PC - Minutes - 12-15-14 Minutes of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
December 15,2014
The regular 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-Vice-Chair Dinh
INVOCATION-Chair Eng
ROLL CALL-Commissioners Herrera, Lopez, Tang,Vice-Chair Dinh,and Chair Eng
OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, City Engineer Fajardo,
Associate Planner Trinh,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 12-05, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 12-02, ZONE CHANGE 12-02, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 72529, AND ALLEY VACATION 7801.7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE,
AND 3017 BRIGHTON STREET - Gerard Ngo has submitted entitlement applications requesting to
develop a new residential/commercial mixed-use development. The project consists of the demolition
of all existing structures to construct a five-story, mixed-use development with 15,553 square feet of
retail/restaurant space on the basement/first and second floors and 60 residential units on the third
through fifth floors,comprising 54,609 square feet,for a total built area of 70,162 square feet. Parking
is proposed as a combination of surface and two stories of subterranean basement parking.The City
is proposing to participate by vacating the existing public alley that bisects the site. Access to the
proposed project will be provided via the rear of the structure with one entrance each on Del Mar
Avenue and Brighton Street. The project also includes a density bonus application under Senate Bill
(SB) 1818, which amended the state bonus law to allow density bonuses up to 35%. The property is
located at the northeast corner of Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the C-3 (Medium
Commercial) zone and R-2 (Light Multiple Residential) zone. This item was on the Planning
Commission Agenda for June 16, 2014. However, due to extensive comments from the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
(LACDPW) during the 20-day public review distribution period for the Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)for the project,the Planning Commission continued this item to
a future Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission staff report and meeting minutes
are included in this report as Exhibits "C" and "D". On June 4, 2014 (attached as Exhibit "E"),
Caltrans submitted a comment letter to the City indicating their concerns that the 1.10/Del Mar Avenue
freeway on-off ramps is operating at or near capacity. Any project trips will contribute significant
traffic impact to the State Facilities. For this reason, the Environmental Consultant, Phil Martin 8
Associates, Inc.was directed to have the traffic consultant conduct the necessary traffic counts at the
1
I-101Del Mar Avenue freeway intersections to gather the traffic information necessary to respond to
Caltrans. Traffic counts were taken at the I-101De1 Mar Avenue freeway intersections the week of
September 8, 2014 when the public schools were in session to gather the traffic data necessary to
respond to your comment. Based on the collected traffic counts and analysis, project traffic will not
impact any of the Del Mar Avenue at 1-10 freeway on-off ramps during the AM or PM peak hours. The
traffic study addendum is attached to this staff report as Exhibit"F".On June 6,2014,staff received a
comment letter from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works indicating that storm drain
BI 1109-Monterey Park Area belonging to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD)
and the 8-inch sewer line that will serve the project may not have the capacity to serve the
project. For this reason, a sewer analysis study was completed and the LACDPW has reviewed and
approved the study(attached as Exhibit"G).
PC RESOLUTION 14-10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 12-
05, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 12-02,ZONE CHANGE 12-02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 72529,AND
ALLEY VACATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIALICOMMERCIAL MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF 15,553 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL/RESTAURANT SPACE AND SIXTY
(60) RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR A TOTAL BUILT AREA OF 70,162 SQUARE FEET. THE SUBJECT SITE
IS LOCATED AT 7801-7825 GARVEY AVENUE, 3012 DEL MAR AVENUE, AND 3017 BRIGHTON
STREET IN THE C-3(MEDIUM COMMERCIAL)AND R-2(LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL)ZONE.
STAFF SUMMARY - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended
that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 14-10 with findings, which is a resolution
recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance 942 approving Zone Change 12-02 and CC
Resolution 2015-01 approving Design Review 12-05, General Plan Amendment 12-02, and Tentative
Tract Map 72529 and recommending adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Associate Planner Trinh presented the staff report. She added staff would like to modify Condition of Approval
number twenty-eight(28), which is a "Mitigation Measure", for the City Council to authorize the Planning Division on
the Public Art Plan, instead of presenting it back to the City Council.
Chair Eng asked for clarification on the change to Condition of Approval number twenty-eight(28).
Associate Planner Trinh explained that this is a Mitigation Measure that was added as a Condition of Approval and
that in the Mitigated Negative Declaration it states that the Public Art Plan would come back to the City Council for
approval, however,staff is requesting that City Council authorize the Planning Division to approve it.
Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff.
Vice-Chair Dinh asked if the property owner's name is Gerard Ngo or Gerard Yang.
Associate Planner Trinh replied it is Gerard Ngo and explained it is the same person.
Commissioner Tang stated the applicant has requested a change in zoning and asked staff to explain the difference
in the R-2 zoning and light-multiple residential,compared to mixed-use, in terms of what's allowable and what's not
allowable for both.
Associate Planner Trinh explained that light-multiple residential is for single-family homes and, if density allows, it
may have two (2)or three (3) units. She added mixed-use is different because there is a combination of both
commercial and residential using both components in one project.
2
Commissioner Tang asked if the light-multiple zoning can be combined with the C-3 zoning.
Associate Planner Trinh replied no.
Chair Eng asked if this project was originally conceived as apartments.
Associate Planner Trinh replied yes.
Chair Eng stated that as pad of the density bonus, the applicant is being allocated twelve (12) affordable
housing units and asked who will administer the 12 units being allocated.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied a housing agreement for those units will be entered into and the
City will monitor it.
Chair Eng asked if there is a term on how long they will remain affordable units.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied thirty(30)years.
Chair Eng stated street parking is currently available on Garvey Avenue in front of this project and asked if it that will
be taken away.
City Engineer Raphael Fajardo replied no, and explained that street parking will be taken away on the West side of
Brighton Street to allow cars going westbound to make a right turn.
Chair Eng asked if two parking spaces will be taken away on the East side of Garvey Avenue to permit signage that
will state"Right turn only".
City Engineer Fajardo replied two parking spaces will be taken away on the West side of Brighton Street for signage
purposes,to allow"right turn only"westbound onto Garvey Avenue.
Chair Eng asked if the area on the West side of Brighton Street, South of Garvey, will not have parking due to an
entrance being located there.
City Engineer Fajardo replied yes.
Chair Eng referred to the Staff Report and Conditions of Approval which states trucks are not permitted and asked if
there are trucks with deliverables where will they be permitted to unload.
Associate Planner Tdnh replied that question can be deferred to the Environmental Consultant.
Chair Eng asked how will the HVAC system work for commercial use verses residential use, will they be separated,
and will they be put on the roof.
Associate Planner Trinh replied everything will be placed on the rooftop.
Chair Eng referred to the Mitigated Declaration which mentioned Cumulative Projects with one project location at
7419-7459 Garvey Avenue, consisting of three buildings, and asked if staff knew what the anticipated height of those
buildings will be.
3
Associate Planner Trinh replied that question can be deferred to the Environmental Consultant because he is doing
that project also.
Chair Eng stated this project was first heard at the Planning Commission meeting held on June 16, 2014 and was
continued due to issues from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works(LACDPW)in regards to sewage. She asked staff if these issues were addressed.
