Loading...
PC - Minutes - 05-19-14Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 19, 2014 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Herrera in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Lopez INVOCATION - Commissioner Tang ROLL CALL - Commissioners Dinh, Lopez, Tang, Vice -Chair Eng, and Chair Herrera ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT — City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, Associate Planner Trinh, Planning Technician Castles, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City of Attorney, presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Brian Lewin, referred to the Planning Commission meeting of May 5, 2014, which he attended and had submitted a Speakers Request form to speak on item "6A Status of Massage Establishments ". He expressed concern that there seemed to be considerable time of discussion by the Planning Commission on whether or not he would be allowed to speak. He stated that if it had not been brought up by Vice -Chair Eng, he may not have been able to speak, and asked for an explanation on why he would not have been called to speak on that item. Community Development Director Ramirez asked Mr. Lewin if he had any other questions and requested he have a seat, so as the City Attorney Murphy may reply. Resident Brian Lewin stated he may want to comment on Mr. Murphy's reply and asked if that is allowed. City Attorney Murphy explained that during Public Comments, it is generally a time to give a comment and then staff can respond, but it is not a time for a back and forth conversation. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14.02 - Zhan Kai Cui of LYKT Wheels Alignment Products Inc., has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application for the operation of an automotive repair business. The subject property is located at 8819 Garvey Avenue, Unit AS and Unit A6, in the M -1 (Light Manufacturing and Industrial) zone. PC RESOLUTION 14 -08 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-02, FOR THE OPERATION OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR BUSINESS SPECIALIZING IN ALIGNMENT SERVICE AND INSTALLATION OF RIMS AND TIRES LOCATED AT 8819 GARVEY AVENUE, UNIT AS AND A6, IN THE M -1 (LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 14.08 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 1402 subject to twenty-eight (28) conditions. Planning Technician Casillas presented staff report. Chair Herrera asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Lopez asked how or what will be used to clean the vehicle service area, since it will not be allowed to be washed /cleaned with any liquids, and what needs to be cleaned or disposed of. Planning Technician Casillas replied there will always be dust and debris associated with any automotive repair and that they are not changing any Fluids or liquids from the vehicles. She explained they are doing alignments, balancing the tires, and will probably sweep to make sure nothing flows from the unit down into the drive -isles of the complex. Commissioner Tang asked what is the current use or operation of this site. Planning Technician Casillas confirmed that Commissioner Tang is referring to "Unit A5 and Unit A6" and replied the applicant is currently occupying the two units. Commissioner Tang asked how long the applicant has occupied the units. Planning Technician Casillas replied she does not have that information. Commissioner Tang asked if the applicant wanted to perform additional auto repair services would they have to come back to the City to apply for a conditional use permit. Planning Technician Casillas replied the applicant can request to modify the conditional use permit and staff could at that time impose additional conditions of approval to mitigate any impacts. Commissioner Tang referred to parking and asked how vehicles will be stored that are being repaired that may have to remain overnight. Planning Technician Casillas replied there is a condition of approval that states 'All vehicles to be repaired shall be stored or parked in designated stalls only ". She explained they cannot be located in any required off- street parking and should be stored in the actual unit if it is going to be repaired overnight. Commissioner Tang asked how many other auto repair businesses are located in this commercial development. Planning Technician Casillas replied none. Commissioner Dinh asked what the automotive repair service procedure is for the disposal of used tires. Planning Technician Casillas replied there are State laws that regulate the disposal of used tires and she does not have that information available. She explained tires are not allowed to be stored outside of the units and there is room for storage in Unit A6. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the solid cover roof top improvement for the trash enclosure and asked if there are any other improvements that are being required of the applicant or property owner. Planning Technician Casillas replied general maintenance of the site and the solid roof for the trash enclosure are the only requirements that are being imposed. Vice -Chair Eng stated that when she had visited the site she noticed the doors to the trash enclosure are deteriorating. She recommended that the doors to the trash enclosure also be replaced to enhance the new roof top, Planning Technician Casillas replied Condition of Approval number twenty-six (26) can be modified to include improvement to the entire trash enclosure facility. Vice -Chair Eng stated as long as it meets the current City standard and have a self - latching door. She asked if the applicant is present. Planning Technician Casillas replied no. Chair Herrera opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor or against this item. None Chair Herrera closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission for a motion. Vice -Chair Eng made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to ADOPT Resolution No. 14.08 with findings and APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 1402 subject to twenty -eight (28) conditions. (Modification to Condition of Approval number twenty-six (26) by the Planning Commission). Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None B. DESIGN REVIEW 13 -02 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 72347 - Ken Kyi has submitted entitlement applications requesting to develop a new residentiagcommercial mixed use development comprised of two (2) buildings totaling 36,100 square feet. Building A consists of eight (8) attached residential units (totaling 4,120 square feet) above 10,460 square feet of retail and office space. Building B consists of a leasing office and twenty (20) attached residential units (totaling 15,755 square feet). The project site consists of one (1) parcel totaling 30,397 square feet. The property is located at the northwest comer of Willard Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the C -3 MUDO -D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone. PC RESOLUTION 14 -09 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 13 -02 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 72347 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIAUCOMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPROSED OF TWO (2) BUILDINGS TOTALING 36,100 SQUARE FEET. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8479 GARVEY AVENUE IN THE C -3 MUDO -D (MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH A MIXED USE AND DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 1409 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 201418 approving Design Review 13 -02 and Tentative Tract Map 72347 and recommending adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. Associate Planner Trinh presented the staff report . Chair Herrera asked the Planning Commission if there are any questions or comments for staff. Vice -Chair Eng referred to page two (2) of the Staff Report and asked what Govemment Code section 65962.5 is. Associate Planner Tdnh replied that question can be deferred to the Environmental Consultant. Vice-Chair Eng referred to the cities current, "Garvey Avenue Master Plan" and asked which design elements from that plan have been incorporated into this project. Associate Planner Trinh replied some of the elements that are in the, "Garvey Avenue Master Plan" are also included in the "Mixed -Use Design Guidelines" such as the public realm, having the amenity zone, and clear zone. She explained there are so many design elements to incorporate, but they are guidelines, and staff focused on the design standards in the City codes. Vice -Chair Eng stated she was trying to get a sense of what type of design elements were incorporated. Associate Planner Tdnh stated some of the design standards that were incorporated consist of: 1) installing awnings, 2) using earth tone colors and, 3) setting the building in the front instead of the rear. She explained there are many standards and these are a few. Vice -Chair Eng asked how Senate Bill (SB) 1818 works and if the reduction of parking requirements is separate from the other three (3) incentives requested. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that SB 1818 deals with density bonus and affordable housing. She explained if a developer provides affordable housing, then they are allowed apply for incentives which deviate from the City's Zoning Code. She stated the request for reduced parking is not an incentive, instead it is an allowance offered to the developer under S8 1818, which allows for parking in the residential component. Vice -Chair Eng asked if the reduction of parking is applicable for the residential parking only or does it include the commercial parking. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it applies to the residential component only. Vice -Chair Eng asked what the parking standard for office use is. Associate Planner Trinh replied one (1) parking space per two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Vice -Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number twenty-eight (28) and read "Every homeowner shall be allowed to keep up to two (2) vehicles'. She stated the staff report reads that there are thirty-four (34) residential parking spaces available and asked if this is possible. Associate Planner Tdnh replied this is a typo and it should be corrected for residential parking. She added it should state, "One (1) bedroom is allowed one (1) parking stall, and two (2) bedrooms shall be allowed two (2) parking stalls ". Vice -Chair Eng asked if this Condition of Approval needs to be corrected City Attorney Murphy explained that the action taken by the Planning Commission is to make recommendations to the City Council. He staled the recommendations will be Approval, Denial, or Approval with other associated recommendations. He explained if the Planning Commission wants to make sure Condition of Approval number twenty-eight (28) is revised, then it will need to be made part of the motion with revisions discussed. Vice -Chair Eng asked if the number of bedrooms shown on the plans is definitely set. