Loading...
PC - Item 4A - Minutes of September 15, 2014Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 15, 2014 The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Eng in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Chair Eng INVOCATION - Commissioner Herrera ROLL CALL - Commissioners Herrera, Lopez, Tang, Vice -Chair Dinh, and Chair Eng ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, Associate Planner Tnnh, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS Greg Murphy, City Attorney, presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DESIGN REVIEW 14.06, ZONE VARIANCE 14-02, ZONE VARIANCE 14.03, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 72871- Matt Hamilton of Preface, LLC has submitted entitlement applications requesting to construct a new residentiallcommercial mixed use development. The project will consist of a 6,500 square foot retail building fronting Garvey Avenue and 48 residential units behind. The mixed use development would be located on a 2.1 acre site. The subject site is located at 9048 Garvey Avenue, in the C -3 MUDO -D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone. PC RESOLUTION 14 -12 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 14- 06, ZONE VARIANCE 14-02, ZONE VARIANCE 14.03, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 72871 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIALICOMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPROSED OF A 6,500 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND 48 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 9048 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. 14 -12 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 14.06, Zone Variance 14 -02, Zone Variance 14 -03, and Tentative Tract Map 72871, subject to the seventy (70) conditions. Associate Planner Tnnh presented the staff report. She stated staff is requesting that Condition of Approval number seventy-one (71) be added which states, "All improvements recommended by the Traffic Impact Study, prepared by RK Engineering Group, LLC shall comply prior to the Building and Safety final inspection ". She said staff has added the LA County Fire Department's Conditions of Approval and the final revised Conditions of Approval has been provided this evening. She explained this item will not be presented to the City Council because it Is under the new code. In addition, she explained that the traffic study was not included in the staff report but it was forwarded electronically to the Planning Commission and has also been provided this evening. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that the Conditions of Approval that have been added to Exhibit "S" has been discussed with the applicant and the applicant has agreed to the conditions. She further explained that this item will not be presented before the City Council because under the new code when a Mixed Use Development is submitted within one of the nodes and does not include al density bonus request, then the Planning Commission is the approving authority at this level. She added it would only be presented to the City Council if the item were to be appealed. Chair Eng thanked Community Development Director Ramirez and stated she has been in meetings off and on and has not had time to review the traffic study. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff did not feel there was a need to attach the report, because it is discussed in the staff report. She added that it was decided that the Planning Commission may want a copy of the traffic report, so it was provided earlier today electronically and this evening at the dais. She stated the applicant's Traffic Engineer is present if the Planning Commission has any questions. Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Tang requested clarification in regards to the Zone Variance. Associate Planner Tnnh explained that the property has a thirty (30) foot wide easement that takes up the entire length of the lot, so the applicant was not able to meet two (2) standards of the code. She stated the first standard the applicant could not meet was to install a secured gate to divide the residential from the commercial because of the easement. She added there are three (3) entrances into the residential properties and the applicant will put secured gates at each of those entrances. Commissioner Tang asked if the easement is a shared with the neighboring property. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. City Attorney Greg Murphy clarified that the way the code reads is that it ask that there is a secured gate for all of the residential properties opposed to what the applicant is proposing, which is a number of secured gates. He explained the same security is going to be provided and instead of one gate for all the residents it is being broken down in rows. He explained that staff and his office found this variance very easy to support. Commissioner Tang referred to the staff report on page eleven (11) of thirty -seven (37) and read point number one (1). He asked if there will be one (1) security gate for the entire site. Associate Planner Trinh replied no. She explained that each row of residential homes will have an entrance gate. She referred to the site plan and pointed out that there will be a security gate at each location numbered fifteen (15). Planning Commissioner Tang asked if an outdoor dining area was considered. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes, it was considered and explained because of the uniqueness of this lot it would not have met the parking requirements for a restaurant. Commissioner Tang read Condition of Approval number twenty -four (24) and asked if the homeowners association qualifies as that also. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Chair Eng thanked Greg Murphy, City Attorney, for his clarification on the code for the gate. She explained that while the standards for mixed use were being developed, one of the reasons a gate was required is to provide privacy and to separate the residential from commercial uses. Vice -Chair Dinh referred to page two (2) of thirty-seven (37) of the staff report and recommended it be clarified that there are six (6) separate three story buildings. She referred to section twenty -seven (27) and asked staff if that was the only trash enclosure and how many trash enclosures will be installed. Associate Planner Trinh replied each residential unit will have their own trash enclosure. She explained section twenty -seven (27) is for organic waste only. Vice -Chair Dinh asked how trash will be removed from the premises. Associate Planner Trinh replied the applicant has worked out a route of entering and exiting the site with Consolidated Disposal. Vice -Chair Dinh asked if this has been worked out for each unit. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes and stated the applicant is present if further explanation is needed. Vice -Chair Dinh asked if a speed limit will be posted along the thirty (30) foot wide easement. Associate Planner Tnnh replied the Traffic and Engineering Department did not make reference to a speed limit. Vice -Chair Dinh expressed concern that speeding may occur because it is a long driveway and recommended that a speed limit be Installed. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that is something the Homeowners Association may address. Chair Eng clarified that this mixed use complex is not the traditional style with residential above the commercial. She explained that this mixed use is a commercial /residential use but the residential units are townhome styles and that is why there are separate buildings. Vice -Chair Dinh explained that in complexes that are townhomes or pud's the trash enclosures are usually shared, so as to ease the removal of trash for the disposal companies. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that it Is fortunate that the applicant has worked out a plan with Consolidated Disposal. Commissioner Lopez referred to the commercial units and asked if applications to rent/lease have been processed or will the units be vacant. Associate Planner Trinh stated that question may be addressed by the applicant. Chair Eng commented that this is one of the nicest projects she has seen to provide housing for families and thanked the applicant. She referred to the body shop business in front of 9048 Garvey and asked staff if it is part of this parcel. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Chair Eng asked if this business and driveway will be demolished for this development. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Chair Eng referred to the shared easement and asked if there were terms that were placed to use It Associate Planner Trinh replied the applicant may address that question, Commissioner Tang asked staff if it is a shared easement, who is the responsible party for maintaining it. Associate Planner Trinh replied the applicant may address that question. Chair Eng asked how wide the driveway for egress and ingress is. Associate Planner Trinh replied the driveway is thirty (30') feet. Chair Eng asked if that is enough for back and forth traffic lane, Associate Planner Tnnh replied yes. Chair Eng asked where the trash enclosures are located for the commercial units. Associate Planner Tnnh replied it is number twelve (12) on the site plan adjacent to Parking P7. Chair Eng asked if it has been worked out with Consolidated Disposal in regards to entering and exiting from each residential unit for disposal of waste and if there is enough room. Associate Planner Tnnh replied yes. Chair Eng asked what the commercial parking standard for a residential /commercial mixed use development. Associate Planner Tnnh replied it is per use and the restaurant is one (1) per one hundred and commercial is one (1) per two hundred fifty (250). Chair Eng stated she is concerned that the commercial parking standard is being met at this time, but in the future this standard may limit the ability for an intense use such as a food establishment. She asked staff if a food establishment applied how this parking standard would be addressed. Associate Planner Tnnh replied that staff has explained to the applicant that the current parking standard is one (1) per two hundred fifty (250). She explained that in the future, if they would like to incorporate a food establishment or different type of use, then they would be required to submit a parking study to analyze and show they meet the standard parking requirement. Community Development Director Ramirez further explained that working with the applicant, the applicant did have the choice to make the commercial areas smaller to be able to meet the restaurant parking requirements. She stated these are the standards that the applicant chose to be set for the development. Chair Eng recommended that this is the opportunity for the Planning Commission to discuss with the applicant to increase commercial parking if needed for commercial uses in the future. She referred to traffic concerns and stated she did not have time to study the traffic study. She added that Garvey Avenue traffic gets congested and restricting the exit onto Garvey Avenue with a no left turn is a good idea. She commented that she would like to address the possibility of considering solar lighting for the common areas with the applicant. She asked staff if the HVAC units are located on the rooftops for both commercial and residential units. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number twenty-four (24) and asked Greg Murphy, City Attorney, what the language means in regards to "limiting the construction" and asked if that is the language that is being requested to be included in the CC & R. City Attorney Greg Murphy explained Planned Developments with CC& R's can mislead an individual property owner into thinking that if the homeowner association board approves some change to the property that may be the only permit or approval that is necessary. He added this puts owners on notice because it will be in the CC & R's that some activities may still have to come to the City. He asked Community Development Director Ramirez if there are any other reasons for this. Community Development Director Ramirez added that there have been issues with other Planned Developments where CC & R's were recorded and residents have added patio covers, which needs to go through the Planning and Building Division for approval and permits. She explained that when the homeowner decides to sell the property it is then discovered that a permit was not obtained and they had thought because the homeowners association approved it, that was all that was needed. Chair Eng stated, in other words this is stating that if a homeowner wanted to make any type of structural change to the unit they would have to obtain approval from the homeowners association and the city. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that it may not only be a structural change, it could also apply to other things like electrical or plumbing. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number twenty-seven (27) and asked if they are being required to have a security guard. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that it is written "packing monitor and or security guard" and it will be enforced by the homeowners association. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number twenty -nine (29) regarding the Master Sign Program. She recommended that if there is a desire to apply for a master sign in the future she would like staff to work with the applicant and make sure the placement of it will not cause an obstruction at site line for safety reasons and that there is space dedicated for it Community Development Director Ramirez stated that staff works with applicants in regards to Master Signs and it is done eady in the process, as that helps on the design of their building. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number thirty (30) regarding landscaping and due to the water drought crisis she would like to discuss what opportunities would be available to conserve water or use recycled water with the applicant. She stated she received a concern from a resident regarding Condition of Approval number fifty (50) for the Storm Water Pollution Plan and read the concern to the audience. Associate Planner Trinh stated Condition of Approval fifty (50) regarding the Storm Water Pollution Plan was implemented from the Engineering Department and they are not present this evening to address this concern. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that it will have to be trusted that the City Engineer would know what the law is and is stated accordingly. Chair Eng requested that staff double check with the Engineering Department to confirm it is correct. She referred to Condition of Approval number fifty -four (54) and asked for the width of the sidewalk on the westerly property line. Associate Planner Trinh replied it will be twelve (12') feet when this project is completed. She stated there will be a five (5) foot amenity zone and a seven (T) foot sidewalk. Chair Eng referred to the "Traffic Conditions of Approval" and referred to Condition of Approval number sixty -four (64)" regarding the onsite circulation system but commented that the Traffic Study was not included in her packet so she was not able to review it Commissioner Lopez asked if the entrance is the only entrance into the site. Commissioner Lopez asked if there is a crisis and this entrance is blocked, are there any other exists. Associate Planner Trinh's reply was not audible. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that it is not uncommon for development's to have only one entrance and one exit. Commissioner Lopez referred to trash disposal in the residential units and asked if there will be chutes that drop into a main bin in each unit to dispose of trash or will there be individual trash bins behind each unit. Associate Planner Trnh replied each unit will have their own trash bin. Commissioner Lopez asked if the residents will have to walk the trash to the front. He expressed concern that the driveway may not be wide enough for the disposal trucks to enter and exit safely. Associate Planner Tnnh explained that the applicant has worked out a plan with Consolidated Disposal and the applicant will be able to give a further explanation. Vice -Chair Dinh commented that with this type of housing development (three story buildings and with two sets of stairs) seems to accommodate the younger physically fit generaion, She asked if a study was conducted to see if there is a demand for the type of ownership for these forty -eight (48) units. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that staff did discuss this with the applicant early in the project and they felt there is a demand but that is a question that can be addressed to the applicant. Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Applicant Matt Hamilton introduced Bryan Coggins and stated they are both there to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Applicant Bryan Coggins stated he would like to thank City staff for their excellent customer service. He explained that adjacent land owners were contacted in person or by letter to make them aware of this project. He added that this project is a good implementation of the City's General Plan and will reach out to young families and professionals as a new starter home. The homes will be selling in the mid 400,000 price range. He explained the concerns that the Planning Commission brought up such as the easement, trash disposal, speed limits, speed bumps being installed, horizontal mixed -use, retail tenants that are interested, solar lighting for common areas, monument sign not blocking the line of site, conserving water to address water drought concems, and added they are willing to implement all of them into the project. He stated the single entrance Is a concern but there is not much they can do as they are land locked In there. Applicant Matt Hamilton also thanked staff for their help. He referred to waste disposal and explained that it has been worked out with Consolidated Disposal that each home will have two (2) wheeled containers that will be kept in the garage. He added one (1) will be for trash and one (1) will be for household recyclables. He added on trash day the residents will wheel them outside of their garage and Consolidated will come in to pick them up. There may be a potential third (3N) wheeled container for the city's organics green waste program. He stated the retail uses will have their own trash enclosures. He referred to the easement previously negotiated with the property owners to the east and this property and added that it is a shared maintenance agreement with the HOA overseeing it In regards to storm water concerns, the DOMP has strict requirements that they will make sure are met. He addressed the drainage concern and requested that existing drainage channel be kept as a fourth option to Conditions of Approval numbers forty -six (46) and forty -seven (47). Commissioner Tang asked who will be maintaining the shared easement. Applicant Matt Hamilton replied that the shared easement agreement contemplates that both owners will maintain it. He explained the HOA for the forty -eight homeowners will take the lead on maintaining it.. Commissioner Tang asked if there is a reason why the trash enclosure is located near the entrance of the parking lot instead of the end of the parking lot. Applicant Matt Hamilton replied this was discussed with Consolidated Disposal and is the spot that would work the best for them as far as entering and exiting. Commissioner Tang requested that the trash enclosure be placed in the back of the parking lot Instead for aesthetic reasons. Community Development Director Ramirez slated after speaking with Consolidated Disposal this is the location where they would like it to go. Vice -Chair Dinh asked if the easement will remain as is permanently or will it be developed while this project is being built. Applicant Matt Hamilton replied the thirty (30) foot easement will remain because that easement is in favor of the adjacent property owner. Vice -Chair Dinh asked if anything will be done to the easement. Applicant Matt Hamilton replied it will be repaved, graded, and new utilities will be put in He stated the plan is to underground the overhead poles that run along that easement and it will be a nice paved driveway when it is completed. Vice -Chair Dinh stated that she is in favor of not having a security gale between the commercial and residential units for emergency reasons so there is easy access for emergency vehicles entering or exiting. Applicant Matt Hamilton stated the Los Angeles Fire Department did review and approve the plan. Chair Eng asked if this property was sold and the use was changed what would happen to the easement Applicant Matt Hamilton replied that the census is that it is in the adjacent property owner's favor and they can terminate it if they wanted to redevelop their property and put a new entrance in. He added 9048 Garvey Avenue has no power to terminate or revise the easement. Chair Eng expressed concern with the possibility of this happening and recommended that the city should prepare to look forward on what may become of this property , Applicant Matt Hamilton agreed and stated a lot of things may happen. Chair Eng asked the Traffic Engineer to the podium to answer a few questions. Community Development Director Ramirez referred to the applicants request to the addition to Conditions of Approval numbers forty -six (46) and forty -seven (47) and the existing drainage and stated staff is acceptable to these request. Principal Engineer Bob Kahn of the RK Engineering Group Inc., stated he would like to thank staff and the Consulting Traffic Engineer from