City Engineer Fajardo replied yes, and explained the sewer was approved by the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works. He added a second study was conducted regarding the I-10/Del Mar Avenue freeway on-off ramps
and Caltrans approved the second study.
Chair Eng asked if there were any mitigation measures.
City Engineer Fajardo replied no.
Chair Eng referred to the 20 degree site line concession the applicant has requested. She asked what the
functional impact on that one is, specifically how it will impact the single family residences by the project area, and
what mitigation measures are being proposed to minimize that impact.
Associate Planner Trinh replied there is a shadow analysis that was presented in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and the Environmental Consultant can discuss the shadowing with the building over the residential portion.
Chair Eng stated the site line is a standard that the City has put together.
Associate Planner Tdnh replied that is correct and explained the variable height process.
Chair Eng asked why the City imposed the site line standard.
Associate Planner Tdnh replied in respect to those residential properties so that it does not overshadow them.
Chair Eng asked if there is a part of this project that will overshadow that.
Associate Planner Tdnh replied yes, and explained a shadow analysis was performed and the Environmental
Consultant can explain the details.
Chair Eng asked if there were any mitigation measures to address the shadowing.
City Attorney Murphy explained there would not be mitigation measures for a concession. He added the concession
itself is granted in light of the affordable units being provided, so it's not something that gets measured out in your
normal use of conditions of approval. It's essentially something asked for and granted under state law that normally
would not be part of a project or would not be allowable.
Chair Eng asked how many single-family residents would be impacted by this.
Associate Planner Trinh stated that information is not available.
Commissioner Tang referred to the 20 degree angle and asked what the current standard allowable angle is.
Associate Planner Trinh replied it is 20 degrees.
4
Commissioner Tang asked if the applicant is requesting to encroach into that 20 degree angle.
Associate Planner Trinh replied yes.
Commissioner Tang asked how much they want to encroach into that angle.
Associate Planner Tdnh referred to the elevation plan on page A4.1 and pointed out the portion above the 20 degree
angle that is being requested.
Commissioner Lopez asked what the footage is.
Associate Planner Trinh replied it is about 25 feet.
City Engineer Fajardo explained it is about two-stories.
Commissioner Lopez asked how close the residents to that are.
Associate Planner Trinh replied the distance is a little more than 50 feet.
City Engineer Fajardo stated it is about 60 feet.
Commissioner Lopez asked in that shadow what is being taken away from the residents as far as their land or site of
anything. He commented this project is five (5) stories high with sixty(60) units and a lot of things are being added,
such as HVAC units. He asked if there will be one (1)central unit or will they each have their own,and commented
there will be noise levels.
Community Development Director Ramirez stated those questions will have to be deferred to the applicant and the
environmental consultant.
Commissioner Herrera stated she is concerned with the traffic located at Del Mar and Garvey Avenue. She added
the Traffic Engineer is present this evening and she is looking forward to hearing her comments.
Chair Eng asked what type of testing,analysis,or measures were taken to make the determination that this site is not
located in a seismic safety zone and will support subterranean parking.
Associate Planner Tdnh replied any questions related to the Mitigated Negative Declaration can be deferred to the
Environmental Consultant.
Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number twenty-three (23) and read that it states "twelve(12) affordable
condominiums"and asked if that will make a difference if they are considered apartments in the staff report.
Associate Planner Tdnh replied that is a typo and it should state apartments.
Chair Eng read Condition of Approval number forty-two (42) and asked how left-turns at the Del Mar Avenue
driveway will be restricted if needed.
Traffic Engineer Joanne Itagaki stated this is referring to the left-tums into the project driveway and explained that
there was a concern that it is close to Garvey Avenue and how operationally traffic would move if there is a high
demand for southbound left-turns into the project.
5
Chair Eng asked if currently left-turns are permitted into the project.
Traffic Engineer ltagaki replied yes.
Chair Eng asked if there are impacts,then restrictions will be made.
Traffic Engineer ltagaki replied yes.
Chair Eng asked what type of restrictions will take place if needed.
Traffic Engineer ltagaki replied it could be simple signage and opportunities for painted or raised constructed
medians.
Vice-Chair Dinh asked if there is signage stating"No Left-Turn"from the building onto Del Mar Avenue.
Traffic Engineer ltagaki replied it is a condition of approval that states: "Right-Turn Only"going out.
Chair Eng read Condition of Approval number forty-nine (49) and asked what the last sentence: "...This is not
guarantee for approval" means.
City Attorney Murphy explained that while the City Engineer has indicated support for this, "Vacation of a Public
Right-of-Way" is a separate item that would go before the City Council. He added as this application moves forward
one of the conditions of approval is to separately go and seek the vacation of the alley way. He stated that can be
done in a number of different ways and what happens with the alley land is depending on which of the different
vacation statues you utilize to vacate. He explained when it states "This is not guarantee approval", is stating that
even if your body recommends approval of these conditions, and if City Council adopts these conditions of approval,
by adopting Condition of Approval number forty-nine(49),City Council is not committing to the vacation of the alley.
Chair Eng asked if the applicant will need the alley way for this project to work.
City Attorney Murphy replied yes.
Chair Eng read Condition of Approval number seventy-three (73)and asked what type of modification is taking place
at Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue.
City Engineer Fajardo replied the types of modifications taking place will be the timing of traffic signals, checking right
and left-turns of northbound and southbound directions. He added due to other projects, this intersection
modification will be in conjunction with those projects and other capital improvement projects.
Commissioner Tang asked if those modifications will include synchronization with surrounding area.
City Engineer Fajardo replied that is part of the County's synchronization system. He stated three(3) months ago a
container was installed to synchronize the traffic signals on Garvey Avenue and another project will be done with
MTA to synchronize the bus system. He added grants are being obtained.
Commissioner Tang asked if that will only be done on Garvey Avenue or will it include Del Mar Avenue also.
City Engineer Fajardo replied there are three intersections and they will be Garvey Avenue, Rosemead Place, and
River Avenue.
6
Chair Eng referred to the City of Rosemead's commercial parking standard of one(1)parking space per one hundred
(100) square feet of floor space for restaurant and mixed-use and asked if staff knows if this is the same standard
implemented with other surrounding cities or do they use a different standard.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied that a comparison was conducted to other cities because the City
wants to be consistent and as close as possible to other cities. She explained some cities are not as stringent as
Rosemead.
Chair Eng asked if other cities are using the parking standard of one(1) parking space per one hundred (100) square
feet for mixed-use and commercial use.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied staff did a comparison for restaurant use only. so she does not
have that information.
Chair Eng expressed concern that with the amount of restaurant use and depending on what type of restaurants that
may come in,there may not be enough parking. She commented that the applicant is complying with the
requirements for restaurant use.
Vice-Chair Dinh referred to the low-income rental units and asked if it has been determined what floor they will be on
or will they be scattered on separate floors.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied that is up to the applicant and will be part of the housing
agreement that is submitted to the City.