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng asked between the two buildings will there be a total of twenty -two (22) one (1) bedrooms at 700 sq. k., and six (6) two (2) bedrooms. Associate Planner Tdnh replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng asked if Building "A" is two levels. Associate Planner Trinh replied Building "A" is a four -story building and residential condos will be on levels three (3) and four (4). Vice -Chair Eng asked if there are elevators in both buildings. Associate Planner Tdnh replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the nine (9) moderate income units and asked if there is an agreement in place on how many will have one (1) bedroom and how many will have two (2) bedrooms. Associate Planner Trinh replied no. Vice -Chair Eng asked if the City has an input to that decision. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that will be part of the affordability agreement that goes before the City Council for approval. Vice -Chair Eng stated part of the density bonus was based on moderate- income families and referred to Condition of Approval number twenty-seven (27). She pointed out that it states low- income families and asked if there is a difference. Associate Planner Trinh replied that is a typo and it should state moderate - income families. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, there is a difference. Vice -Chair Eng asked for an explanation in regards to the difference. City Attorney Murphy explained that moderate -income families are defined as not exceeding 120% of the median income for families within this metropolitan area and low- income families are defined as not exceeding 80% of the median Income or approximately 40% of the range and 60% of the range for moderate. He explained moderate can be above median income and is often slightly above moderate median income. He added the purpose for the affordable housing agreement is to stop profiteering by insuring that when the units is sold from one owner to the next they remain at an affordable rate. Vice -Chair Eng asked if there is a term to keep the units affordable. City Attorney Murphy replied the term under the law is thirty (30) years. Vice -Chair Eng asked it the units all have to be owner occupied. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the owner has stated at this point they will be owner occupied, which is all that is allowed under moderate - income. She added if it is requested to be rental units, then the units would have to be changed to very low or low- income. Vice -Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number thirty-four (34) and the non - reflective coating on exterior windows and glass and asked if there is a shelf life on that coating. Associate Planner Trinh replied that is one of the mitigation measures. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that question can be deferred to the Environmental Consultant when the Public Hearing is opened. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the Engineering Conditions of Approval number ninety -five (95) and asked if a traffic signal light is located at Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue or is work being done here. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the Traffic Consultant is present to answer any questions if needed. Associate Planner Trinh explained that this question is in reference to an Engineering Condition of Approval and they are not present to answer this. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the site plan and solar panels that are on the roof and asked what are they for. Associate Planner Tdnh replied that question can be addressed to the Architect. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the Resolution Recital and recommended the date should be corrected to state, "July 16, 2013 ". Associate Planner Trinh replied that is correct Commissioner Dinh asked if there is a date of completion for this development. Associate Planner Trinh stated the developer is present and can be asked his timeline. Commissioner Dinh asked what the cost of the units will be. Community Development Director Ramirez gave a beef explanation and income perimeters needed to meet the State Affordable Housing requirements. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the nine (9) moderate income units and asked if City Council will be discussing floor plans that can be set aside with the developer in the future. Community Development Director Ramirez explained the procedure of how the nine (9) affordable units are delegated and that the developer is the one that decides which units will be assigned for affordable housing. City Attorney Murphy explained it can be a point of discussion, but ultimately it is up to the developer to decide, but City Council will weigh in as they go through the process. Community Development Director Ramirez explained since these units are affordable for thirty (30) years and if someone purchases the home and five (5) years later tries to sell it, they too will have to sell it at the current requirements at that time. She also explained all documents will have to be submitted to the Community Development Director to be verified and certified that they fit within these limits. She explained annually the nine (9) units will receive a letter from the Community Development Department asking them to certify that they are still the owner occupant, provide verifcation of that, and this will happen for thirty (30) years. Commissioner Tang stated if the City cannot dictate the list price or sale price and asked if there is a cap to that price. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that there is not necessarily a cap on the selling price of the units. Commissioner Lopez referred to the Mitigation Measures Conditions and asked what process will take place if human remains are found. Associate Planner Trinh replied that question can be deferred to the Environmental Consultant. Commissioner Dinh asked if the "HOA" fees are included with the valuation. Community Development Ramirez stated the "HOA" fees will have to be deducted from the $1,663 amount that she quoted, Commissioner Tang referred to Building "A" and the retail business and asked how retail is defined and if a food establishment is considered retail. Associate Planner Tnnh explained this development is retail and office only. Commissioner Tang asked if an application for a conditional use permit can be requested for a food establishment. Associate Planner Trinh stated currently the standards are approved for retail /office and residential. She explained if the applicant wishes to modify this and incorporate restaurants they would have to meet the development standards. Chair Herrera opened the Public Hearing and invited applicant Simon Lee to the podium. Representative Corkran Nicholson requested to speak first and stated they have reviewed all the conditions of approval and mitigation conditions of approval, as set forth in the Resolution and Environmental document. He stated they accept all of the conditions, a few questions have been asked, and he stated that applicant Simon Lee will address those questions. Architect Simon Lee stated that all the conditions of approval are acceptable with modifications as needed and is present to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Vice -Chair Eng asked if the anti -glare on the windows have a shelf life Architect Simon Lee replied he is not an expert and explained this is a condition that the Environmental Consultant requested to reduce the glare on the windows. He added he can provide a fact sheet on how the product is made, maintenance, and the life span if needed. Vice -Chair Eng stated the reason she is asking this question is because to the East of this project is predominately a single - family residential area and there is a new development right behind this, so she is concerned that the anti- glare may only last a few years. She requested that the fact sheet be obtained and given to staff so that the information is available. She recommended if there is anything the City can do to extend that amenity it should be looked into. Architect Simon Lee clarified that the condition of approval shall include that the anti -glare material will slay in effect. He commented that the new four (4) unit condominium complex that is behind their development is on the North Side and it should not receive any glare from the back due to shadows of their building, set - backs, and landscaping. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the floor plan and stated she appreciates that each of the units has some type of exterior out -door exterior space. She asked what the solar panels on the roof are for. Architect Simon Lee replied they are to reduce top tiercostof the electric bill and is an energy conservation saving. He explained the solar panels are optional and are not required, so it may not have to be used. He explained the savings will go towards all the common areas such as the corridor lighting, basement lighting, and air conditioning for the corridors. Vice -Chair Eng commented it should keep the "HOA" cost down. She asked if the solar panels will be located on Building "A" because it is higher. Architect Simon Lee replied yes, and it also has a flat roof. Vice -Chair Eng asked what type of ventilation systems will be used for the commeroial units and if they will be separate types of systems from the residential units. Architect Simon Lee explained that in Building "A" the eight (B) residential units on the third and fourth floors will each have their own A/C unit and will not be servicing the commercial retail /office units, He explained the office and retail will also each have an individual A/C unit on the roof. Vice -Chair Eng asked if all the A/C units will be on the roof. Architect Simon Lee replied yes, but the residential A/C units will be located on each balcony. Vice -Chair Eng asked how large the balconies are. Architect Simon Lee replied the balcony depth is 5 ft., and explained they are off of the living room area. He added the A/C units are vertical and are generally used in hotels. Vice -Chair Eng asked if each residential unit will include washer and dryer hook -ups Architect Simon Lee replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng referred to Building "A" and asked if the residential units are all one bedroom with two levels Architect Simon Lee replied yes. Vice -Chair Erg asked if the planned square footage for the one (1) bedroom units is 750 square feel. Architect Simon Lee replied yes, and explained that the last unit may be a little larger and varies by some square footage. He explained the units in Building "A" will have one bedroom located on the upper floor with a stairwell. Vice -Chair Eng asked why he planned it that way. Architect Simon Lee replied it allows for privacy and independence for each floor. Vice -Chair Eng asked if Building "A" and Building "B" will each have an elevator and will the offs lretail and residential be using them. Architect Simon Lee replied each building will have an elevator. He explained the retail /office will use the elevator for the first and second floor. He added the residents will have access to the residential floors on the third and fourth floor with a slot card key for the elevator Vice -Chair