Loading...
PC-11-05-07CITY OF ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 5, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City of Rosemead Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lopez at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Rosemead City Hall at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. Commissioner Vuu led the Pledge of Allegiance. Vice - Chairman Kunioka delivered the invocation. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Chairman Lopez, Vice - Chairman Kunioka, Commissioners Bevington and Vuu ABSENT: Commissioner Cam EX OFFICIO: Agaba, Bermejo, Trinh, and Yin 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS: Attorney Yin explained the public hearing process and the right to appeal Planning Commission decisions to the City Council. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Lopez asked if anyone would like to speak on any items not on the agenda, to step forward. None. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. General Plan Amendment 07 -06 Zone Change 05 -222 Conditional Use Permit 06 -1064, Planned Development Review 06 -04 and Tentative Tract Map 069079 — 9016 Guess Street and 3862 Rosemead Boulevard. Long Bach Trinh has submitted applications for a new mixed -use development project consisting of 32 residential condominium units (totaling 38,065 square feet) above 10,845 square feet of commercial /retail /restaurant space on 1.04 acres of land located at 9016 Guess Avenue 3862 Rosemead Boulevard, in the R -3 (Medium Multiple Residential) zone. Resolution No. 07 -50 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07 -06, ZONE CHANGE 05 -222, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06 -1064, Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 1 of 27 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 06 -04, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069079 AND RECOMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3862 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND 9016 GUESS STREET ZONE (APN: 8594 - 009 -001, 8594 - 009 -002, and 8594 - 009 -004). Presentation: Senior Planner George Agaba Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission recommend to the City Council ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program and recommend APPROVAL to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 07 -06, Zone Change 05 -222, Conditional Use Permit 06 -1064, Planned Development Review 06 -04, and Tentative Tract Map 069079. In addition, staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 07 -50. Senior Planner Agaba stated the applicant and representatives were present and asked the Commissioners if they have any questions. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to the applicant or architect. Mr. Michael Sun of 529 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 228 -A, San Gabriel, the architect of the project, stated since the last meeting, they've been working closely with staff to come up with a solution. He said they feel comfortable and accept all conditions. Chairman Lopez called for questions from Commissioners. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he wants to clarify some things before these issues come up later. He said the current mass of the structure makes it look very imposing. He said the traffic generation is less than what was expected. He said although the structure is quite large, most of it is residential. Mr. Sun stated the traffic report shows very minimum impact. Vice - Chairman Kunioka discussed about the rooftop garden. He questioned if they have any awareness of how that will affect the energy cost to the building. Mr. Sun stated it will have a green building effect. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: Mr. Brian Lewin questioned if the use of the unit on the corner of Guess Street is now office only. Senior Planner Agaba stated yes. Mr. Adrian Suzuki of 8608 Edmond Drive, a resident, stated he is all in favor of mixed use projects. He said several elements should be incorporated and a lot is ignored in the developments in Rosemead. He would like to inquire the developer on how they are Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 2 of 27 occupying the spaces. Mr. Sun stated the office portion will be subdivided. He said there will be one owner and tenants that may rent the space. He also said there will be some retail shops and one restaurant space as well. He then said the upper levels will be residential. Mr. Sidney Rubinstein of 9026 Guess Street, a neighboring resident, stated he is not against the project, but questions if sound wall can be installed first. He said his neighbor, residing at 9020 Guess Street, is an ill man who had a stroke, is on a wheelchair, and has breathing problems, so he would like that to be built first. Chairman Lopez said they have resolved that issue at the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Jim Flournoy of 8655 Landis View, a resident, stated he would like to talk about Table 6 of the EIR. He said under item 6a)(ii), "less than significant with mitigation" should be marked, not "less than significant impact." He said the reason is, we're putting up projects in the city and not adjusting for nearby earthquakes or soil. He said it will just be like the Mission project. He said no one in our staff is checking the draft EIR. He then referred to the text of 6a)(iii) and said it talks about liquefaction, but we haven't been doing the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act. Chairman Lopez questioned if staff is looking at faults or any possibilities when these projects are submitted into the city. City Planner Everling stated those items are reviewed through the CEQA process. Mr. Flournoy stated it's clear that there's a seismic hazard zone, but it doesn't say what mitigation is required to fix it. Senior Planner Agaba stated the proposed mitigation measure says this project is not within an identified fault zone, however, it's within a liquefaction zone. He said the map that the city has, signed by the city geologist, refers to another code, Public Resource Code Section 2691, which says if the Planning Commission approves this project; it will come back before building permit issuance. He said the applicant must comply with all the recommendations by the geologist. Chairman Lopez questioned where this information is stored and where it can be obtained. He questioned if the right staff is determining whether the site meets state requirements. Senior Planner Agaba stated if the Commission approves this project, they can condition that. City Planner Everling stated at the time of building permits, the plans will be stamped by a licensed structural engineer and that is reviewed. He said building permits are not issued to projects that are in violation. Flournoy stated not in this City and referred to other projects. He said a condition should Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting. November 5, 2007 Page 3 of 27 be added requiring this. Mr. Bevington stated let's only discuss about this project. City Planner Everling stated seismic issues are not something the Planning Commission should review. He added that he and the Assistant City Manager has met with Mr. Flournoy last week and staff is adding level of review to projects. He said while Willdan is reviewing building permits, we will add another level of review by a staff geologist. He also said he knows that state law allows a civil engineer to review building plans for structural and /or a geologist. He said we are adding two opinions on these reports as they come in. Mr. Flournoy stated we are making progress. He said we want to make sure things are done. He also said we need to give the heads up to people and formalize the fact that this is a condition that needs to be done. He then discussed about item 6c). Chairman Lopez stated we need to move on with this project. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: ►1567M Chairman Lopez called for questions from Commissioners. Commissioner Bevington said he thinks the revised project has answered all his questions from the previous meeting. He said the only thing that concerns him is staff's mathematics on page 8. He wants to make sure there are only 32 residential units. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated the conditions in the staff report are not consistent with those in the resolution. He pointed out condition 21 in the staff report does not appear in the resolution. City Planner Everling stated that is a standard condition and staff will add it. Vice - Chairman Kunioka said the numbering is different as well. He said he has figured out that some conditions are combined. Senior Planner Agaba stated staff is transitioning into bringing the resolution with the staff report. He said the final conditions approved by the Planning Commission with be the final Conditions of Approval. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, SECONDED BY VICE- CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, to APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07 -06, ZONE CHANGE 05 -222, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06 -1064, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 06 -04, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069079. Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 4 of 27 NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. B. Conditional Use Permit 06 -1076 — 3201 Muscatel Avenue. Terence Kwok has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application, requesting approval to construct a new single - family residence on an existing 6,645± square foot parcel currently occupied by a 940± square foot single - family residence. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling unit and replace it with a 2,990± square foot house and attached three -car garage. The subject site is located at 3201 Muscatel Avenue in the R -1 (Single - Family Residential) zone. Resolution No.. 07 -51 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06 -1076 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW 2,990± SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE AND AN ATTACHED THREE -CAR GARAGE, TO BE LOCATED AT 3201 MUSCATEL AVENUE IN THE R -1; SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE (APN: 5289 - 009 -089). Presentation: Associate Planner Sheri Bermejo Staff Recommendation: APPROVE — Conditional Use Permit 06 -1076, subject to conditions, for six (6) months and ADOPT Resolution 07 -51. Associate Planner Bermejo stated the representative was present and asked the Commissioners if they have any questions. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: Mr. Sam Yam of 260 E. Garvey Avenue, Monterey Park, the designer of the project, stated he is the designer and asked the Commissioners if they have any questions. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he is looking at the pictures and the property map and it appears to him that to the north of the proposed home should be a driveway going to the back house. Mr. Yam stated it's a subdivided lot and there is another driveway. Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned the driveway width. Associate Planner Bermejo stated 15 feet. Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned why the side yard setbacks are different. He then questioned if they are closer to the driveway or the other wall. Mr. Yam said it's closer to the other wall. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 5 of 27 Vice - Chairman Kunioka said it would make more sense to switch the numbers. He questioned if it's feasible to move the house. Mr. Yam said there are other homes. He also said the driveway belongs to the other neighbor. Associate Planner Bermejo clarifies Mr. Kunioka's concern. Mr. Yam said they would like to make the driveway even since there are many people going through. That is why the setbacks are set like that. City Planner Everling questioned if it's preference. Mr. Yam stated yes, it's not architectural. Commissioner Vuu questioned why there is a fascia board on the east elevation and exposed rafter tails on the other elevations. Mr. Yam said this was discussed with Senior Planner Agaba. Commissioner Vuu questioned how they will architecturally finish the fascia on the side. Mr. Yam said it's easy to connect, like a gable. Senior Planner Agaba stated this project has been around for a long time. He said this is the third or fourth proposal. He said the east elevation is a proposal from staff for the details. Chairman said he understands what Commissioner Vuu is discussing about. He said he thinks the fascia should be removed. City Planner Everling questioned if they wanted the fascia to be completely removed from the project replace it with exposed rafter tails. The Commissioners answered yes. George stated if the Commission would like the fascia to be removed, staff can condition it. Commissioner Vuu questioned the star on the east elevation. Mr. Yam stated it was staff's idea as an architectural design. Senior Planner Agaba stated the elevations had no architectural detail, so staff recommended the applicant to add something. Commissioner Vuu stated from a builder's experience, there's no way they can build the Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 6 of 27 - first story roof under the proposed second floor elevation. He said the roof is only five feet. City Planner Everling stated they can work with staff to revise the plans. Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned how close the existing house is to the north property wall. He said the north side of the house may be right at the wall. City Planner Everling questioned which side of the property line Vice - Chairman Kunioka is speaking about. Vice- Chairman Kunioka said the north side. City Planner Everling said it's just a pilaster for decorative purposes. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated there is a lot of space to the next house, so maybe the house should be moved 2.5 feet to the north, if it's feasible. City Planner Everling stated it's the Commission's decision. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: None. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: None. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: Mr. Suzuki stated he doesn't appreciate the speculation of older homes being remodeled and replaced by newer homes. He said our community will be transitioning to these sort of development. He said he supposes that in order to maintain the home that they have now, there would have to be a preservation plan. He then questioned if this project is subject to the new single family design guidelines? Vice - Chairman Kunioka answered no. He said they are grandfathered in. Chairman Lopez asked the for anyone else who wished to oppose the application. ►I"M Chairman Lopez closed the public hearing to the public and opened the public hearing to the Commissioners. Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned the fencing removal and height. Chairman Lopez asked for a motion. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 7 of 27 Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned if the Commission should make a motion to move it with conditions added. City Planner Everling stated staff would want to add the conditions. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he would like to add the condition on reversing side yard set back. Commissioner Vuu said he wants staff to work with designer to redesign the front elevation. City Planner Everling and Senior Planner Agaba agreed. There being no one further wishing to address the Commission; Chairman Lopez closed the public hearing segment for this project. MOTION BY VICE - CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, to APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06 -1076 WITH CONDITIONS ADDED. Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. C. General Plan Amendment 07 -02, Zone Change 07 -225, Conditional Use Permit 07 -1090, Planned Development Review 07 -01 and Tentative Tract Map 070044 7419 -7459 Garvey Avenue — Patrick Yang has submitted applications for a new four -story mixed -use development project consisting of 127 residential condominium units (145,649 square feet) above 59,230 square feet of retail and restaurant space on 160,434 square feet of land (3.68 acres) located on the north side of Garvey Avenue between New Avenue and Prospect Avenue. Resolution No. 07 -52 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07 -02, ZONE CHANGE 07 -225, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07 -1090, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 07 -01, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 070044 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7419 -7459 GARVEY AVENUE (APN: 5286- 020 -001, 002, 003, 004, 017, 018, and 023). Presentation: City Planner Matt Everling Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 8 of 27 Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission RECOMMEND to the City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program and RECOMMEND approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 07 -02, Zone Change 07 -225, Conditional Use Permit 07 -1090, Planned Development Review 07 -01, and Tentative Tract Map 070044. In addition, staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 07 -52. City Planner Everling stated in response to a request from adjacent neighbors, staff has been asked to continue this item to the November 19 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Bevington questioned why. City Planner Everling stated the adjacent neighbors have made a request to continue this item, since they are unable to voice their opinions tonight on this project. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated there are a lot of people here tonight and those who will not be able to make it to this meeting may have an opportunity to speak at City Council. He said he spent a lot of time this weekend reading these reports and asked for this project to move forward. Commissioner Bevington stated it's addendum to discussion. He said at this point, he moves on. Chairman Lopez moved on with this public hearing. City Planner Everling presented this item. During the presentation, Commissioner Bevington questioned the access point. City Planner Everling stated there are two access points off Garvey Avenue that will remain. He said access will not be impeded to the existing mobile home park to the north during construction. He also said staff has added conditions to the staff report and resolution, maintaining access to the mobile home park and its residents. He said the applicant originally wanted to take the mobile home park area and use it as a staging area for construction of the primary building, but staff didn't feel it was appropriate under state laws requiring relocation of those residents. He added the City is in the process of creating a mobile home relocation ordinance. He said it's not required that the ordinance be into effect prior to adoption of the Phase II area, but the City feels that it's not good faith to enact upon that area without that ordinance in place to benefit the people. Commissioner Bevington stated there was a relocation packet in the staff report. City Planner Everling stated it's included for the Commissioners reference only. At the end of the presentation, City Planner Everling stated the applicant, representatives, and EIR Consultant Joann were present to answer questions from the Commissioners. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 9 of 27 Commissioner Bevington questioned if the western boundary of this development is Monterey Park. Matt answered yes. Chairman Lopez called asked the designer to come up and speak Mr. Daniel Amaya of 529 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 228 -A, San Gabriel, the architect of the project, stated he's present to answer any questions the Commissioners have. He said they have worked with staff to meet all the requirements. He said Mr. Yang is unable to attend tonight, however, the Principal Architect, Michael Sun is also present to answer any questions the Commissioners have. He added they would like to adhere to any of the Commission's Conditions of Approval. Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned the condition on garbage chutes for the second, third, and fourth level. He said he doesn't know if there is a city ordinance in regards to this, but should we worry about trash separation. Matt stated he's not sure if the city has an ordinance requiring that, but the trash chutes were not an original part of this project, but staff felt that it's needed for the residents that plan to live there. He said as far as separation, he's not sure if the city requires that or if that's something the applicant sets up with the trash service. He said the Commission can require that. Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned where the 8 foot wall will be located. City Planner Everling stated along the north property line. He said there will be some temporary fencing between the two phases, to protect the existing residents from noise, dust, and odor. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he doesn't know if it should be conditioned to have a temporary wall. City Planner Everling stated it's a good idea to add a condition of approval requiring that. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated after it's completed, residents probably wouldn't want a permanent wall there, so they can have visual connection to the shopping center. Matt agreed. Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned if there is any intention of bringing a grocery store in the 13,820 square foot space. Mr. Amaya stated he's not aware of it yet. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated a grocery store would reduce the number of trips there. He said he would certainly like to see that in this project. He then questioned if there is an open space area for children to throw things around without risking any injuries. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting. November 5, 2007 Page 10 of 27 Mr. Amaya said this is something they would consider this in Phase Il. Vice - Chairman Kunioka said it's something to consider. He said there are open space areas to walk, but if you're a kid, it might not be sufficient recreation. He said it's something he's concerned about. City Planner Everling questioned if the Commission is interested in seeing more of an active recreation. Vice - Chairman Kunioka answered yes. He said more open space for people to run around. City Planner Everling asked the applicant to take that into consideration. Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned condition 41 & 42 on lighting. He said he's happy to see how low- pressure sodium lighting is considered more preferable than mercury night lighting. He then questioned condition 47, regarding a paleontologist. Senior Planner Agaba stated its part of the proactive mitigation measure. He said there was prior development, so this condition is saying that if something is recovered during construction, it will be stopped. He also said the environmental consultant is here to answer the questions. City Planner Everling added to what Senior Planner Agaba said. He said it's a standard condition in other jurisdictions and it's just saying that in case of any cultural findings, there are certain steps that must be taken. He also said it's just a proactive condition. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those IN FAVOR of this application: Ms. Holly Knapp of 8367 Whitmore Street, a resident, stated she is not in favor or against the project. She said in every city has to develop low income housing. She is wondering if this project could be considered as a low income housing project that could accommodate the residents at the mobile home trailer park. City Planner Everling stated 10% of the residential units, or 12 units in this project are planned to be dedicated to moderate income. He said it's the Commission's prerogative to require low income, very low income, and moderate income and under state law, there are different percentages that need to be allocated depending on the type of income. He also said Senior Planner Agaba has been working with the applicant in dedicating some of the units to be available first to the residents living in the mobile home. Ms. Knapp questioned if the other projects that are being proposed will also provide low income housing. City Planner Everling answered yes. Commissioner Bevington stated there has to be. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 11 of 27 City Planner Everling said all mixed use projects coming into the City of Rosemead will be asked to set aside X amount of units on which income category they would like to set aside for low, very low, or moderate income households. Ms. Knapp questioned how this information gets out to people City Planner Everling stated this information usually comes up at these public hearings. He said people within a 300 foot radius are notified of the public hearing. He said it's also advertised in the newspaper. He said the staff report information is also available at the counter. He added the city is in the process of revamping the website and one of his goals is to get everything on the website, so people can get access through the internet. Ms. Knapp stated there are two senior housing projects in the City and questioned if there are any future senior housing projects. City Planner Everling stated not in this project, but it's something that staff discusses with all the mixed use applicants. Ms. Knapp said she just wants to make sure the City of Rosemead will aim at accommodating people in that category. City Planner Everling stated yes. Ms. Knapp said she wants the city to keep that promise Commissioner Bevington informed the audience of all the items that the Planning Commission were given to read in one weekend. He stated there is a great deal of effort and time to get into these projects. He stated Phase I is very acceptable. City Planner Everling stated the conditions of approval don't include any type of deed restriction on those 12 units, so he would like to read a condition for the Planning Commission to consider in the minutes to be added to the Conditions of Approval: "Prior to issuance of building permit, Deed Restrictions, in a form approved by the City Attorney, will be recorded against the twelve (12) affordable condominium units that meet all of the requirements for affordability for moderate income families and meet all other criteria outlined in Government Code Section 65915." Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to anyone else IN FAVOR of this application Mr. Flournoy asked everyone to turn to page 41 of the EIR. He read item 6ai) and said it's okay to be less than significant with mitigation, but the verbiage is incorrect. He said it's not in the Alquist - Priolo Zone. He then read the second sentence and three other faults that dealt with the 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake were not mentioned. He said both of them are closer than the Raymond Hill fault zone and even one of them is at the corner or Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue. He said another fault towards Monterey Park was also not mentioned. He said the seismic considerations need to be taken into effect as well. He then discussed about page 42 and said in 1987, those two inactive faults Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 12 of 27 became very active, because it killed people. He said if the mitigation measure is done, it will pick up some stuff, but it won't pick up the extra shake and it needs to be corrected. He also said the site is in a geologic unit called "uplifted alluvium," where you have two instances of fissures in the soil. He said one is at the Walmart site and the other at the Southern California Edison project. He also said these are not recorded in the literature, so only the city would know. He said a geologist who doesn't work in the city would not be familiar with these geologic reports. Commissioner Bevington said we will correct and follow the mitigation measure. Mr. Flournoy said we are making progress. City Planner Everling asked EIR Consultant, Ms. Joann Lombardo to come up and answer the questions. Ms. Lombardo stated she would like to clarify some issues. She said what makes this somewhat unusual is that they did not have a site - specific geology report to work from, so the information that they worked from is from the general plan and state maps. She said that is why they added the mitigation, GEO -1. She said she recommends in the future, as part of the application process, that the city requests the applicant to prepare a preliminary geotechnical study, which will identify site - specific information. She also said they have a historical archaeologist that looked at the site, but nothing showed up. Commissioner Bevington stated a condition should be added regarding page 42. He said he is concerned. He said if this is added as a condition, designers won't miss it. City Planner Everling stated it's the Commission's ability to take this GEO 1 condition and add it to the Conditions of Approval. He said in the long run, if the Commission would like, staff can add this to projects as a standard condition. The Commissioners agreed. Mr. Flournoy stated we need to know if the fissures go that far, for the next project. Mr. Scott Yun of 9136 De Adalena Street, a resident, stated he supports this project and believes this development will improve the community. Mr. Rodney Quoc of 9240 De Adalena Street, a resident, stated he's here to support the project. He said it looks like a well planned project. Mr. Suzuki questioned if the demolition of the mobile home part of this project. City Planner Everling stated no. Mr. Suzuki questioned if the motion today affects Phase II. He then questioned whether the mobile home park gets demolished or not has yet to be determined or will be determined at a later date. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting.: November 5, 2007 Page 13 of 27 Chairman Lopez answered yes. Chairman Lopez opened the public hearing to those who wished to OPPOSE the application: Ms. Margaret Clark stated she is on the City Council, but is speaking as a resident. She said she lives down the street and has some concerns. She said she is also speaking on behalf of her neighbors as well, who were unable to attend tonight. She said she was a bit frightened by what was just said on whether the second stage of the project has anything to do with tonight. She said she is under the impression that the zone change and general plan amendment affects the entire parcel. She said her request is that the general plan amendment and zone change does not affect the back portion of this parcel. City Planner Everling stated Mr. Suzuki was referring to the current condition of the mobile home park and if this will require the demolition of the mobile home park. Ms. Clark stated so the zone change and general plan amendment does not affect the back portion at this time. . She said she wants to start out by saying that she has been reading the minutes and she appreciates how Vice - Chairman Kunioka and Commissioner Bevington pay attention to the details. She said she wants to point out there is a grocery store at the corner of the street. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated we want to minimize trips. Ms. Clark stated she is into trash chutes. She said she is very much into recycling. She hopes the City will look into recycling. She then questioned affordable housing and what moderate income is. City Planner Everling stated for a 3 person family, the moderate income is $61,000. He said he doesn't have the other numbers in front of him. Ms. Clark stated that is not the kind of affordable housing we want in the city. She said $61,000 is too much and she hopes that the Commission reconsiders that condition to be low income. She said this is not satisfying anything. She said she read in the staff report that state law requires incentives for developers who provide so much affordable housing, such as reduced parking ratio. She also said if we give developers bonuses, it's got to be for very low income. She referred to page 16 of the staff report on parking ratios and said four or more bedrooms will only require 2 '/2 parking spaces. City Planner Everling stated that is state law. Ms. Clark said she knows it is. She said we are giving bonuses right now if the Planning Commission approves and the City Council approves later, we are just doing the developers a favor. She said if we don't want to have this kind of parking ratio; don't give them the zone change or general plan amendment. She stated with four bedrooms or more bedrooms, you can have a husband, wife, and three teenagers. She said that would require 5 parking spaces for five cars, not 2 '' /2. She said she's very concerned with the parking. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 14 of 27 Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated there is nothing larger than three bedrooms, Ms. Clark stated with 2 or 3 bedrooms, you can still theoretically have a husband, wife, and three teenagers. She said you can still have the 5 cars. Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned if the restriction of parking takes place during the permitting process. City Planner Everling stated under state law, even without an affordable housing component with this project, if the applicant requests concessions for parking, cities cannot require additional parking for any project. Ms. Clark questioned even without affordable. City Planner Everling stated yes. He said we under state law, they can still request concessions for parking without an affordable housing component. Ms. Clark questioned if he's referring to all condos. City Planner Everling said for all mixed use projects. He said the city requires 2 -3 bedroom condos to have at least two onsite parking spaces, as well as a guest and handicap parking, but under state law, the two onsite parking spaces are inclusive to guest and handicap parking. He said it really restricts the amount of parking a city can require. Clark questioned if it's because it's mixed use. City Planner Everling answered no. He said in any commercial project with a residential portion. He said we're preempted under state law to abide by that. He said the city doesn't have to practice this, unless the applicant makes the request. He said in this case, the applicant understood the law and made this request. Ms. Clark stated she has a big concern over subterranean parking. She said she would like the Commission to have this be deferred, so they can look more closely at other projects in other cities that have used subterranean parking. She said she wants to make sure people will use this. She then gave an example of the "The Marketplace," located in the City of Alhambra. She said that parking lot is always crowded. She said they have wonderful parking behind, at least 57 spaces, and it's always vacant. She wants staff to look closely to make sure it works, rather than just having it on paper. She then read a sentence on page 11, "The proposed building is not subject to the City's variable height requirement pursuant to Section 17.12.290 of the Zoning Code, as the building will not be adjacent to an R -1 or R -2 zoned property." She said it bothers her and there is a technicality. She said she's lived down the street for 42 years and where the Mc Donald's is located, there is commercial and parking zone. She said on the main boulevards, there is commercial, parking, and residential homes all the way down the city. She refers to the plans and said the big four -story building will impact the residential neighborhood. She said you can say it doesn't apply, but it will impact people. She added we're here to serve Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 15 of 27 people. She then went back to page 11 and read, "The building would be substantially set away from any nearby R -2 zoned property located 220 feet north of the mixed use project site." She said that discussing the homes down the street and ignoring the homes she just mentioned, so she feels that it should be revisited. She then discussed about the second portion of the condos and said it's going to be 35 feet and there are people that live behind them with single -story homes. She said they have no idea this is happening. She then said the actual density is an increase of 300% than what's in that area and its way over building. She said the whole picture should be looked at because the Del Mar Avenue mixed use project is just blocks down. She said she wants this project postponed and hopes it will become 2 parcels, so a zone change and general plan amendment won't be made. Mr. Jay Harveyson of 7433 Garvey Avenue, a mobile home resident, stated the residents of the mobile home are concerned with safety issues since there are families, children, and elderly people. He questioned what steps would the Commission take as far as safety for the park, such as privacy walls and sound barriers. He said they want to make sure all of Phase I is taken care of before Phase II. He questioned access through the mobile home park during the construction. City Planner Everling stated the condition of approval in the staff report prohibits encroachment in the mobile home park area. Mr. Harveyson questioned if a wall or fence will be installed as far as privacy for the mobile home residents and the safety of the children before construction begins. Chairman Lopez answered yes. He said there will be a temporary wall. Mr. Harveyson said they have put something up and it's not safe and there are holes. City Planner Everling stated it's a chain link fence and there will be something more substantial than that. Mr. Harveyson said residents are concerned about that. Someone from the audience shouted an 8 foot soundproof should be installed. Chairman Lopez questioned the existing fence. City Planner Everling said it's currently chain -link. Mr. Harveyson want s to make sure everything is to code and it's safe. Chairman Lopez questioned if a condition should be added to ensure the applicant will a temporary fence to be installed. City Planner Everling said the Commission can direct the applicant to work with staff creating a fence that's substantial enough for the residents. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 16 of 27 Chairman Lopez wants to make sure dust and noise is controlled from start to finish. Ms. Elizabeth Ramirez of 7433 Garvey Avenue, a mobile home resident said she is directly adjacent to the actual construction and would like to know what the space is from her mobile home is from the wall. She also questioned why is the Commission discussing about Phase II, if Phase I should only be discussed tonight. City Planner Everling stated it's his duty to inform the Commission of the overall project. Ms. Ramirez stated it hasn't been submitted. City Planner Everling said correct. He said it's his duty to make the Commission aware of the overall project, so they can take into consideration all the impacts. Ms. Ramirez questioned if there are any plans for residents of the 7433 mobile home park in regards to Hawaii Supermarket submitting plans for their future. She said she would like to know what the plans are. She said it wasn't until 7 days ago, when she found out this was the plan. She also said if one of the residents did not walk by the sign, they wouldn't have known. She questioned what responsibility does the city has to let the surrounding community know of these hearings and what to take place. City Planner Everling stated under state law, the city is required 10 days prior to the hearing to notify all property owners within a 300 foot radius. Planning Administrative Assistant Lily Trinh stated we sent out 600 foot for this hearing. Ms. Ramirez stated they did not get one. City Planner Everling questioned if they are the property owner or a tenant. Ms. Ramirez said they own the mobile home. City Planner Everling stated he's not sure if the actual mobile home spaces received the notice. He said state law requires ownership. Ms. Ramirez questioned what state law requires for owners to inform their tenants. City Planner Everling said he wouldn't know. Attorney Yin stated he doesn't know at the top of his head either. City Planner Everling questioned if a sign was posted on the property. Ms. Ramirez stated yes, about a block over and very small. She said it's on the Mc Donald's side. Senior Planner Agaba stated as an additional noticing measure, staff handed notices to the park manager for distribution. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting.: November 5, 2007 Page 17 of 27 Ms. Ramirez stated there is no park manager. She said their lives are being placed on hold as of right now and there's nothing they can do about it. She then questioned if placing 32 families in the City of Rosemead concern the Commission at all. Mr. Harveyson questioned if the city is working on a relocation plan. City Planner Everling stated we have a relocation plan that was submitted by the applicants. Mr. Harveyson questioned when the residents can get copies. City Planner Everling stated staff will have it ready at the counter tomorrow morning. He said staff will make every effort to assist them. From the audience, Ms. Ramirez stated she will hold staff to it. Mr. Harveyson questioned if twelve units will be moderate /low living, what happens to the rest of the families that are low income. He also questioned if there is a waiting list. City Planner Everling said that is something staff has to get back to him on. He said he has to defer Mr. Harveyson to the housing specialist. He also said he believes there is a waiting list. Mr. Harveyson questioned if there is a possibility that mobile home residents be prioritized. City Planner Everling stated staff has been working with the applicant to set aside those units on a "right of first refusal," for the existing tenants to have the first opportunity before anyone else. He added Vice - Chairman Kunioka is trying to establish a condition in these projects to give Rosemead residents first rights. He also said if it's in the Commission's interest, they can direct staff to work with the applicant and revise the plans. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated for low income, they would only have to set aside 5% of the slots, which is about 6 units. Mr. Harveyson stated there are 32 mobile homes, but only 12 units. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated the relocation benefit is available to everybody. Mr. Harveyson said they have been left in the dark. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he understands. Mr. Harveyson stated he would like the City of Rosemead to take care of its residents first. Commissioner Bevington questioned in Phase I and Phase 11, when will the actual relocation take place. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting. November 5, 2007 Page 18 of 27 City Planner Everling stated when the applicant decides to start Phase II. Lopez said we need to direct staff to speak with the applicant to come up with an agreement, so people can afford it. He said he has been a resident in the city for 32 years and it hurts to know that we're allowing privates to come in. He also said he's not against this project, but he thinks we need to set a standard for our community. Ms. Leah Simon - Wesberg, an attorney for several of the residents for a few years, stated she wanted to share that when the park owners started to think about this development, they tried to get people to leave. They would try to increase the rent, so the tenants can't afford to remain because it's cheaper to evict those who can't pay, rather than pay the relocation fee at the end of this. She said she's concerned about the contracts. She also said she wants to make sure the applicant does not increase their rent within the next two years. Commissioner Bevington questioned if there is a housing person who works for the city. City Planner Everling stated yes, Michelle Ramirez. Commissioner Bevington said we need to get her involved before we go any further. Attorney Yin questioned if Chairman Lopez wants the City Attorney to look into if the City have the jurisdiction over rental increases. Chairman Lopez stated yes. Commissioner Bevington said he is concerned about setting the moderate income. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he doesn't remember the date, but there is a fair housing symposium that will take place. He said he saw it on the website. Ms. Ramirez introduced Ms. Bo Quan, one of the mobile home residents who is very low income. She said she has no family and her husband died years ago. She said these are the people that are impacted and she wants the Commission to know at first hand. She asked the Commission to please keep low income in consideration, and low income means under $1,000. She added Hawaii Supermarket has a representative who comes in when someone is ill and tries to get them out. She said please let the applicants know that they know what the applicants are trying to do. Mr. Amaya stated he understands their concerns. He said he's not pushing them out right now, it's in phase two. He said they will work with staff regarding moderate to low income. He also said they have to look at what's legal. He said he wants this part of the project to be moved on and he's willing to work with the neighborhood. City Planner Everling clarifies that this is only Phase I with 12 units. Commissioner Bevington questioned if Phase II consists of single family residences. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting. November 5, 2007 Page 19 of 27 City Planner Everling said it's yet to be decided. He said it's just conceptual right now. He added that if it's proposed now, it would be attached town homes. Mr. Fred Nakamura, representing neighborhood legal services in El Monte, stated it makes sense that if any action is taken, it's only done on Phase I. He said doing a zone change during Phase II means we're giving them a green light on Phase II. He said he thinks it's essential that anything done in this phase will not affect Phase II. Chairman Lopez said we're not considering phase 2 at all. Mr. Nakamura questioned even with the zoning issue. Chairman Lopez stated yes. Senior Planner Agaba stated staff worked with the title to acquire some of the information as far as affordability concerns. He then read some numbers that were taken out of the Health and Safety Codes, Section 50052.5 (attached to minutes). He also added the existing general plan designation allows commercial uses. He said the applicant can come in and bring in plans for commercial use. He also said under commercial zone requirement, the structure can be built at zero setback. From the audience, Mr. Harveyson said they can build up to the mobile home property line. Vice - Chairman Kunioka clarifies the audiences' concerns. He said this project is mixed use which means the total retail of this project is a little under 60,000 square feet and if it was pure commercial, they can put up to 180,000 square feet of commercial, up to the property line. City Planner Everling added that it can be as high as 75 feet high under current zoning. Senior Planner Agaba stated staff worked on the Conditions of Approval to make sure residents of the mobile home park is protected. He said if the applicant comes back with Phase II, they would have to do an environmental impact report. Mr. Gilbert Ramirez of 7433 Garvey Avenue, a mobile home resident, stated he has a 90- year -old neighbor that was never notified about this. He said when he gave her the paper, she started crying. He said she said she has no family and nowhere to go. He also said she said she wants to go find a job. He added, they have family there, especially children, and it's not considered. He said he has a 1- year -old child. He questioned what you would do to a 90- year -old or a 1- year -old child. He said $60,000 a year is too much and we must think about this. He said it's not right. Mr. Flournoy stated he would like to talk about the sound wall issue. He said there is another project in the city that required a 14 -foot decorative concrete sound wall that was installed without approval in the middle of the construction. He said they didn't install it where it's supposed to be installed and after 45 days, they were told to remove. He said Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting. November 5, 2007 Page 20 of 27 he is concerned with the sound wall. Chairman Lopez called for questions from anyone else in the audience. Commissioner Bevington motioned to go to closed session to discuss this project Attorney Yin stated we can't do that. Commissioner Bevington stated we have been discussing Phase I. He questioned if the Commission can condition things in Phase I that they want to be done in Phase Il. He also said the notification process was incorrect. He said the property owner of the mobile home park was notified, but not the residents. He said he is concerned, but we aren't discussing this project, just the commercial construction in the front. He said he hasn't heard enough to vote against or vote to delay Phase I tonight. City Planner Everling stated he has come up with a draft for the temporary fence condition. Commissioner Vuu suggested a solid concrete wall similar to Caltrans. He said it's not easy to be removed. City Planner Everling read, "The applicant shall submit an 8 foot tall temporary fence detailed to the satisfaction of the Planning Division for the purposes of sound attenuation, privacy and dust control." The Planning Commissioners agreed. From the audience, Ms. Ramirez stated they prefer 10 feet City Planner Everling stated it can be 10 feet. Commissioner Vuu questioned if it is a fence or wall. City Planner Everling stated it would be a sound wall. Chairman Lopez said Commissioner Bevington brings up a good point. He said we are only looking at Phase I tonight. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he would like to run through the conditions. He said they have already agreed on the "right of first refusal" for the mobile home residents. He Then he said in the mitigation, there isn't a rule 403 condition. He said that should be added. He also said the geotechnical report should be included. He then discussed about trash separation other than the two chutes. He said there should be at least two chutes on both sides. Then he referred to the sound wall, and said it should be up until the end of the construction. He also discussed about the notification process and said staff should consider specifying that the actual residents be informed as well as the owners. Ms. Ramirez questioned if there is a time frame in regards to the Phase I and Phase II. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting. November 5, 2007 Page 21 of 27 City Planner Everling said he will defer it to the applicant. Ms. Ramirez questioned when this information is available for Phase II, where can they go to get this information City Planner Everling stated the front counter. Mr. Amaya stated it depends on going through the process of building permits. Chairman Lopez questioned how long they think Phase II will go into effect after they obtain building permits for Phase I. Mr. Amaya said probably 8 months. Mr. Flournoy questioned if we do a general plan amendment and zone change on one piece of property on two buildings. City Planner Everling stated it's good to be consistent with each other. Mr. Flournoy stated we're discussing about Phase I and Phase II and doing separate general plan amendments and zone changes. City Planner Everling stated there are 7 lots on the property. He said for the overall project, the Commission can just leave the general plan amendment and zone change for Phase I and leave Phase II for a separate date. Mr. Flournoy questioned if it has to be two pieces of property. City Planner Everling stated it doesn't matter how many pieces of property there are. Vice - Chairman Kunioka questioned if we're only considering in Phase I, the zone change and the general plan amendment is already considered for Phase 11. City Planner Everling stated correct. He said staff thought it would streamline the project to get overall zoning in place and at a later time bring forward a tentative tract map and environmental review for Phase II. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated at previous meeting there was a limit of general plan amendments that can be passed a year. Attorney Yin stated 4. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated we wouldn't be precluding any previous change. Mr. Harveyson stated if Phase I is passed tonight, you're changing zoning. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 22 of 27 City Planner Everting said if the Commission decides to change it. He said the request for zone change tonight is for both phases. He also said the Commission can change it to Phase I only. Mr. Harveyson thanked the Commission and staff. Mr. Brian Lewin of 9501 Ralph Street, a resident, questioned when construction projects are underway, is there anything that requires postings of hours of operations. City Planner Everling said he has to defer this question to Building Official Jim Donovan or Jim Guerra. Mr. Lewin said there was a large construction in the southern part of the city that continually violated this and there was nothing in the setup to deal with this violation. He said in the City of Burbank, there is a sign at the entrance of the project that clearly states hours of operations and contact information for any violation. City Planner Everling said he's not sure if it's required for every project. Mr. Lewin stated he's suggesting this to be considered. City Planner Everling deferred the question to Ms. Lombardo. Ms. Lombardo stated as a mitigation measure, it's required. Ms. Ramirez questioned the time frame. Ms. Nancy Eng of 3146 Jackson Avenue, a resident, stated her biggest concern is with the increase of commercial use, more trucks will be coming into Ralph Street into Jackson Avenue. She questioned if any mitigation has been considered to minimize delivery trucks going through residential streets. City Planner Everling stated it's a prohibited use under city ordinance. Chairman Lopez said we will make sure to condition that. Chairman Lopez closed the public hearing to the public and opened the public hearing to the Commissioners. Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated we have capped the number of trips in the conditions. He said we would have to define truck routes in the city. He said another change is limiting the general plan and zoning permit to only Phase I. Lopez questioned If this project shall be moved to the next meeting or approved tonight. Commissioner Bevington said he moves to approve Phase I of this project with the changes that has been agreed to by the conditions tonight. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 23 of 27 Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated with all the things that he said earlier. Attorney Yin stated there's also a trash separation, subject to the City Attorney's review. Vice - Chairman Kunioka also added the truck route condition. Chairman Lopez asked developer if they agree. Mr. Amaya stated yes. Ms. Clark questioned if they will require it to be very low income. Attorney Yin said it can be subject to review by the City Attorney's office. Chairman Lopez said we're shooting for as low as possible. Vice - Chairman Kunioka said he doesn't think that would be fair to the developer. Ms. Clark said we should shoot for very low income people. Commissioner Bevington said he doesn't think we can force these people to un- financial positions for their projects. He said he doesn't agree to very low income. He said his motion stands on low income, not very low. Mr. Flournoy stated he doesn't know if this is appropriate, but maybe we should look at subsidies, such as one room studios or Section 8. Mr. Suzuki stated our city is revising our general plan. He questioned if we can find balance in acknowledging very low, low, and moderate income in the future and incorporating this into the general plan. City Planner Everling stated all cities are required to revise their housing element every 5 years. He said the City of Rosemead is in the process and will submit it to the state next year. Mr. Suzuki questioned if there is a designation for this area. City Planner Everling said he's not currently aware. Mr. Suzuki questioned if it's broken down by regions. City Planner Everling stated no. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, SECONDED BY VICE - CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA to APPROVE PHASE I WITH THE CHANGES THAT THE COMMISSION HAVE MADE AND CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM MODERATE TO LOW, SUBJECT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S REVIEW. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting. November 5, 2007 Page 24 of 27 Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. D. General Plan Amendment 07 -05, Zone Change 07 -228 Conditional Use Permit 05 -1013, Planned Development Review 07 -02 Zone Variance 07 -349, Design Review 05 -127, and Tentative Tract Map 069258 - 9400 -9416 Valley Boulevard. Tammy Gong has submitted applications for a new three -story mixed -use development project consisting of 38 residential condominium units (27,669 square feet) above 10,010 square feet of commercial /retail space on 23,406 square feet of land (0.537 acres) located at the southeast corner of Valley Boulevard and Rio Hondo Avenue. Resolution No. 07 -53 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07 -05, ZONE CHANGE 07 -228, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05 -1013, DESIGN REVIEW 05 -127, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 07 -02, ZONE VARIANCE 07 -349, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069258 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9400 -9416 VALLEY BLVD (APN: 8593 - 001 -001, 002, 003 and 004). Presentation: City Planner Matt Everling Staff Recommendation: Staff is requesting a continuance to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on November 19, 2007. MOTION BY CHAIRMAN LOPEZ, SECONDED BY VICE- CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA, to CONTINUE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07 -05, ZONE CHANGE 07 -228, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05 -1013, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 07 -02, ZONE VARIANCE 07- 349, DESIGN REVIEW 05 -127, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 069258 TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 25 of 27 4. CONSENT CALENDAR — These items are considered to be routine actions that may be considered in one motion by the Planning Commission. Any interested party may request an item from the consent calendar to be discussed separately. A. Approval of Minutes — September 17, 2007 Vice - Chairman Kunioka stated he would like to make one minor change to page 5. He said he would like to add in the second sentence, "bus routes." B. Resolution No. 07 -49 — A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 05 -01, ZONE CHANGE 05- 221, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 05 -960, ZONE VARIANCE 04 -325, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 05 -02, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 061336 IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A 53,793 SQUARE FOOT MIXED -USE PROJECT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3212 -3232 DEL MAR AVENUE (APN: 5287 - 020 - 033, -034, -036, & -038). Mr. Flournoy stated he would like this item pulled. He said he would like a geotechnical report. City Planner Everling clarified Mr. Flournoy's request. He said he would like that same geo condition added to this resolution. The Commissioners agreed. Chairman Lopez asked for a motion for approval of the other items on the Consent Calendar. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VUU TO WAIVE FURTHER READING AND ADOPT CONSENT CALENDAR. Vote results: YES: BEVINGTON, CAM, KUNIOKA, LOPEZ, AND VUU NO: NONE ABSENT: CAM ABSTAIN: NONE Chairman Lopez declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. 5. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIRMAN & COMMISSIONERS 6. MATTERS FROM THE CITY PLANNER AND STAFF City Planner Everling discussed about the Wal -Mart review, the Planning Division Pre - Application Process, Resolution Approval Process, and the American Planning Association Membership. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 26 of 27 Attorney Yin questioned if the City Attorney can join as well, using their own funding. City Planner Everling stated yes. 7. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Lopez adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 10:12 p.m. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BEVINGTON, SECONDED BY VICE - CHAIRMAN KUNIOKA to ADJOURN UNTIL THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. ME /LT Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting: November 5, 2007 Page 27 of 27