Vice-Chair Dinh asked so it will be what the applicant choses.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes, and explained generally they keep it the same, so if it is
decided to do this as a"for sale"condo project,then they would probably do these as a for sale'also.
Vice-Chair Dinh asked if there will be assigned parking for the residential units or will it be a first come option.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied that question can be deferred to the applicant.
Commissioner Tang asked how parking will be separated from residential use verses commercial use.
Associate Planner Trinh replied for the residential use they will enter from Brighton Street and for commercial
use they will enter through Del Mar Avenue. She added that there is a clear separation code that requires that.
Commissioner Tang asked how many one (1) bedrooms apartments and how many up to three (3) bedroom
apartments there will be.
Associate Planner Trinh replied there are forty-two(42) one (1) bedroom apartments and eighteen(18)two bedroom
apartments.
Commissioner Tang asked if there was ever a consideration for this project to be considered as for-sale
condominiums verses rental apartments.
Associate Planner Trinh replied that question can be deferred to the applicant.
7
Commissioner Tang expressed he has two big concerns one regarding the land of site and the other being the traffic
congestion along Del Mar Avenue. He asked based on the initial study do they think Del Mar Avenue has the
capacity to sustain this type of development with such a large footprint.
Chair Eng addressed Commissioner Tang and suggested the Planning Commission listen to the Traffic Consultants
presentation and continue with questions afterwards.
Commissioner Tang asked staff if development impact fees have been incorporated into this project.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied the City has not adopted development impact fees.
City Attorney Murphy addressed the Chair and stated in terms of the potential of this turning into condominiums is a
good question for the developer. He added according to SB 1818, which is the affordable housing law, and is what
the applicant has brought to the City as,there are different rules for different levels of affordability, and their proposal
has been to provide these as low-income units.He stated in the County of Los Angeles, it is very difficult to have low-
income unit's for-sale, and moderate income units could be used for-sale, but there are some restrictions on what
they can or can't do. He added it really goes less to the land use aspects of the project and more to the overall
business plan of the project.
Commissioner Tang asked if this project is converted into condominiums instead of low-income apartments, how
would that law apply to this project and would it still grant them the sixteen (16)units.
City Attorney Murphy replied he does not know that answer, because he has not studied this project in terms of how
the applicant is working out the square footage and density. He added he knows they are not asking for the same
kind of bonus and staff would be better able to answer that question.
Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commission had any more questions for staff.
None
Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and requested the applicant to the podium.
Planning Consultant, Michael Hastings, from Direct Point Advisors stated their company does entitlements
throughout California. He introduced Simon Lee,Architect of this project, and added Mr. Lee will walk the Planning
Commission through the design of the project and answer questions they may have after the presentation.
Chair Eng thanked Simon Lee and the applicant for taking the time, effort, and investment for bringing this project to
the City of Rosemead and added this project was first submitted in"2012".
Architect Simon Lee stated the applicant is confident in the investment of twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) million
dollars to develop this project. He added it has been a long process but they understand different agencies have
different requirements. He explained that the project has been deferred for various reasons and explained that one
was that the traffic count could not be conducted during the summer break so they had to wait for three (3) months.
He explained that this is an ideal location for a residential and commercial mixed-use project, it is in close proximity to
the 1-10 Freeway,a short distance away from downtown Los Angeles, and it will benefit the community. He briefly
explained the outlay of the project stating the commercial aspect will be facing Garvey Avenue,the residential access
will be from Brighton Avenue, basements, setbacks, restaurant parking, parking ratios, landscaping, new trees, new
bus stop, new sidewalks,and referred to the diagrams.
8
Commissioner Tang asked Mr. Lee if there was any type of community outreach conducted to the residents of
Brighton Avenue.
Architect Lee replied no.
Commissioner Tang asked if they had thought it was important enough,given the scale of this project.
Architect Lee and Consultant Hastings replied that they had hoped tonight's meeting would give them the opportunity
to communicate with the resident's concerns.
Commissioner Tang asked why there are sixty(60)units.
Consultant Hastings replied it is below the threshold of sixty-eight(68).
Architect Lee explained that the City's Municipal Code for mixed-use density requires 40-60 units per acre and this
property is 1.44 acre's. He explained the calculation and that it added up to that they are allowed 40-68
units. He stated they would like to provide 20% low income affordable housing, and then they would have a 35%
increase,which allows it to be 60 to 91 units. He stated they proposed the minimum amount of 60 units.
Community Development Director Ramirez referred to the applicant requesting SB 1818, and explained that he only
requested the concessions,and not the increase in units,which he could have done,
Commissioner Tang asked the applicant if there was a consideration to develop this with condominiums for
home ownership verses apartments.
Consultant Hastings replied it was submitted as residential units because that is what the applicant had originally
anticipated for the site. He added it is not something that would be discounted, if the Planning Commission stated
condominium use is preferable. He stated this project has been delayed and they would like to move forward, but
condominiums is something they would consider, and they would have to check the SB 1818 guidelines to confirm it
may be done.
Community Development Director Ramirez explained that if that is something the applicant is willing to do, the
Planning Commission can make a recommendation to the City Council to include that into their approval.
City Attorney Murphy explained that under the City's Municipal Code multi-family is multi-family whether it is for rent
or for sale. He stated because of that, if it is the Planning Commission's desire to have the applicant look into having
this be condominiums, then that is something the applicant would voluntarily undertake. He added the Planning
Commission can make this part of their recommendation to the City Council, so at the end of the meeting you can
move to make some kind of recommendation, and if that is to be approval, then it may be with some contingencies
related to the conditions of approval. It stated in this case it can recommended that the applicant work with staff to
determine the feasibility of having this project be a for-sale condominium project instead of a rental project. He
added in the time period of this hearing and the City Council hearing on the matter, the applicant and staff can work
on that and present that proposal to the City Council in light of the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Commissioner Tang referred to parking and stated that he knows the applicant has met the adequate commercial
parking requirements, but he is concerned with parking and the circulation of parking, especially with only one entry
point on Del Mar Avenue. He stated it may cause a lot of congestion inside and outside of the project area and
asked the applicant to elaborate some more on this.
Consultant Hastings stated there is commercial ingress and egress in both sides. He stated the residential is the one
that has ingress and egress, which is on Brighton Avenue. He stated inside the commercial area there is a lot of
9
circulation area and they look at the Q-lines and everything that might cause congestion going in or coming out of the
project when it comes to ramping or site lines. He added this was heavily reviewed because that is the last thing they
would want is to have residents or patrons being unable to enter or exit the project. He stated the ingress and egress
for residential is not off of Garvey Avenue or Del Mar Avenue, so they do not see that as a congested street.
Commissioner Tang referred to the Atlantic Square in Monterey Park and stated that project had bad planning in
terms of their inside parking structure and circulation.
Architect Lee explained that the project building will be facing Garvey Avenue and that there are two commercial
entrances, one being on Del Mar Avenue, and the second one will be on Brighton Street. He added there are two
levels of commercial parking with a connecting ramp and circulation has been considered.