Eng asked if there are only eight (e) units and if the subterranean parking is gated. Architect Simon Lee replied yes, and explained they tried to separate the parking from Building "A" away from Building "B ". Vice -Chair Eng asked what is envisioned for the retail use. Architect Simon Lee replied whatever is available with the current market and it will be first come first serve. Vice -Chair Eng asked when they anticipate when construction will begin. Architect Simon Lee referred to the City of Alhambra and stated their policy to allow construction to commence before the final maps have been completed or approved and commented he hoped it would be the same for the City of Rosemead. He replied that it will begin in six (6) months to one (1) year. Vice-Chair Eng asked if the "HOA" budget has been set. Architect Simon Lee replied no. Vice -Chair Eng asked if the applicant already has committed financing for the project. Architect Simon Lee replied yes. Commissioner Dinh asked if parking will be designated for the residential verses the commercial. Architect Simon Lee replied yes, and explained it will be marked for residential but not for commercial. Commissioner Dinh asked if parking will be located in the basement level. Architect Simon Lee replied yes, and explained each parking stall will be designated for a particular unit. Commissioner Dinh asked for security purposes will the overnight parking be gated. Architect Simon Lee replied yes. Commissioner Dinh asked if there will be additional fire hydrants installed on the side walls of the buildings. Architect Simon Lee replied yes, and explained the fire department required them installed in certain locations Commissioner Tang referred to Building "B" and asked how many of the twenty (20) units are one (1) bedroom and how many are two (2) bedrooms. Architect Simon Lee replied fourteen (14) one (1) bedrooms and six (6) two (2) bedrooms. Commissioner Tang recommended that the City of Rosemead follow the City of Alhambra's policy to allow construction to begin before the final maps has been completed and approved. City Attorney Murphy stated he will contact the City of Alhambra to obtain the information on how their policy is processed, as the applicant has requested this, and it will be going to the City Council. Commissioner Tang referred to the A/C panels and their noise levels and asked if they will be disruptive to the residents on the North side of the buildings. Architect Simon Lee explained that their building is located sixty-feet (60) away from the residential area to the North and explained the design of the building. He explained the AJC Units are hotel grade type units and they are efficient and the noise element is very low. Commissioner Tang asked if the solar panels will create noise. Architect Simon Lee replied no. He stated he would like to comment that the Community Development Director Ramirez is very knowledgeable in the topic of Affordable Housing and was very helpful to them. Representative of Impact Sciences Jessica Kirchner addressed the first question asked by the Planning Commission, which was related to the Government Code Section. She explained that it relates to the Hazardous Materials List and is a part of the CEQA process which they have to comment if this property on a contaminated site, (which they checked) and it is not. She stated in regards to the glass coating Mr, Lee has already addressed that concem. She stated in the analysis of the noise element they did include the AIC units and found them to be less than significantly in the environmental document and she added they did include what the sound for those A/C units would be. Vice -Chair Eng referred to air quality and asked how the emissions from the A/C equipment are treated by the AQMD. Representative Jessica Kirchner replied there are a couple of different ways they do it and explained they do work with SCAG on the population side and explained the separation process. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the Los Angeles County Fire Sprinkler Code and asked how often it is updated. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it is updated every three (3) years. Vice -Chair Eng asked when a building permit is applied for would the building have to comply with the updated fire code. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes 10 Vice -Chair Eng referred to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Utilities Section, page eighty -eight (88), in regards to the waste water calculations, and asked if new developments in that area are included in the calculations. Representative Jessica Kirchner replied that they look at this project specifically, and how much waste water will be generated. She added that they also look at the capacity of the lines for this project and also talk to the providers to verify if there is enough capacity. Vice -Chair Eng asked if recent developments are taken into consideration by the time they receive the reports. Representative Jessica Kirchner replied yes. Vice -Chair Eng referred to the Mitigated Negative Declaration Traffic Study summary, "LOS" (Level of Service), and the location of Willard Avenue/Garvey Avenue. She stated it is marked as "F" but in the conclusion it states that "project mitigation measures are not required" and asked for an explanation. Representative Jessica Kirchner replied that intersection is different because it is a stop sign and the other intersections have traffic signals. She added the methodology is different and the delay is different than if you have a traffic signal. She explained the calculation process, what the