Loading...
PC - Item 4B - Minutes of May 18, 2015Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 18, 2015 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Eng at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Lopez INVOCATION - Commissioner Tang ROLL CALL - Commissioners Herrera, Lopez, Tang, and Chair Eng OFFICIALS PRESENT — City Attorney Murphy, Community City Planner Bermejo, Associate Planner Valenzuela, and Cc 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND API City Attorney Murphy explained the procedure and appeal rig 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. MUNICIPAL CODE CITY OF ROSEMEj STRUCTURES, LIT; initiated amendme regulations for no by a dise'r "etlonary entitl improvement by limitin ;used expanded, or rep creating an economic h Code Amendment 15.02 from Chapter 17.04.050 Department of Housing continued this item to t supporting the amendm conforming structures structures. The revised the City Engineer Fajardo, NDMENT 15.02 AMENDING - CHAPTERS 17 +04 AND 17.72 OF TITLE 17 OF THE UNICIPAL ATI CODE RELNG TO REGULATIONS FOR NONCONFORMING USES, ND PARKING FACILITIES - Municipal Code Amendment 15.02 consists of a City revise Title 17 (Zoning) of the Rosemead Municipal Code to modify existing forming uses, structures, lots, and parking facilities. The code amendment ew development regulations for legal nonconforming uses that were approved ement. The purpose of the amendment is to encourage the City's continuing g the extent to which nonconforming structures and uses may continue to be PI while improving the health, safety, and welfare of all residents without ardship for individual property owners or business owners. Lastly, Municipal proposes to I eliminate the Zoning term and definition of "bachelor apartment" as it is outdated and the definition is no longer accepted by the California and Community Development. On April 6, 2015, the Planning Commission he May 18, 2015 Commission meeting and asked staff to bring back a resolution ent with the omission of proposed standards which would allow the addition of on R -1 and R -2 lots that are developed with legal nonconforming residential MCA 15.02 has been included in this report as Exhibit "A." PC RESOLUTION 15.04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTERS 17.04 AND 17.72 OF TITLE 17 OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR NONCONFORMING USES, STRUCTURES, LOTS, AND PARKING FACILITIES Staff Recommendation - Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 15.04 with findings (Exhibit "C "), a resolution recommending that the City Council APPROVE the Negative Declaration and ADOPT Ordinance No. 935 (Exhibit "D "), amending Title 17 "Zoning" of the Rosemead Municipal Code. City Planner Bermejo presented the staff report. City Attorney Murphy addressed the Planning Commission and explained the procedural aspects of this item. Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Tang stated based on the revised Municipal Code Am properties able to do now and what are they able to do under the revised City Planner Bermejo gave examples of what the current code al possible, and the revisions in respect to parking. Commissioner Tang asked City Planner Bermejo when she states that that was eliminated, which Minor Exception was that City Planner Bermejo stated what she just reviewed with the Planning C draft. She reiterated the provision that was presented at the Planning' which would have allowed for additional structures without reau d corrected. She stated there were stand maintenance, the elimination of any type of the main difference. Commissioner Tang asked are the legal nonconforming Exception process is the draft Minor Exception from the last draft ds that ;allowed the beat gilding and safety issues the today contains this provisior City Planner Bermejo "bachelor apartment ", been re e of the fission was the current code and not the emission meeting held on April 6, 2015, the existing structures on site to be -ation of the existing structures, the lade the structure not safe, and that was but it maintained the elimination of the definition for Exception process still apply. City Commissioner Herrera asked if the Planning -; accept this item with our changes or this it. is going to make a recommendation to City Council to Chair Eng replied that this is a recommendation to City Council with the changes. She requested clarification's on some of the language that is being proposed. She stated the first one is under "17.72.020 Establishment of legal nonconforming status, Item A' and referred to "the change of ownership" and asked if something has been established as legal nonconforming, if there is a change in ownership, it does not change the status. City Planner Bermejo replied that is correct. Chair Eng referred to Item's B and C and read B. She expressed that section is concerning to her because there are a number of properties that may be non - permitted and this may provide a hardship for property owners if they have to abate immediately. City Planner Bermejo explained that currently anything that does not have a permit is considered illegal and the intent of this section is to just put property owners on notice. She added if it is found that something is unpermitted staff and the Building Division continues to work with the property owner to see if it can be permitted through the current code. City Planner Bermejo stated it could also pertain to a use that is unpermitted that is a detriment to the City, the residents, and the community. Chair Eng stated she would like to make sure the City gives property owners the opportunity to correct safety issues and encourage property maintenance. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that the Planning Division and Building Division works with the property owner and sets time frames that are achievable. Chair Eng referred to "17.72.030 Legal nonconforming uses, Item A' and asked if there is an existing nonconforming structure and they want to build additional improvements, they have the ability to do that a5 long as it is brought up to current standards. City Attorney Murphy explained that 17.72.030 deals with uses and 17.72.040 deals with structures. He added 17.72.030 would be seen more for non - residential properties arid, it would be a use that used to be allowed for a particular zone and no longer is. He explained that legal nonconforming use would mean that as long as the use is maintained on that site you can't construct a new building or start a new use. He stated 17.72.040 is the one that deals with actual structures and recommended the Planning Commission move to that to answer their questions. Chair Eng stated she has the same concern for add on, and if they have a lot that permits that, ti to code under this new code. want to make improvements, would have to be brought up City Planner Bermejo replied yes, for separate buildings. She explained for structures they still have the Minor Exception process for an enlargement of an existing building. Chair Eng asked if that would only apply to anything up to 120 square feet. City Planner Bermejo replied that would apply to an existing legal nonconforming building that is only for building, it doesn't mean a setback or a development standard, they could do an enlargement to that building through the Minor Community Development Director Ramirez stated they could also do a second dwelling unit also known as a "granny flat ". Chair Eng referred to ", 17,72fl_40 61. Enlargement" and asked if a structure is extended or enlarged on the interior, how will that not impact floor area. City Planner Bermejo explained that when floor area is referenced here this would not apply to a building that is nonconforming because it exceeds the maximum floor area ratio. Chair Eng referred to "17.72.080 D." read it and asked what it means. City Planner Bermejo explained that if they are in violation of their conditional use permit, this lets them know they are subject to either the City modifying their conditional use permit or revoking it. City Attorney Murphy clarified that the Section Number should be "Section 17.72.800 A -C" and from legal perspective what this says is if you are a legal nonconforming use and you are approved by some kind of discretionary permit issue by a body like this, rather than a building or business permit, and if you are violating your permit, then prior to having any right to expand or change your structure, the City is going to make you come back and get back into compliance as part of that process. Chair Eng asked since this is an ordinance this is only applicable to R -1 and R -2. City Planner Bermejo replied this ordinance is City -Wide. Chair Eng referred to the City's Wireless Telecommunications Facility Ordinance and stated the City of Los Angeles recently updated their Wireless Ordinance for any new facilities to comply with earthquake safety. She asked staff if the City could add the same thing to the City of Rosemead's Wireless Facility Ordinance for new facilities. City Attorney Murphy replied this is not something that can be dor be given direction to research that and have the Community Develo did at a future Planning Commission meeting. Chair Eng stated she would like to requeststaff dire something worth pursuing. She asked if there were any None Chair Eng asked for a motion Commissioner Tang made a Commission ADOPT Resolutic APPROVE the Negative Decla Rosemead Municipal Code. Vote resulted in: Yes: No: Abstain: Absent: Community Developr appeal process atthi: through this ordinance. He recommended staff ment Director give a report on what Los Angeles how much work would be involved and if it is ions or comments for staff. rsioner _Lopez, to approve that the Planning solution recommending that the City Council No. 935, amending Title 17 "Zoning" of the this item will be presented to the City Council and that there will not be an DESIGN REVIEW 1403 Garvey Garden Plaza, LLC has submitted a Design Review application requesting to develop a new residentiallcommercial mixed use development totaling 11,860 of retailloffice space on the first floor and 46 apartments on the second through fourth floors. Parking is proposed as a combination of surface and one level of subterranean basement parking. Access to the proposed project will be provided by two driveways from Delta Avenue that extends along the west project boundary. The project 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 southeast corner of Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue in the C -3 MUDO -D (Medium Commercial with a Mixed Use and Design Overlay) zone. PC RESOLUTION 15.07 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 14.03 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENTIALICOMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT TOTALING 11,860 SQUARE FEET OF RETAILIOFFICE SPACE AND 46 APARTMENTS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8408 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. 