Vice-Chair Dinh referred to"May Produce", which is another business in close proximity of this project, and asked if
there was any consideration, that when deliveries are made by delivery trucks to their site, it blocks traffic
northbound and southbound on Del Mar Avenue. She asked if this traffic will affect the construction of this project,
the residents, and access to the freeway.
Consultant Hastings stated he went through the traffic study that was provided to the Planning Commission and
when he looked at the level of services that were going to change or stay the same, it seemed that the concern Vice-
Chair Dinh had, did not state specifically look at this. He stated the levels of service at the AM peak hours and
the PM peak hours do not really change that substantially to make a specific impact according to the traffic study. He
stated "Level D" is acceptable throughout the City of Rosemead and there is only one intersection that is a"Level D"
the rest was "A's, B's", and he believes there was one "C"and nothing dropped below the acceptable threshold. He
referred to the City requiring a Construction Management Plan and stated they will comply with the hours of
operation,when the trucks come and go, where they will be parking, and how they will be staged. He stated those
are things that will be managed by staff with the developer.
Architect Lee stated the concept of a mix-use development is to reduce traffic and explained having commercial uses
on the ground floor will make it convenient for residents on the upper levels.
Consultant Hastings added that for a mixed-use project you figure there will be some reduction in traffic because the
residents will be using the commercial businesses on the first floor. He explained that in the traffic study, it is not
considered as a reduction in traffic and in reviewing this project, it was not given. He stated the City was given the
worst case scenario, in which no one shops on the ground level. He stated this traffic study is very stringent,
whereas most cities would take into consideration that it would reduce traffic because it is a mixed-use. He stated
there is the marriage of the residents using the commercial and in some instances the commercial owners may live in
the residential up above and it does reduce traffic, but it is not considered in your traffic study.
Vice-Chair Dinh expressed her concern is with the amount of restaurants being projected for this project. She
explained that entices people from other communities to patronize the new businesses, which are good for the City,
but it may create more traffic.
Consultant Hasting stated the mix of retail within that project is one of the concerns that can be discussed. He added
when it comes to restaurant uses and what type of restaurant uses, they are also there to answer questions and to
keep this project going to move on to the next step.
Commissioner Tang commented it is like the saying "when you build it, they will come". He added especially here in
San Gabriel Valley, any new development of this size,and where there will be an option of retail and restaurants,that
area will be jammed packed. He stated that is why the Planning Commission has a lot of concerns, not only with
parking, but with traffic and driving patterns of this community.
10
Consultant Hastings stated that is why in Southern California they are learning how mix-use will blend in with
lifestyles of the entire Southern Region like the bike/walk live concept. He stated in their project there are a lot of
bicycle racks, bike storage, and bike access is important to the project. He added when they build the new bus
shelter it will be built to make it more appealing for people to take public transit. He slated there are certain things
that can be conditioned like making notices to the residential units about taking public transportation. He added they
are more than willing to do that and that they believe in the walk/bike concept,which is why it is heavily structured for
bicycle riders.
Chair Eng thanked the applicant for being open to the concept of condominiums because she would like to promote
families and home ownership. She asked what the target market is as these are only one (1) and two (2) bedrooms
and is not designed for young families with small children and asked what inspired the floor design.
Architect Lee replied the one(1) bedroom would be for the younger generation such as a single occupant,or a young
couple. He stated the two (2) bedrooms would be for a small family with a child. He explained the layout of the
apartments, square footage,and stated rent will be $1,400 per month for the one (1) bedroom and for two (2)
bedrooms it will be$1,900 per month.
Consultant Hastings stated the demographic study in looking at what kind of tenant they are looking for here is a
young professional. He stated that downtown Los Angeles is getting packed with the young professionals and it has
priced itself out of that market. He stated the young professional cannot afford some of the rents in downtown Los
Angeles, so in cities like Rosemead with the freeway so close, and with 8-9 miles to get downtown LA, it is an
attractive place for a young professional to want to live. He stated you would want to bring the young professional
into the City, because they spend money and they would want to stay and raise a family here, because this is a
family oriented community.
Chair Eng asked if the applicant has any other mixed-use developments with apartments or experience managing
apartments.
Architect Lee replied as an architect they have designed many mixed-use developments and they have helped the
owner. He stated the Planning Commission had previously approved a 28-unit, residentiaVcommercial mixed-
use project, located on Garvey Avenue and Willard Avenue and this project is similar to that one.
Consultant Hastings stated that their firm found it to be that the rental with the mixed-use seems to works very well
for the young professional. He added that the young professionals sometimes cannot afford the down payment on
condominiums. He stated their firm has found that their transiency that use to be in a rental facility was much shorter
is now much longer if it is in a mixed-use now because they livelwork. He stated if you have the right mix of retail
down in the mix-use, then they like to go down and get their coffee or bagel. He stated they try to keep the type of
mixed-use to match with the demographics of the City they are working in whether it is rentals or condominiums. He
stated whether it is rentals or condominiums it really does not matter in the management of the mixed-use so long as
the mixed-use and residential somewhat match.
Chair Eng stated the reason she asked that question is because sometimes, based on her own personal
experience,if a rental project is well managed and well run, it will have a better long term upkeep and better return in
terms of maintaining it. She stated if it is condominiums and small investors buy them, but then you run
into absentee land owners. She stated that is an aspect to consider also, and she would prefer to promote home
ownership. She added that when it comes to apartments she would like to understand what type of management
plan is in place. She added that she has seen what successful management of apartments can do and Oakwood is a
company that does a wonderful job at that.
Consultant Hastings stated he has done work with Oakwood in the past, the one in Hollywood Hills, and there is
another firm that they do a lot of work with called Kosamono Development. He added Kosamono Development has
I
owned 25,000 rental units throughout Southern California and they do an excellent job in management. He stated
with the types of resources they have they will make sure this is well managed project, because if it is not managed
well it does not run well, and it is not worth the investment, and everybody loses. He added they want to make sure
this is run correctly.
Chair Eng stated different parcels are being requested and asked if all of the parcels needed to make this project
work have been acquired.
Architect Lee replied yes.
Chair Eng asked how long will the Tentative Tract Map take.
City Engineer Fajardo replied first they will have to submit an application for the vacation of the alley, and then they
will have to submit a verification letter from Edison to the Engineering staff, because there are a lot of power poles at
this location. He added they need to know that all the poles will be deleted from the alley way in order for them to
proceed. He stated the applicant can submit the application for the Tentative Tract Map for approval but they will
need to proceed with the vacation alley application before the final Tentative Tract Map will get approved and if they
do not coordinate with Edison they will not be able to proceed.
Chair Eng asked if there is already committed financing for the project.
Architect Lee replied yes.
Chair Eng commented she likes the garden area and one of the things she appreciates about the project is that there
is private open space and public open space. She asked if the garden area is open from the top.
Consultant Hastings replied that is what they call passive open space and explained that it will not have a swimming
pool, badminton, volley ball, or basketball courts. He stated it is basically passive and is sensitive to the residential
neighborhoods in and around it and is not a party plaza.
Chair Eng commented it is nice and she appreciates the thought that went into it. She referred to young
professionals and stated they like fitness centers and asked if it had been considered for this project.