the City, which was very helpful to them. He explained this was primarily a focus type of traffic study that was based on the intersections of Sullivan and Garvey Avenue, the project access on Garvey Avenue, and the signal light at the Garvey Community Center located on Garvey Avenue. He stated they did look at the on -site and off -site impacts of the proposed project and based on their analysis they did meet the City criteria when it came to city traffic impacts. He added if the Planning Commission has any questions he would be happy to answer any of them. Chair Eng stated she did not have time to review the Traffic Study and requested that Mr. Kahn explain what is looked at and answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Principal Engineer Bob Kahn explained that when they do a Traffic Study, they contact staff and their technical staff to discuss and decide what type of scope of work should be done on this Traffic Study. He explained that it was decided the traffic impacts that needed to be addressed were for the locations of Sullivan and Garvey Avenue, the project access, and the Garvey Community Center. He explained in doing that, they conduct traffic counts during the AM and PM peak hours with the AM peak hours being from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and the PM hours are from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM, He stated they not only look at the thin traffic but also the turning movements during those periods, and then they analyze what will the project and any other approved projects in that area and what will they do to those intersections. He stated they look at the uses (retail and 48 townhomes) on the site and they will be able to generate the amount of traffic they will produce and based upon what is referred to as the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Factors and these are factors that will tell them how many trips per hour and per day each of the uses will generate. He stated the retail will generate about two- hundred and seventy-eight (278) trips per day with 112 going in and 112 going out. He added the townhomes will generate about two hundred and seventy-nine (279) trips per day with ill going in and ill going out, which will total to five hundred and fifty -seven trips per day. He explained further factors that are considered and stated the study found that this project meets the standard and does not provide a significant impact to any of those intersections. He referred to the project driveway at Garvey Avenue and stated that is a concern with people making a left turn from there. He stated they have recommended that the medium be extended and modified to prevent a left turn from being taken from the site. He explained a left turn would be able to enter the site but a left turn would not be able to me made when exiting the site. He stated a number of recommendations have been made such as the on -site circulation system be built as proposed, the single access as proposed is acceptable, installing a (stop sign, stop bar, stop legend) at the exit, signing and striping being implemented in the medium area, the raised medium be reconstructed, and site distance would be reviewed when the design stage begins. He addressed the speed limit concern and explained that this is a private easement/road and California Vehicle Code does not apply here unless the HOA chooses for it to be done. He recommended that traffic calming devices be used such as a "speed cushion" and described its function. Commissioner Lopez referred to the right -tum only and stated Sullivan Avenue is currently the only location a U -turn can be made, He asked if it is going to be right -turn only onto Garvey Avenue where will a U -tum be able to be made. Principal Engineer Bob Kahn replied there is a signal at the Garvey Community Center and a U -turn is not restricted there. Chair Eng asked if trips generated from the Garvey Center were compared with this project. Principal Engineer Bob Kahn replied no. Chair Eng asked applicant Matt Hamilton if the proposed gates in the alley will they be armed. Applicant Matt Hamilton replied no, it is a sliding gate made of rod iron and slides across. Vice -Chair Dinh asked what the time frame they anticipate for this project to be completed. Applicant Matt Hamilton replied the entire project will probably be completed in two (2) years. Chair Eng asked if there were any other questions. None Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. City Attorney Greg Murphy stated before a motion is made based on what staff and the applicant has said, he would like to direct them to "Condition of Approval number thirty -two (32)" and the applicant has said he is willing to do solar lighting for the common areas. He added that Community Development Director Ramirez has already gone over Conditions of Approval numbers forty -six (46) and forty-seven (47). He referred to Condition of Approval number sixty-six (66) and stated a clause should be added to the end of the sentence stating, "Traffic calming devices shall be installed in the primary access drive consistent with the existing easement conditions ". He requested that Conditions of Approval be Included In the motion as amended. Chair Eng stated Condition of Approval number twenty -nine (29) regarding the Master Sign Program, the applicant has indicated if they were to have a monument sign they would be accommodating to make sure it will not obstruct the site line. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff is agreeable to having that added because staff would not allow that regardless. Commissioner Tang commented this project serves as a frst step in improving Garvey Avenue with a lot of opportunity and will complement the character of the City. He stated he is happy to support this project. Commissioner Lopez stated he has been a resident for over forty years (40) and thanked the applicant for this project, Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to ADOPT Resolution No. 14.12 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 14 -06, Zone Variance 14.02, Zone Variance 14 -03, and Tentative Tract Map 72671, subject to the one hundred and two (102) conditions. (Amendments were made to Condition of Approval numbers 29, 32, 46, 47, and 66 by the Planning Commission.) Vote resulted in: Yes: Dinh, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez explained the ten (10) day appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of August 4, 2014 Community Development Director Ramirez explained the technical and audio difficulties took place at the Planning Commission meeting held on Monday, August 4, 2014. She added the system was not able to record and since then a new audio system has been installed. She stated this is why the Minutes of August 4, 2014 are action minutes. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of August 14, 2014, as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Dinh, Herrera, Lopez, Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez stated there are two upcoming City events; the first one will be the Civic Center Dedication and gave the date, time, and location. She stated the second event will be the Fall Fiesta and gave the date, time, and location of where this will take place. She invited the Planning Commission to attend the events. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Tang updated the Planning Commission on the Garvey Avenue Specific Adhock Committee. He stated the committee just met and they went over the analysis that was presented by the Consultant and discussed the opportunities on what can go along the Garvey Avenue corridor. He added there was also discussion on the Community Survey that was taken by staff and developers to determine what would be a good development project for the city as well as the neighbors to achieve the goals to make the City of Rosemead a lively, balanced, place to work and play. He stated the committee will meet next month to discuss the alternatives that will be studied further in the EIR process. He added if the Planning Commission has any suggestions or questions to please contact the committee. Vice -Chair Dinh stated she heard there may be a new staff member added to the Community Development Department and asked staff for confirmation. Community Development Director replied yes, and the position has been offered to Cory Hahn. She stated he has accepted the position and will begin working in a couple of weeks. 10 Chair Eng referred to an article she read on a oversaturation of hotels being built. She stated she had asked Community Development Director Ramirez how would the City address that concern and was told for projects like that a market study would be looked at. She asked what does a market study consist of and the importance of it. Community Development Director Ramirez explained that the applicant is the one to conduct the market study, not the City. She added this is a requirement that would have to be completed before the project is presented to the Planning Commission. She explained that a market study looks at a number of things such as the number of hotels in the area, what their current service rates are, are they oversaturated, is there a demand, who's coming in, who's leasing up these units, vacancies rates, and a number of other studies. She added they put all of that together to complete a market study and determine if there is a demand for an additional hotel. She stated from the City standpoint you would want a study to be completed and explained why. She added market studies are something that are also being considered to be included in the Specific Plan not only for hotels but other types of developments to see if there is a need for the use within the City. Chair Eng asked if the market study looks at completed projects, projects that are being considered, projects that are being developed, or at what stage do they study them. Community Development Director Ramirez replied they look at everything that they have available City Attorney Greg Murphy added in terms of projects that are being talked about or projects that have been approved, or not yet been built, the studies he has seen tend to talk about in great certainty about projects that are already developed and explained why. Vice -Chair Dinh asked the status of the hotel next to the UFC Gym, Community Development Director Ramirez stated they are currently working on the tentative improvements. Commissioner Henera thanked the City of Rosemead for taking care of the situation with the tour buses. Vice -Chair Dinh staled that on the Northeast comer of Ivar Avenue a bus may have hit one of the light poles and recommended that Public Works look at it. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting Adjourned at 8:25 p.m. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, October 6, 2014. ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary Nancy Eng Chair 11