15.07 with findings (Exhibit "A "), which is a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2015.29 (attached as Exhibit "B ") approving Design Review 14 -03 and recommending adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit "H "). Associate Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report and clarified building is four (4) stories at 45 feet not 49 feet. The second is t recorded, so staff would like to eliminate Condition of Approval num_be Chair Eng stated she has three items she would like to share witl that the applicants consultant Mr. Mike Lewis reached out to her at at Starbucks. At that meeting she informed him that she ha( prepared to share specific thoughts about the project. Mr. Lew plans for the project at that meeting. The second item is tl Margaret Clark and a community member who has seismic c liquefaction zone. Her third item is that she is acquainted with Mr. did inform her about the project. In those conversations she di application and that she Wanted to wait until she , .reviewed the s added she has not discussed the details of this project with staff asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or con Commissioner Tang asked if a map could Associate Planner Valenzuela _stated sYi there is an Assessor's map showing the :s Commissioner Tang asked what the curre Associate Planner Valenzuela replied the, first is that the height of the is not being proposed or he Planning Commission and staff. The first is it the project and that they had met previously not reviewed the staff report -and was not aided her color renderings, site and floor had walked the project site with Mayor about the project site being built in a Duong through community events and he him to work directly with staff on his Ito learn the details of the project. She this Planninq Commission meeting. She to see what the six parcels look like. an aerial of the property but in the staff report, "Exhibit E" uses for the six parcels are. all residential. asked if it would be considered as two (2) commercial and four (4) residential. Associate Planner Valenzuela ,replied yes. Commissioner Tang referred to the parcel that is being split, the used car sales lot, and asked if that is two lots being combined into one. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied the used car sales lot is leasing that lot. Commissioner Tang referred to the 46 residential units being built and asked for a breakdown of how many bedrooms each unit will have. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied there will be 30 two- bedroom units, 15 three - bedrooms, and 1 one - bedroom unit (which is a managers unit). Commissioner Tang asked where the loading and unloading zones for trucks are located. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied the Municipal Code permits trucks to load and unload in a standard parking stall. Commissioner Tang asked what if the truck is too big and does not fit in a standard parking stall. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied there is a Condition of Approval that limits the size of the truck. Commissioner Tang stated that only limits the height of the truck. _ Associate Planner Valenzuela replied it also states the width. Commissioner Tang referred to Condition of Approval number 44 and stated it has a maximum height of 8'6" but does not have a width. He asked where those trucks would go to do deliveries. Chair Eng recommended looking at the site plan and that it may indicate the width of the driveway to enter into the trash enclosures. Associate Planner Valenzuela stated that delivery trucks are generally 19''inlength and will fit in a standard stall. Commissioner Tang stated his question is if the truck exceeds that size where will they go to load or unload. City Engineer Fagardo explained that trucks that enter this site will typically be 19' in length (such as a UPS vehicle) and larger trucks will not be able to enter this site. Commissioner Tang asked_ if a commercial business has a delivery from a larger truck where will they go to unload or unload. He asked if they will just park on Delta or Garvey Avenue, City Engineer Fajardo replied they would park on Garvey Avenue. He stated that is an issue that will be researched further and staff will add another condition of approval if necessary. Commissioner Tang stated that was ; going to be his question if another condition of approval would be necessary. He explained that Delta Avenue is a small street for large trucks to make deliveries or to have access at the floor level of the site. Associate Planner Valenzuela stated the Municipal Code does not allow them to drive on Delta Avenue. Chair Eng asked currently where the loading is and unloading for commercial. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied it is not called out on the plans but on the final plans they will have a standard parking stall as a loading and unloading location. Chair Eng asked as a City is that something that is usually required. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Tang asked if that is located on the floor level parking lot. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied that is on the surface. Commissioner Lopez asked if that is assuming it has to be entering from Garvey Avenue and not through Delta Avenue. He asked if everything that is unloaded is being backed up from Garvey Avenue. Chair Eng stated there is no entrance on Garvey Avenue. Commissioner Lopez asked if large trucks cannot use Delta Avenue where will they enter from. Associate Planner Valenzuela stated they can't park on Delta Avenue but they can enter from there. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the Condition of Approval Chair Eng asked how is waste disposal addressed. Community Development Director Ramirez replied this is only Commissioner Tang referred to the rear abutting residential s way traffic is. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied it is 25' for a two -way dr City Engineer Fajardo referred to Condition of A_ pproval r the minimum width of the driveway. Commissioner Tang stated so they have exceeded that bec< density bonus that's given for the parking spaces for the reside Community Development in parking spaces for resi Commissioner Tang Tang asked Associate Commissioner Tanc and asked what the Response was not audible. delivery of 566" and asked states no trucks are allowed. for a two- it is indicated that 28 feet would be He asked staff to explain the re is a condition under SB 1818 that allows a reduction the applicant. concessions. explained that the parking reduction is not considered a the response was not audible. ie surface area parking on the site plan and there is a lot area of 3,960 square feet Commissioner Tang referred to traffic and stated for post development it has been determined that the traffic flow will be heavily impacted and asked what some of the mitigation measures are for that. Traffic Consultant Itigaki replied that one of the Conditions of Approval refers to traffic signal improvements at Delta Avenue and Garvey Avenue, which would help mitigate traffic impacts, at the location, in the future. Commissioner Tang asked what kind of signal improvements that would entail. City Engineer Fajardo gave a brief summary of proposed improvements. Commissioner Tang asked if the bus stop located right in front of the proposed site on Garvey Avenue will remain or will it be removed. City Engineer Fajardo replied it will stay for now but if it is relocated they will need to request permission from MTA. Commissioner Tang asked how it will be determined that it will have to be relocated and is it based on post development traffic studies. City Engineer Fajardo replied traffic studies, complaints from residents, and sometimes cars cannot turn right. He explained a field analysis is conducted to see what may be done and permission from MTA is necessary. Commissioner Tang referred to the Mitigation Declaration on Traffic and asked how traffic volumes are forecasted and projected. Associate Planner Valenzuela replied that question can be deferred to the Traffic Consultant. Commissioner Tang asked if the City has ever conducted a post developmenttraffic study. Associate Planner Trinh replied no. City Engineer Fajardo recommended that is something to consider for in the future. Commissioner Tang stated he would like to see that because of anticipated new developments coming in on Garvey Avenue and the potential impact on traffic. He referred to the Mitigated Declaration and stated that the area roadways will continue to operate within their design capacity and asked what is their design capacity. City Engineer Fajardo replied that is a question that can be deferred to the consultant. Commissioner Tang referred to page 81 of the Mitigated Declaration at the bottom and pointed out there is a mistake, it should be corrected to state '98 residential spaces" instead of "98 commercial spaces ". Chair Eng asked if the floor plan is all in one building. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Chair Eng referred to the commercial parking spaces with the standard of 1 per 250 and asked if restaurant use is being anticipated Associate Planner Trinh replied the applicant is only proposing retail and office use. She added if the applicant request restaurant use it will require more parking. Chair Eng asked what is the restaurant parking standard. Associate Planner Trinh replied it is 1 per 100. Chair Eng stated it is important that they prepare parking standards for restaurant use in the future. She referred to the soil report that was conducted in "2011" and asked if it is still current today. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes and that staff contacted the State to verify. She added that through the Building Plan Check process the soils report will have to be updated. Chair Eng asked if that will have to be put into the conditions of approval. Associate Planner Trinh replied that there is a Mitigation Measure which requires the submittal of a soils investigation report. Chair Eng stated in the staff report it was mentioned there is a proposed hotel asked if that is in Rosemead and where is it being proposed. Inn and Suites" and Community Development Director Ramirez replied it is only a pre application and staff has not received an actual application for it. She added its location would be on Walnut Grove Avenue and Rush' Street, the triangle lot which is currently owned by Southern California Edison zoned as Open Space (OS). She stated that the County has rejected the first review and that they are not allowing them to cover the wash. She explained that staff not know if it will come back as an actual application at this time. Chair Eng referred to the Mitigation Measures regarding the soils,report and numbers 33, 73, 74, and 79 and asked if those comply with the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act. Community Development Director Ramirez Fault Zone, City Attorney Murphy clarified that while it is technical) is that this particular site because ofahe studies tf liquefiable. He explained so while the_ site would tE liquefaction impacts because of the type of soil on the Chair Eng referred to the MND 3.8 the City of Monterey Park and a: sinkage from the parcels in questi Associate Planner Trinh replied qu Chair Eng referred to the percolate by the consultant, and asked what test. She asked staff in anticipatio this property is not located in the Alquist - Priolo Earthquake in the zone, the way the' Mitigated Negative Declaration reads the MND relies'on, states that the soil on the site is non inicalty. be in the zone it would not have the same