Architect Lee replied that one of the retail vacancies may be a fitness center.
Chair Eng referred to the solar panels in the roof plan for electricity and asked what will be generated from them.
Architect Lee replied he has enjoyed solar panels in his own home and he encourages solar panels on every project
he designs. He stated that mixed-use projects have several levels and solar panels can supply electricity for the
common area lighting and electricity usage and reduce the HOA and homeowners expense. He added if there are
enough panels they may provide electricity to the basement also. He explained cost and tier levels and stated solar
will reduce cost. He informed the Planning Commission that all of the HVAC units will be on the roof and each unit
will have an air conditioning unit on the roof and they will be screened by a parapet. He stated the HVAC units are
not visible and noise will not be heard because the parapet wall is solid.
Chair Eng asked if the parapet wall is sound reducing.
Architect Lee replied yes.
Chair Eng asked what the functual life of the parapet wall is.
12
Architect Lee replied the parapet wall is solid for safety reasons, going to be five (5') ft. tall, and the HVAC units will
not be seen or heard
Vice-Chair Dinh asked if the HVAC units will be placed as far back to the South towards the back if possible.
Architect Lee replied that can be done.
Consultant Hastings explained before that promise is made, they just finished another large project and that same
question was asked. He added that they found that the noise decibels were higher as it got further away from the
parapet because the sound can rise and drift over. He explained if you stay within the parapet the sound is absorbed
by the wall and usually sends it straight up and if you move it the sound can drift over.
Vice-Chair Dinh asked if the parapet wall can to be moved.
Consultant Hastings replied the parapet goes along the edge of the building on the roof. He added it breaks your
plane instead of having a flat roof and gives you a good texture of the building. He stated it also serves as a disguise
for what is on the roof such as panels and HVAC units.
Architect Lee added that this will be on the roof of the fourth floor and the sound will be going upwards and not
towards the lower levels. He explained the HVAC will be placed on platforms as a softener due to vibration of the
units because they also have to consider the units below the roof.
Consultant Hastings referred to one of the Planning Commissioners question in regards to earthquake safety. He
stated when he read the study it did not look like it was in a liquefaction area. He added when a project is in a
liquefaction area that is where you will have major issues with the building and gave examples of what would have to
be done.
Architect Lee stated the Soil/Geological Report has been reviewed and approved by the Consultant. He added it was
found not to be on a fault line or in the liquefaction zone.
Chair Eng asked what is planned in regards to the ventilation between the commercial units and residential units.
Architect Lee explained that the restaurant kitchen ventilation is a VHS unit located on the roof. He added for the
residential units there are shaft areas and the ventilation is through the roof or the exhaust fan from the kitchen. He
stated the ventilation unit is also on the roof.
Chair Eng asked what Mr. Lee's inspiration was in the design of the commercial area.
Architect Lee replied to the developer/investor restaurants have a better return because they pay more rent. He
stated this type of tenant has a tendency to not move out because they invest more into their business. He stated
they proposed the allowed maximum square footage for the commercial/restaurant businesses and they will be
available to rent as first come first serve. He added tenants change constantly.
Chair Eng stated so the thinking here is that restaurant tenants have the tenancy to be long term. She stated she
agrees that restaurants do have a tenancy to not move because of the investment in equipment and time.
Consultant Hastings stated another thing that seems to be in every other city's study is that you can have more than
one restaurant it's actually a draw like a car dealership, you don't just want to have one, you want a cluster so you
get a different taste of different people.
Chair Eng asked if they are open in having additional floor plans and opening it up to more bedrooms than just two.
13
Architect Lee replied no, and explained that in his opinion the market for two (2) bedroom apartments would work
best with this mixed-use project.
Vice-Chair Dinh expressed concern that there will be an additional sixty (60) apartments and people will be coming
and going all the time. She stated in terms of security does the property owner have any plans in providing any type
of security for the safety of the residents and neighbors.
Architect Lee replied it will be necessary for the tenants to have their key or sensor to enter the gate and designated
parking space. He added they will provide electrical chargers for tenants with electric vehicles that need it and
explained the plug will be in the basement ceiling. He stated when entering the gate it will require digital,key card,or
sensor access. He added that when entering the elevator you will also need to have a key. He stated if security is
needed in the future the property owner will provide a reliable security company.
Commissioner Tang asked if the goal is to target young professionals would you consider adding amenities into the
project like a recreation room or tech rooms. He stated that if you go into a mixed-use project at USC you will see
amazing tech rooms, which makes the students living there enjoy living there.
Consultant Hastings stated he just finished a project that was very high end and high tech and it is very expensive to
bring those types of things into a project. He added they are hoping to bring in and attract those types of retailers
from the private sector to provide those types of amenities.
Commissioner Tang expressed that Rosemead lags behind other cities in regards to projects of this magnitude and
asked if the top fifth floor was eliminated, would the applicant still have a sound project.
Consultant Hastings replied in looking at a project like this and when they looked at the density, they realized the
community is not use to a project of this size and that is why they are not presenting ninety-six(96) units. He stated
when you go into a community you do not want to overburden the community with something like this so out of the
ordinary. He stated with sixty(60) units on that site and if they take a floor off,things will suffer because you will not
get the amenities or quality. He stated if that is what you want for your community, then they can go up and build a
box, take away the parapet and all the niceties and bring it down, but they have already taken down a third of the
density in order to be accommodating to the community. He stated he does not represent projects that will be
upsetting the community and he has been doing this for about fifteen (15)years, he comes from the elected side, so
he knows what it is like to face the community. He stated this has been well thought out so that it can merge into the
community and that is why they are looking into the retail and types of uses that will not just serve this project but the
residents around it too, so they are trying to find the right mix. He added to take a floor off anything is possible but
there would be sacrifices.
Chair Eng thanked Consultant Hastings and Architect Lee for their comments and asked Environmental Consultant
Phil Martin to the podium.