City requires, and stated it did not exceed the threshold percentage numbers , Vice -Chair Eng expressed concern with the traffic impact in the A.M. because there is an elementary school on the corner of Willard Avenue. Representative Jessica Kirchner stated that they looked at the A.M. peak hours, which would include traffic drop -off in the morning. She explained that is when traffic counts were conducted to get an idea of what traffic is in that intersection and that is what the numbers are based on. She stated they have their current basic baseline and then they have the numbers that it will be with this project. Vice -Chair Eng asked what is required to justify a signal light at an intersection. Representative Jessica Kirchner replied she does not have all the details for the warrant analysis. She explained it has to do on the number of trips through that intersection on a daily basis. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that the Traffic Consultant Joanne Itagaki is present if Vice -Chair Eng would like to ask her that question. Traffic Consultant Joanne Itagaki explained that the State of California "Manual Uniform Traffic Control Devices' is the guidelines that most cities use including the City of Rosemead for the installation of stop signs and traffic signals. For traffic signals the items they look for are: 1) number of vehicles, 2) number of pedestrians crossing the street, 3) number of accidents that have occurred in a certain period of time, and 4) the delay that occurs from the side street like Willard Avenue, (how long would it take that car to get onto Garvey Avenue). Vice -Chair Eng asked what a liquefaction zone is and what mitigation measures are used in regards to liquefaction and Soils Reports. Representative Jessica Kirchner replied that it basically is the type of soil the site is on and some soils are more susceptible to liquefaction than others. She explained the biggest mitigation they have is that the house has to be constructed by the California Building Code because California has the strongest code due to being in a seismic region. She added mitigation measures need to coordinate with the City Engineer's Division because this site has underground parking, so you want to take extra care that everything is constructed appropriately. 11 Commissioner Lopez asked what the procedure is if human remains are found Representative Jessica Kirchner replied that within the CEQA and the Public Resources Code there is a specific requirement that if any remains are discovered there is a process that a notification is made. She added that is written into the law that has to be under taken for every project. She added a measure was also included (because this site is disturbed already) to limit where digging occurs to minimize not disturbing the site more than necessary. Commissioner Tang referred to the liquefaction and asked if the mitigation dictates the materials use, how the structure is built, or both. Representative Jessica Kirchner replied that the California Building Code has both and Mr. Lee may have more information on that topic. She added there are standard requirements and recommendations in the Geological Reports that have been prepared for this project, which they have to comply to. Commissioner Tang asked if the concerns are seismic concerns, landslides, or what environmental impacts are they concerned with. Representative Jessica Kirchner replied the concern with liquefaction is if there is an earthquake the soils liquefy becoming unstable and do not support the structure. She added that the structure should be built in a way that will resist that impact. Commissioner Tang referred to the Traffic Flow measurements for the intersection of Willard and Garvey Avenue and asked what the standard measurement to reach the significant impact is. Representative Jessica Kirchner replied it is two percent (2 %) in the change from existing condition to condition with the project, that's the increment. Commissioner Tang asked to what point. Representative Jessica Kirchner referred to page eight -four (84) of the Mitigation Negative Declaration and read, "The City of Rosemead traffic analysis guidelines define "significant" project traffic impact as an increase of 2 percent or more in the volume -to- capacity ratio." Vice -Chair Eng asked what the ratio is. Representative Jessica Kirchner referred to Table 16 in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and stated it is number two (2) Willard and Garvey Avenue and because it is a different type of analysis it does not have the same numbers. She added because the change was small it did not meet that requirement. Chair Herrera asked if there were any other questions or comments. None Chair Herrera closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Vice -Chair Eng expressed that she likes the project especially for the younger generation since they are one (1) or two (2) bedrooms and she would like to see more family -type housing to help the larger families stay in the City of Rosemead, but this project will help provide opportunities for the younger generator. She requested that when setting aside the affordable housing units to consider providing the units for families, because the City of Rosemead is a family oriented City. 12 Commissioner Tang commented that there is a need for development in this area of Rosemead. He added how he likes that this mixed -use project is mostly residential and agrees with Vice -Chair Eng that this is geared for the younger generation of homebuyers. He would like to see more family -oriented housing also but understands that