type of Quality and stated there is a water plant owned by ;t or does the City have any record of reported the MND should be addressed by the consultant. test that was performed in March, and which will probably need to be addressed as its purpose and if there were any mitigations measures that came out of that if restaurant use will it be required that a clarifier be installed. Community Development Director' Ramirez replied the application that has been submitted does not request a restaurant use and none of that has been taken into consideration. The Planning Commission can confirm with the applicant if they desire to make those changes or not. Chair Eng referred to Conditions of Approval number 11 and asked if appropriate agencies need to be included also or is it a given. Associate Planner Trinh replied it is a given. Chair Eng referred to the Construction Management Plan and Condition of Approval number 29. She asked staff if it is required that the applicant contact neighboring businesses and residents when construction begins. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes, through the Construction Management Plan they will have to notice the residents and come up with a plan. Chair Eng asked what if they need to make accommodations or work with the adjacent businesses to minimize some of the impacts. Associate Planner Trinh asked what type of impacts Chair Eng is referring to. Chair Eng replied parking, deliveries, and if that is what is included as part of the Construction Management Plan. City Engineer Fagardo replied yes, that is part of the Construction Management Ptah. Chair Eng referred to MND Condition of Approval number 33 and stated that will be a question for the consultant. She referred to Condition of Approval number 38 and read the hours of Refuse Collection of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and the hours of loading building materials of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. She expressed concerned because to the south of the site and that it is a residential neighborhood. She also expressed concern in regards to the construction haul route needs to stay off of Fern Street, which is very narrow and there are schools. She asked staff how it can be incorporated and if maybe it can be included in the Construction Management Plan. City Engineer Fajardo replied that prior to getting building permits the applicant will be required to submit a truck route for approval. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 46 and asked because of water conservation is it being limited to just water fixtures. Community Development Director Ramirez replied the Building Division will follow State law in regards to water conservation. Chair Eng read Condition of Approval number 66 and asked staff if the developer is responsible for getting the sewer hooked up. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. Chair Eng read Condition of Approval number 71 and asked who will be paying for that. City Engineer Fajardo replied a federal grant from the State. Chair Eng referred to Conditions of Approval numbers 73 through 75 and asked if the consultant is a licensed Structural Civil Engineer. Associate Planner Trinh replied yes. Chair Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 75 in regards to the soils report and asked if it is found that additional support is needed, who will be responsible for paying the additional mitigation. Community Development Director replied the applicant. Chair Eng asked if there were any further questions for staff. None 10 Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing. Representative Michael Lewis stated he is present on behalf of the applicant and presented a brief overview of the mixed -use project, concessions, density bonus, and showed a rendering of how the project will look when completed. He addressed the liquefaction issue and explained that the make -up of the soil is not conducive to liquefaction. He passed a site plan around to the Planning Commission showing the six lots, with the existing buildings and uses, and stated all of it will be removed for this project. He addressed the commercial loading and unloading and stated there is a condition limiting the truck height. He stated there is a signal light at Garvey and Del Mar and since there is not going to be any restaurants, no one will be coming in forfunch or dinner, and there won't be that type of traffic pattern for this project. Commissioner Tang asked how the traffic study was forecasted. Representative Lewis stated he can answer a previous question that Commissioner' Tang had and shared that the City did require a post traffic analysis for the Wal -Mart project. He added the results were accurate in terms of what actually happened. Chair Eng asked if they envision any restaurant use. Representative Lewis replied there will not be sufficient parking to havd restaurants. Chair Eng stated she does not want to restrict the project to not have it if itis something they would want. She added there was a previous project located at Del Mar Avenue and Garvey Avenue the City put a specific limit in terms of restaurant square footage and asked if this is something the applicant would like to consider. Representative Lewis stated he does not know if there is a way to add more parking for a restaurant and it has been calculated at the retail use-and not restaurant use. Chair Eng asked Mr Lewis if he would be willing to agree to a Condition of Approval for commercial property that there not be any restaurant use. Representative Lewis replied yes, and they do not envision any restaurant use. Chair Eng asked staff if that "will work. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. City Attorney Murphy stated conditions of approval do not need to be written this evening because this item is a recommendation to City, Council and when the Planning Commission makes their final recommendation just include direction for staff to add the-condition. Chair Eng asked the applicant how long he has been working on this project. Simon Lee, AIA replied it has been 7 to 8 years. Chair Eng asked why they are building apartments instead of condominiums. Representative Lewis replied they believe there is a market for new apartments in this community. He stated that is Mr. Duong's business model he has other apartment buildings and knows how to run them successfully. He added it 11 is a nice option for younger families, the young professional, it is an excellent location, and has easy access onto the freeway. Chair Eng asked if a former market research was completed to support the demand for apartments. Representative Lewis replied yes. He added the rental rates are very affordable and 7 of them are set by the State. Chair Eng asked the anticipated rental rates for the two bedrooms and three bedrooms. Representative Lewis replied for the two bedroom units it would would be $1500. Chair Eng asked if the low income units would be set by statue. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Chair Eng asked about the HVAC plan for the project and if the units. Architect Simon Lee replied each residential and commercial Chair Eng stated that the plans anticipate solar panels in the future. Architect Simon Lee replied yes, he encourages the develop Chair Eng asked if that would power the commercial units or Architect Simon Lee replied the proposal is to have the solar Chair Eng asked Mr. Lewis if Mr. experience managing apartments. he Lee stated Mr mixed -use project dov 3 and restaurant uses. into it because it is very rewarding. to receive all the energy. utilize the common area first. other mixed -use projects like this and if they have the street on Valley Boulevard but it does not have has apartments in Monterey Park. Jimmy Duong, son to Mr. Duong stated they have about 100 apartment units, and have developed some townhomes and condominiums. He explained that he lives and manages a complex they built. He added they have a 78 -unit apartment complex in Monterey Park. Chair Eng asked if that of different projects. Jimmy Duong replied they are three different parcels that are adjacent to one another. Chair Eng asked what Mr. Duong's management task consist of. Jimmy Doung replied maintenance for the building, repairs to small concerns, and they also manage commercial buildings. Chair Eng asked if it is a requirement to have an on -site manager. 12 Jimmy Duong replied anything over 20 units is required to have an on -site manager. Chair Eng asked how long they anticipate construction will take. Jimmy Duong replied about 11/2 years. Chair Eng asked if there is committed financing for this project. Jimmy Duong replied they need to get the entitlements before the bank gives them t Business owner Jimmy Wang stated he has had a business in the City of Rosemead for over 33 years and is in favor and supports this project. Business Owner Sherman Rourman stated he own two lots adjacent to the car dealership at 8724 Garvey Avenue. He stated there is modality and impact rate that needs to be addressed and expressed that getting in and out of his business is very dangerous. He requested a green zone in front of his business to remove the traffic and parking concerns. Community Development Director Ramirez stated this requ the City Engineer, being at this meeting, is able to note this. to the Traffic Commission and that Chair Eng stated that in the Construction adjacent businesses. Business owner of 10 years, Walnut Grove. He stated hi generation, and it will beautif City. stated he Resident Tung Duong stated h will bring business opportuntie: Resident George Chen stated company and the majority of hi construction workers more oppj Business owner Sherman Rou 10910 and California Resource Geotechnical Enginee Engineering Investigat concluded that this site will be taken into consideration for being on Delta Avenue and one on affordable housing for the younger has lived in Rosemead for over 20 years and he supports this project. He stated it bring up the economy, and bring job opportunities. has lived in Rosemead for over 10 years. He stated he runs a small construction ;mployees are Hispanic and locals. He is in favor of this project because it will give his water rights be returned to him based on California Water Code instated he has 35 years of experience and he prepared the Geotechnical ling the liquefaction analysis for this site. He stated the liquefaction analysis have liquefaction potential because the soils are very strong. Chair Eng asked what had been done to get that conclusion and if test had been conducted. Geotechnical Engineer Kim replied yes liquefaction analysis testing was done and one major factor that is processed is the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) block count procedures and explained the technical details of the test. Chair Eng referred to the 0.79g peak acceleration vale and asked the Geotechnical Engineer to explain it. Geotechnical Engineer Kim explained using the SPT block count and the earthquake magnitude it is put into a 13 formula for liquefaction analysis. He added soil density is another factor used and that there are three factors used in the liquefaction analysis. Traffic Engineer Keith Rugerford explained the trip forecasting process. Phil Martin from Phil Martin & Associates, Inc. stated he is present