City Environmental Consultant, Phil Martin, from Phil Martin &Associates stated he took notes and he will comment
on questions that were asked of staff. He stated the first item was that some issues were raised about air
conditioners and noise from the roof top. He explained the interaction of the parapet wall, placement of
multiple HVAC units, and how noise will travel. He stated there is a mitigation measure in the MND to provide an
acoustical study to show that the balconies facing Garvey and Del Mar Avenue, which are the higher traffic volume
streets don't exceed a certain noise level. He stated if the noise of the air conditioner units is an concern of the
Planning Commission, then a mitigation measure could be added that prior to the issuance of a building permit that
the applicant provide an acoustical study based on the type of units, the location of the units, based on the
manufacturer and the acoustical noise based on the manufacturer to show what the noise level would be to the
residential units to the north. He stated the newer units are very quiet and the ones close to the parapet the
14
residents to the north should not experience noise levels that exceed the City's criteria. He referred to the other
accumulative project and stated if it is the New Garvey Market Plaza project he does not remember how tall
that building is but he can get the Planning Commission that information. He referred to the Geotechnical Report on
page 37, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration Report, the project site is not on an Alquist-Priolo Zone, which is a
seismic hazard zone that's established by the state and the project is not on a liquefaction zone. He addressed the
question about delivery trucks and stated delivery trucks have designated parking areas within the structure and can
enter on either Del Mar or Brighton Avenue. He added there is a mitigation measure in the document that restricts
the height of the delivery trucks depending on which entrance they use. He stated if they enter on Brighton Street the
height is limited to 8'6"(a small econoline van)and if the enter on Del Mar Avenue they are limited to the height is 10'
maximum height(a UPS van). He stated he has information available showing a description of those types of
vehicles and they do have measures that restricts the size of the trucks entering the property because you do not
want a semi-trailer truck coming into the property. He stated the City Engineer talked about traffic signal phasing and
the readjusting of the timing of signal lights along Del Mar and Garvey Avenue to adjust based on the type of traffic
the project will generate, and that is an on-going process. He stated a question was asked on the level of service
and all of the intersections currently operate at the level of service currently"A, B, or C", and Garvey and Del Mar
Avenue, which is the worst intersection area,operates at Level of Service"D"which is the minimum acceptable level
to the City. He stated the project will not exceed or impact any of those levels of the seven (7) intersections which
they studied beyond their current levels.
Chair Eng asked how they measured that and what did you look at to come to that solution.
Environmental Consultant Martin replied that the Traffic Engineer Consultant can address that question specifically,
but basically it was based on current traffic counts that were taken at those seven (7) intersections. They took hand
counts during the AM & PM peak hours, and through their traffic generation numbers, is how they come up with
those of level of service. He stated for their traffic count they based this on the worst case scenario and the
consultant referred to an internal capture rate.
Commissioner Tang asked if there is a formula that they use to calculate this.
Environmental Consultant Martin replied he would defer that question to the Traffic Engineer Consultant, but yes
there is.
Traffic Engineer, Keith Rutherford from VA Consulting, stated the method they use to estimate the traffic is the ITT
Institute of Traffic Transportation and explained in detail how the formula is calculated, the techniques, and methods
that are used.
Chair Eng stated she observed traffic on the corner of Brighton and Garvey Avenue on a Sunday evening for
about twenty (20) minutes. She quoted the amounts of right and left turns made onto Garvey and Brighton Street
and asked the Traffic Engineer based on his formula how many trips this would increase by.
Traffic Engineer Rutherford replied they will have additional volumes added to them and he does not believe that the
AM and PM hours she observed on a Sunday were at peak hours. He stated they collect similar volumes and
through movements and they are very important for their analysis. He explained in detail how it would be formulated.
Commissioner Tang asked if the left-turn restrictions onto Del Mar Avenue would be indefinitely and commented that
traffic in the first years of this project may increase, but in long term it may decrease.
City Traffic Engineer Itagaki replied that is something that can be looked at in the future and if it's found that there is a
change in the uses,fewer tenants, or if it found that there is not an issue with a left turn. She stated she would
consider that unless there is an unusual change in the development or traffic conditions,that if a no-left turn is
implemented it would stay a no-left turn.
15
Chair Eng stated there is four(4)Speaker's Request submitted and asked Joseph Babakitis to the podium.
Resident Joseph Babakitis stated he is the property owner of 3018 and 3026 Del Mar Avenue, and
expressed concern that certain items were not addressed such as fire-life safety systems such as alarms,emergency
exits, exhaust ventilation fans in the parking structure and how will that make noise, where will it that be deferred to,
and where will that be located. He stated he is a Chief Engineer for a high-rise and he works for the Pacific Designs
Center in the adjacent building for last thirteen (13) years. He stated he just built a 4' block wall touching this
property, in which he removed a tree and its roots, and expressed concem because now a row of trees will be
planted next to his block wall and will probably damage his wall and block his view. He stated he has lived at this
property since 1945 and getting in and out of that drive-way is a nightmare and explained why. He stated he opposes
apartments because there will not be any ownership and expressed young professionals may afford to buy instead of
rent, rentals have a high turnover especially with one bedroom and if it is Section 8. He asked if this is considered
low-income rentals.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, and explained this is affordable housing under State
guidelines. She gave an example and stated the rent that could be charged for a one bedroom low-income would be
a maximum of seven hundred and seventy-seven($777)a month.
Resident Babakitis commented that the rent was quoted at fourteen hundred($1,400)a month.
Community Development Director Ramirez explained that the applicant quoted the rent for the apartments that
are non-affordable.
Resident Babakitis commented that a not too many people will want to rent a one-bedroom, he used to own a bar
that is now called "Spikes', that the area was damaged in the Whittier earthquake, this development will block his
view, blue light station, and expressed other various concerns he has with this development.
Property owner/Resident Ancira Hijar stated she owns two properties on Brighton Street and she is not opposed to
mix-use developments but feels this is a poorly place project. Her concerns are current limited day parking due to a
medical clinic business,with large trucks blocking traffic while make their turns due to their length and width. She
added delivery trucks such as Ashley Fumiture have difficulty exiting the cul-de-sac on Brighton Street after they
make their deliveries, emergency vehicles also have difficulties entering and exiting and she has had been stuck
behind these vehicles numerous times. She stated currently they have the use of the alley and expressed concern
on what the situation will be without the alley. She has concerns with the smell, trash, and possibly rodents in
regards to restaurant uses. She expressed concern regarding the construction and where the equipment will
be parked. She stated sixty(60) units will not only impact Garvey Avenue but will impact the entire City and there are
four (4) main boulevards Del Mar Avenue, Valley Boulevard, Garvey Avenue, and San Gabriel Boulevard.She
suggested the Auto Auction site as an alternate site, and commented she is not opposed to tax revenue, she is
opposed to ill-placement. She expressed that only property owners were notified of this meeting and not all residents
of Brighton Street received the notice. She stated that the current renters should be considered along with the
perspective residents of this project. She stated she is concerned for the safety of this neighborhood and levels of
traffic.
Resident Gerardo Hijar stated that there is an apartment/duplex complex at the end of the street and they bring their
dumpster to the curb for trash pickup. He slated his concems are traffic being held up by disposal companies
entering and exiting,traffic, buses blocking traffic, emergency vehicles blocking traffic. He stated this project is great
but for not this location.
Resident Brian Lewin, referenced to the suggestion of a gym use in this complex and stated it is a good idea as an
amenity. He stated he supports the concept of condominiums instead of apartments. He recommended that
16
consideration be taken in regards to large delivery truck such as "Sysco Trucks' deliveries arriving unannounced
and commented you can prevent them from coming into the building, but you cannot prevent them from arriving and
may interrupt circulation on Brighton Avenue. He stated that traffic backs up on Del Mar Avenue, signs will be
disregarded, and left-turns will be made regardless. He requested that a pork chop be installed on the Del Mar
Avenue exit, which will only allow right-tum exits. He expressed concem of the grease interceptor status for 10,000
sq. ft, of restaurant and if all the restaurants will be hooked up in advance to that grease interceptor. He asked that it
be considered segregating the discharge from the residential sanitary and the grease interceptor. He also requested
that there is not being a sum pump system for the residential because it is a bad idea and there is no such thing
as flushable wipes. He stated that he hopes the 20 degree angle has been addressed because it was developed for
privacy,so people cannot see into other people's backyards from a higher level.