there is cost of development and affordability for those types of developments. Chair Herrera asked for a motion for or against with any changes. Commissioner Tang made a motion. Vice -Chair Eng stated before a motion is made there are corrections that need to be made to the Conditions of Approval. She added there should be corrections to Conditions of Approval numbers twenty-seven (27) and twenty - eight (28). Commissioner Dinh stated there is a typo on the spelling of "coroner" in number thirty-six (36). City Attorney Murphy slated the motion should read, "To Adopt Resolution No. 14 -09 with the attached findings recommending that the City Council Adopt the Resolution 2014 -18 approving Design Review 13 -02 and Tentative Tract Map 72347 with the changes to Conditions of Approval numbers twenty -seven (27), twenty-eight (28) and thirty -six (36) as discussed by the Planning Commission and agreed to by staff." Associate Planner Trinh stated Engineering Condition of Approval number ninety -five (95) may be a typo and will confirm with the Engineering Department to correct it. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that it should state Willard Avenue and Garvey not Delta Avenue. City Attorney Murphy stated as long as the Planning Commission is aware of that, then if this changes at the City Council it will not have to be brought back to the Planning Commission. Vice -Chair Eng stated that she would like to clanry the corrections. She stated Condition of Approval number twenty - seven (27) will be corrected to state "moderate income" instead of "low income ". She continued and stated Condition of Approval number twenty-eight (28) should be corrected to state, "Every homeowner shall be allowed to keep" and requested clanfcation of how many vehicles, Community Development Director Ramirez stated It should state, "One (1) vehicle for one (1) bedroom units and two (2) vehicles for two (2) bedroom units ". City Attorney Murphy stated if it is the will of the Planning Commission staff will work on the language to make sure it is appropriate, rather than trying to read it into the record. Vice -Chair Eng asked Mr. Lee if he is agreeable to those corrections, Architect Simon Lee replied yes. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the correction on Condition of Approval number thirty-six (36) shall state, "Coroner' not "comer'. Chair Herrera referred to the correction of Condition of Approval number ninety-five (95) and stated there is not a traffic signal at the intersection of Willard Avenue and Garvey Avenue. Community Development Director Ramirez clarified that is states "if necessary" 13 Chair Herrera stated there is a motion and asked if there was a second Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez to Adopt Resolution No. 14 -09 with the attached findings recommending that the City Council Adopt the Resolution 2014 -18 approving Design Review 13.02 and Tentative Tract Map 72347 with the changes to Conditions of Approval numbers twenty- seven (27), twenty-eight (28) and thirty -six (36) as discussed by the Planning Commission and agreed to by staff and recommending adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None City Attorney Murphy explained that unlike most actions taken by the Planning Commission this is a recommendation to take to the City Council. He added there is no actual appeal period, the matter will be noticed for a hearing by the City Council, and staff will contact the applicant to prepare for that. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes - May 5, 2014 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dinh, to APPROVE the Minutes of May 5, 2014 as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced the date, time, and location of the Memorial Day Service and invited the Planning Commission to attend. She also announced City Hall will be closed that day. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Tang thanked staff, especially Associate Planner Trinh, for all her time and hard work for tonighfs project. Chair Herrera asked the status of the other mixed -use project on Mission Boulevard in regards to the retail. Associate Planner Trinh replied the retail is doing well but the residential is not doing very well. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the rental is not doing very well and it was originally owner occupied and there is not any affordable housing in that mixed -use project. She added it switched from being for - sale units to rental units. 14 Chair Herrera asked why this mixed -use does not have affordable units. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that unless they need the concessions, they don't need to do the affordable housing. She stated the City does not have an ordinance that requires it and it can sometimes be financially unfeasible to do the affordable housing because of the loss they can take from it. She stated if developers do not have to provide them, they will not. Commissioner Lopez asked if it is required to provide a percentage of affordable housing for new developments of this nature. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, the City does not have an ordinance. Commissioner Tang referred to the last Joint Meeting with City Council there were three (3) nodes identified and asked if this development is part of that zone. Community Development Director Ramirez replied this is not a node. 7. ADJOURNMENT The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, June 2, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m. _ZOn �c Diana Herrera Chair AT T: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 15