed the total parking requirements instead of the “sum of the requirements for the various individual uses computed separately” as required by the Zoning Code, and space requirements should be rounded to the next whole number. The total parking requirement should be 8.4 (9) + 8.4 (9) + 18.4 (19) = 37. The staff report states that additional parking is assumed for two hours before opening and after closing, but the Parking Assessment only applied one hour before/after. The total peak parking of 22 spaces appears to be consistent, which would require 2.8 (3) + 18.4 (9) = 22. However, the method that was used to determine the assumption of 1/3 of parking spaces required before/after hours is not supported. Neither the staff report nor the Parking Assessment cited any data for its parking assumptions, so it’s dubious if the reduced amount of parking will be sufficient. Additionally, the staff report discussed the walking, biking, and transit benefits at length in the report. Ideally, people will walk, bike, and take transit to the project, but those assumptions are not backed by the Traffic Assessment. For example, the report includes the admission “It is not possible to reasonably quantify the number of employees and patrons that may choose to walk vs. driving” and the circular statement “Cyclists are anticipated to use bicycles as an alternative means of transportation.” The report also incorrectly states that the project is exempt from VMT analysis because it is with 0.5 miles of a trolley station. A measurement on Google Maps shows that the project is located approximately 0.65 miles from the nearest trolley station. That is the straight-line distance, and the Council has acted before in a manner that interpreted distances as actual travelled distance (e.g., rejection of permit for a dispensary on Hillside Drive) which is even further away at about 0.7 miles. CONSIDERATION OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A PARKING MODIFICATION THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION OF REQUIRED PARKING FOR A 3,694 SQUARE FOOT THIRD STORY ADDITION AND RENOVATION TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 8923 LA MESA BOULEVARD (APNS 490-472-31-00 AND 490-472-11-00) IN THE C-D-MU (GENERAL COMMERCIAL/URBAN DESIGN OVERLAY/MIXED USE OVERLAY) ZONE WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING LOCATED ON A PARCEL TO THE NORTH AT 5264 WOOD STREET (APN 490-472-07-00) IN THE R3-P-MU (MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL/SCENIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY/MIXED USE OVERLAY) ZONEMoved byChair JonesSeconded byCommissioner TorpeyAdopt a resolution (Attachment A) to approve Project 2022-0898, subject to conditions of approval.Yes (4)Commissioner Torpey, Commissioner Cooper, Chair Jones, and Commissioner HarrisNo (1)Vice Chair FrankelMotion Approved (4 to 1)7.PROCEDURAL RULES FOR CONDUCT OF HEARINGS Public Comments: 8.HEARINGS Public Comments: 9.STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS Public Comments: Work on scheduling 2024-25 Workplan Workshops10.ADJOURNMENT Public Comments: Chair Jones adjourns at 6:59 PMNo Item Selected Attachments (0) | Public Comments (0)This item has no attachments.1.Post-Meeting Minutes - PC_Feb07_2024 - English.pdf1.Post-Meeting Minutes - PC_Jan17_2024 - English.pdf1.Post-Meeting Minutes - PC_Dec06_2023 - English.pdf1.2022-0898 (8923 La Mesa Boulevard) PC Report(1).pdf2.A. Draft Planning Commission Resolution(1).pdf3.B. Site Photographs(1).pdf4.C. DRB Certification of Action(1).pdf5.D. Development Plans(1).pdf6.E. Project Renderings(1).pdf7.F. Traffic and Parking Assessment Letter(1).pdfThis item has no public commentJohn CardenasThe Planning Commission should consider whether the parking requirements were correctly calculated and if traffic assumptions are correct. The staff report summed the total parking requirements instead of the “sum of the requirements for the various individual uses computed separately” as required by the Zoning Code, and space requirements should be rounded to the next whole number. The total parking requirement should be 8.4 (9) + 8.4 (9) + 18.4 (19) = 37. The staff report states that additional parking is assumed for two hours before opening and after closing, but the Parking Assessment only applied one hour before/after. The total peak parking of 22 spaces appears to be consistent, which would require 2.8 (3) + 18.4 (9) = 22. However, the method that was used to determine the assumption of 1/3 of parking spaces required before/after hours is not supported. Neither the staff report nor the Parking Assessment cited any data for its parking assumptions, so it’s dubious if the reduced amount of parking will be sufficient. Additionally, the staff report discussed the walking, biking, and transit benefits at length in the report. Ideally, people will walk, bike, and take transit to the project, but those assumptions are not backed by the Traffic Assessment. For example, the report includes the admission “It is not possible to reasonably quantify the number of employees and patrons that may choose to walk vs. driving” and the circular statement “Cyclists are anticipated to use bicycles as an alternative means of transportation.” The report also incorrectly states that the project is exempt from VMT analysis because it is with 0.5 miles of a trolley station. A measurement on Google Maps shows that the project is located approximately 0.65 miles from the nearest trolley station. That is the straight-line distance, and the Council has acted before in a manner that interpreted distances as actual travelled distance (e.g., rejection of permit for a dispensary on Hillside Drive) which is even further away at about 0.7 miles. John CardenasThe Planning Commission should consider whether the parking requirements were correctly calculated and if traffic assumptions are correct. The staff report summed the total parking requirements instead of the “sum of the requirements for the various individual uses computed separately” as required by the Zoning Code, and space requirements should be rounded to the next whole number. The total parking requirement should be 8.4 (9) + 8.4 (9) + 18.4 (19) = 37. The staff report states that additional parking is assumed for two hours before opening and after closing, but the Parking Assessment only applied one hour before/after. The total peak parking of 22 spaces appears to be consistent, which would require 2.8 (3) + 18.4 (9) = 22. However, the method that was used to determine the assumption of 1/3 of parking spaces required before/after hours is not supported. Neither the staff report nor the Parking Assessment cited any data for its parking assumptions, so it’s dubious if the reduced amount of parking will be sufficient. Additionally, the staff report discussed the walking, biking, and transit benefits at length in the report. Ideally, people will walk, bike, and take transit to the project, but those assumptions are not backed by the Traffic Assessment. For example, the report includes the admission “It is not possible to reasonably quantify the number of employees and patrons that may choose to walk vs. driving” and the circular statement “Cyclists are anticipated to use bicycles as an alternative means of transportation.” The report also incorrectly states that the project is exempt from VMT analysis because it is with 0.5 miles of a trolley station. A measurement on Google Maps shows that the project is located approximately 0.65 miles from the nearest trolley station. That is the straight-line distance, and the Council has acted before in a manner that interpreted distances as actual travelled distance (e.g., rejection of permit for a dispensary on Hillside Drive) which is even further away at about 0.7 miles.