Resident Amy Quaene stated she supports this project,it will make the City beautiful,and make the City better.
Resident Giang La stated the cross street from where he resides is Garvey Avenue and in the evening Garvey
Avenue looks very dark and quiet. He stated that he hopes this new project will bring in new businesses, more
lighting, and restaurants so that he will not have to travel to neighboring cities to dine out or shop.
Chair Eng asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item.
None
Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions.
None
Chair Eng invited the applicant to the podium to address some of the concerns that have been raised.
Consultant Hastings stated he has a list of items to address. In regards to the exhaust fans for the garage they will
be up on the roof and will not be pointing towards the residential areas; the concern with trees being planted against
the property owners wall, can be addressed through staff, and explained there are tree wells that will prevent roots
from growing up on their walls. He stated they will work with staff to make sure tree heights will be kept at a height
so signage for businesses is visible, and they are willing to work with staff in regards to condominiums instead of
apartments. He stated in regards to grease traps they need to follow the Los Angeles County and Health
Department codes and the number of restaurants may be less than as listed, because they submitted the amount
they would like. He stated fire codes will be met and explained they will not be allowed to do anything unless they
are met. He addressed the trash and rodent concern and stated that well be very well controlled because if you have
rodents you will not have restaurants. He referred to the construction management plan and stated that will have to
comply with what the City requires when it comes to hours of operation, parking of trucks and deliveries. He referred
to peak hours and that they may not be the peak hours because of residential and he explained what peak hours
(also called commute hours) mean and how they are calculated. He referred to the 0-Line and back up and
someone mentioned about them stacking up and stated they make sure the ramps are deep enough so if there is
a Que it is not something that will be bleeding into the street. He addressed the comment about"Sysco Trucks" and
the restrictions of the height of trucks and stated once oversized trucks park on a City street and have been cited and
depending on the Cities fines and constrictions, you will find they will not continue to do it. He recommended
residents call the City and Code Enforcement to report incidents to help deter this concern. He stated change is not
easy and they would like to make it as easy as possible and if it is in the direction of the Planning Commission to
have condominiums instead of apartments they will address that. He added anything else the Planning Commission
may bring forward as a condition they will consider it because they want to work with the neighborhood. be a part of
the community, and bring the types of uses as part of this.
Chair Eng referred to truck height restrictions and asked what other restrictions can be enforced.
17
Consultant Hastings replied there can be length restrictions, weight restrictions, and gave an example of what other
cities do if a business license is required.
Chair Eng referred to waste disposal pick-ups and asked if the only access is on Del Mar Avenue.
Architect Lee replied there are two(2)locations Del Mar Avenue and Brighton Avenue.
Chair Eng confirmed they were for waste disposal pick-up.
Architect Lee replied yes and on the apartment levels there are two (2) elevators with trash chutes next to one that
goes to the lower level.
Chair Eng commented that for practical purposes a chute at the end of each elevator is needed.
Architect Lee stated commercial waste is picked-up separately.
Chair Eng sked if commercial waste is picked-upon Del Mar Avenue also.
Architect Lee replied yes.
Chair Eng asked how feasible is it to restrict the entrance on Brighton Street to just the residential.
Consultant Hastings requested clarification.
Chair Eng asked if both entrances are accessible for commercial uses.
Consultant Hastings replied commercial enters from both entrances and residential enters only from Brighton
Avenue.
Chair Eng asked if it was feasible to restrict commercial entrances on just Del Mar Avenue.
Architect Lee replied no and explained that Brighton Street is a cul-de-sac with no through traffic.
Consultant Hastings explained that they were trying to get as much of the traffic entering and exiting for the
commercial to be broken up instead of it being all on Del Mar Avenue. He added so this way there will be two (2)
exits for entering and exiting.
Architect Lee stated that they have agreed to limit the entering and exiting traffic on Del Mar Avenue for the
commercial and he stated a physical obstruction(pork chop)can also be installed.
Chair Eng stated it is a good idea to do this now instead of later due to current issues and cost.
Consultant Hastings stated they are willing to do this.
Chair Eng asked how long it will take to make this a condominium project if necessary.
Consultant Hastings replied it will take some time to research what SB 1818 requires and also working with staff on
what the changes might be in regards to the Tentative Tract Map.
18
Community Development Director Ramirez stated if this project gets approved this evening and recommended to go
to City Council, it will probably be presented at the second meeting in January 2015 and will give staff enough time to
work with the applicant.
Architect Lee stated they do not object to modifying the condition of approval's regarding right turn only,entering, and
exiting the site.
Chair Eng confirmed that concrete is being considered currently.
Vice-Chair Dinh explained that is working with the City and Traffic to install physical barriers not just signs stating "No
Left Turn'.
Consultant Hastings stated the term is referred to as"Pork Chop" and explained it is a physical barrier that will not
allow left-turns.
Chair Eng asked if the traffic study includes buses.
Consultant Hastings replied yes.
Traffic Consultant Rutherford explained that bus traffic is looked at in terms of frequency of service, the footprint of
the bus it's about a two-passenger car equivalent, and they are added in as extra passenger cars.
Chair Eng stated as part of this project a new bus stop is being proposed at the northeast corner of Garvey and Del
Mar Avenue.
Consultant Hastings explained there is a bus stop there currently and they are going to build a shelter.
Traffic Engineer Rutherford clarified his peak hour analogy of surrounding traffic.
Vice-Chair Dinh asked staff if they had any history of the purpose of why the alley was placed in that location.
City Engineer Fajardo replied he does not have that information.
Commissioner Herrera referred to truck deliveries at the produce store on Del Mar Avenue and asked if it is
allowed by the City to have delivery trucks block traffic.
Traffic Consultant Itagaki stated she does not know the specifics of the site, but if they are stopping in the middle of
the street unloading or loading that would be against the Municipal or Vehicle Code and recommended that the
Sheriffs or Code Enforcement be contacted.
Commissioner Herrera asked if any reports have been submitted in regards to trucks blocking traffic, traffic
congestion, or incidents.
Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, nothing that they are aware of.
City Engineer Fajardo replied that the Engineering Department has not received any complaints or request for Code
Enforcement to be sent out.
Vice-Chair Dinh stated that she has seen delivery trucks stop and they momentarily stop traffic for a few minutes to
do their deliveries, but it takes them some time to maneuver the trucks while entering or exiting the street.
19
Commissioner Herrera asked if the difficulty of entering and exiting the street may be because the street or
approach is not wide enough.
City Engineer Fajardo stated that it is probably because of the size of the truck.
Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions for staff
or comments.
Commissioner Tang stated he had reservations about this project at the beginning due to the issues of housing, the
over-development, the impact it would be to the local residents and to traffic and parking concerns. He added he is
not entirely satisfied but he is happy that the developer is open to the idea of condominiums as well as providing
those amenities to attract the type of buyers for this project. He stated because of that this project has potential and
he supports it.
Vice-Chair Dinh stated the intensity of this project concerned her, but sometimes it just takes one project to come into
the City and there is a need for development on Garvey Avenue. She added that change is hard for the community
but she appreciates that the developer is going to be accommodating to the residents. She stated that there were a
lot of detailed studies that went into this project such as the traffic study, the environmental study, and this project
has taken a long time. She expressed concern for the resident's testimonials but as a City it does need to develop,
catch up with the development of neighboring communities,and meet the best interest of the whole community.
Commissioner Lopez stated this is a nice project and he has been in this community for a long time. He added
that his concems have always been with impacts to the community while trying to grow to fast. He stated he agrees
with the community and Brighton Street is a small street and it will impact the residents. He stated he opposes this
project and will vote no because of impacts it will do to the community.
Commissioner Herrera stated she is conflicted because she feels for the residents but some of the issues are
currently present. She stated this is a nice project and the City does need the revitalization. She added something
does need to be done about the traffic and circulation because it is already congested on Garvey Avenue. She
stated she wants what is right for the City and is worried about the congestion and traffic.
Chair Eng stated she was also taken by the intensity of this project and it will impact the residents on Brighton Street
because it is a cul-de-sac. She stated this is a nice project and projects like this do work. She added that circulation
of traffic needs to be addressed and whether the project is built or not, the traffic concern will exist because it is a
regional issue. She stated there is a need for housing and she is glad that the applicant is open to the idea of
condominiums because it will help with the goal of ownerships. She referred to City Attorney Murphy and asked for a
recommendation in regards to the conditions of approval and the mitigation of terms of traffic on Del Mar Avenue.
City Attorney Murphy stated if the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council is denial, then any
Planning Commissioner can motion to have that to be the recommendation. He stated otherwise, one way for the
Planning Commission to act, is to recommend approval but with certain changes to the conditions of approval as
reflected in the record of tonight's action and certain additional studies as reflected in the record. He stated those will
include; 1) the study of the ability or feasibility of turning this into condominium project instead of an apartment
project, 2) the study of the HVAC system on the roof and the best place to place those to minimize noise, 3) a new
condition of approval regarding access from Del Mar Avenue and limiting that access with barriers in addition to
further study of the access, 4) a new condition of approval limiting the length and width of trucks or delivery vehicles
on site, and 5)a further review of the environmental study of the project to make sure no other conditions of approval
are necessary whether to effectuate the mitigation and the mitigation monitoring plan, or to solve any issues that
were raised this evening. He stated those are the five(5)main issues he has heard this evening discussed and if the
Planning Commission has anything else please fill that in, and if there is a motion made to recommend approval,
20
then it would be to recommend approval with those issues resolved, new conditions proposed, and any other
discussions between the applicant and staff undertaken before this gets to the City Council.
Chair Eng asked City Attorney Murphy if her request needs to be a condition of approval and she would like to know
if it is possible for staff to work with the residents on Brighton Street to help mitigate some of their concems.
City Attorney Murphy recommended that a condition of approval not be implemented, but instead make that a
direction from the Planning Commission to staff to work with the residents of Brighton Street before it is taken to City
Council.
Chair Eng stated she would like to do that and addressed resident Mr. Babakilis in the audience in regards to what
the applicant has proposed.
Resident Babakilis responded from the audience but it was not audible.
Chair Eng asked City Attorney Murphy for direction in regards to the wording of the recommendation.
City Attorney Murphy stated the direction would be to work with the residents on Brighton Street and other nearby
places. He stated this applicant has gone through a two year long process that includes a change to the General
Plan and a change to the zoning of their property in order to move this forward. He stated if the Planning Commission
is concemed that there is any preferential treatment to one property owner over another, any property owner can
come forward with a plan but the plan has to be consistent with the zoning code or the applicant can propose
what this applicant has proposed, which is to change the zoning of the property to make it work.
Resident Babakilis responded comments from the audience but they were not audible.
Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission if they were comfortable with the five (5) proposed recommendations to
City Council for this project and with the direction to staff to work with the residents of Brighton Street prior to
bringing it to the City Council.
Commissioner Tang stated in addition to the recommendation for staff to work with the developer on exploring the
opportunities for the condominiums and added amenities for the project.
City Attorney Murphy stated if that is within the discretion of this Planning Commission, then it is a fine direction to
staff.
Associate Planner frinh asked if staff can request an additional condition of approval that a"Construction
Management Plan'be required.
Chair Eng conferred with the Planning Commission and they responded yes,and she asked for a motion.
Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Dinh, to ADOPT Resolution No. 14-10 with
findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Ordinance 942 approving Zone
Change 12.02 and CC Resolution 2015-01 approving Design Review 12-05, General Plan Amendment 12-02,
and Tentative Tract Map 72529 and recommending adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring Program with the additional conditions and additional direction as discussed by
the Planning Commission this evening.
21
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Dinh, Eng,and Tang
No: Lopez
Abstain: Herrera
Absent: None
City Attorney Murphy explained this is when an appeal discussion would be made, but since this is a
recommendation to the City Council, there will not be an appeal. He stated anyone that received notice of this
evening's hearing will receive a separate notice of the City Council meeting and is anticipated to be held in January
of 2015,though with the direction of the Planning Commission this evening it may be later. He advised the audience
to check their mail for that notice.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of December 1,2014
Commissioner Tang made a motion,seconded by Commissioner Herrera,to approve PC Minutes 12-1-14 as
presented.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Dinh, Eng, Lopez,and Tang
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
5. MATTERS FROM STAFF
Community Development Director Ramirez announced that City Hall will be closed from noon beginning December
24, 2014 through January 1,2015. She added City Hall will re-open on Monday,January 5, 2015. She explained that
other City facilities will be open during this time and their operating hours will be available on the Cities website.
6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Lopez wished staff Happy Holidays and complimented their work.
Commissioner Herrera thanked Community Development Director Ramirez and wished everyone a Happy Holiday
and commented that the City Hall Civic Center looks beautiful.
Vice-Chair Dinh announced that she is moving next month and will longer be able to serve on the Planning
Commission. She stated it has been challenging, exciting, and a privilege to be able to serve her
community. She thanked City Council for giving her the opportunity and for their trust in her. She thanked staff and
her fellow colleagues for their patience, understanding, and support along the way. She stated she will still be
around because she has two businesses in the City of Rosemead and this will always be her first
home. She expressed she will miss attending the Planning Commission meetings.
Community Development Director Ramirez stated on behalf of staff she will be missed.
Chair Eng thanked Vice-Chair Dinh and stated it has been a pleasure working and serving with her. She thanked her
for her hard work, her dedication, and wished her the best.
22
Commissioner Tang thanked staff for all their hard work and with all the projects especially this one. He wished staff
Happy Holiday's.
Chair Eng thanked staff for their dedication and hard work and wished everyone a Happy Holiday.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Eng adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday,January 5,2015,at 7:00 p.m.
N .
Nancy Eng •
Chair
ATTEST:
Rachel Lockwood
Commission Secretary
23