to answer questions in regards to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Chair Eng referred to the Hydrology Report and asked what the Percolation Test was for and if it resulted in any type of mitigation. She also asked if the Water Plant adjacent to this project site has any impact on this project. Consultant Phil Martin stated he will let the applicant's Geotechnical Engineer Consultant answer the question about the Percolation Test because they conducted that test. He stated in regards to the Water Treatment Plant next door they have not identified any potential impacts of being next door to this site, Chair Eng asked Geotechnical Engineer Kim what is the Representative Lewis explained how the most recent changes made by the State for controlling storm water requires that you capture the first 3/4 inch of rainfall on your property, treat it and then, you can put it into the storm drain system or you can percolate it into the aquifer. He explained in order to decide what technique to use to capture, filter, and clean the water the question was will it perk if you go into the aquifer or will it not perk, and will we have to put it into the storm drain system. Chair Eng asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak on this item. None Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing. She asked the Planning Commission is there were any more questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Tang requested a condition of approval that requires a Post Traffic Report. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that recommendation can be made known to the City Council. Commissioner Tang stated currently there is a Garvey Avenue Specific Ad -Hoc Committee that is looking into development along Garvey Avenue and asked if this project somehow fits into that overall concept and plan. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes and explained that is why this side of Garvey was not included in the Specific Plan because there was already a lot of development taking place and projects were coming in on their own. Chair Eng stated she likes this project, it is well thought out, the apartment sizes are comfortable, and young families need places to stay. She stated she is partial to single - family homes for home ownership but not everyone has the resources to own their home. She added this is a nice place for a young family to start out with amenities inside the unit, there is privacy with an outdoor patio, and it is very attractive for young professionals. She likes that this project is in a designated mixed -use node. Commissioner Tang stated he echo's Chair Eng's comments and he is partial to home ownership also. He added it builds communities but understands there is a great need for affordable housing. He stated there is a lot of work to do on Garvey Avenue and he is excited to see projects like this to bring livelihood to the community that has been long overdue. He realizes the applicant has been working on this project for 7 to 8 years and he hopes this project 14 will spruce up the local area as well as encourage the surrounding area to develop in the same way. He supports this project and would like to make a motion with the recommendations to City Council that have been discussed. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to approve that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 15.07 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2015.29 approving Design Review 14.03 and recommending adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion Council with the recommendations for final approval. approved and to the City 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 4.6 -15 Commissioner Lopez made a motion, Commission Minutes of 4 -16 -15 as prese Herrera, to approve the Planning Vote resulted in: Yes: Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and No: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. lent Director Ramirez stated the date, time, and location of the Community Area Watch Day Celebration, and Public Safety Connection meeting and invited all to attend. 6. MATTERS FROM THE Commissioner Tang asked the completion date of street sign replacements within the City. Community Development Director replied she will find out the requested information and send the Planning Commission an update. Chair Eng asked if at staff level if there has been preparation or discussion on the possibility of all the mixed -use projects on Garvey Avenue that have been approved, in regards to the timing of construction and the impact it will have in regards to traffic. She expressed if all four projects begin at the same time traffic will be congested. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that they are all proceeding at different rates and it is possible that they could eventually overlap. She stated the first mixed -use project that was approved by the Commission still has not submitted their plans to Building and Safety Division, while the second project has recently submitted to Building 15 and Safety Division. She explained they are all on different time frames and that is why the Construction Management Plan is in place. which the Building.and Safety Division will look at. Chair Eng recommended and encouraged staff to look into this concern. She also requested a report be brought back to the Planning Commission regarding cell sites. Community Development Director Ramirez stated it will be brought back to the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Tang asked in regards to the four mixed -use projects when they were adopted with City Council does staff know if they were modified from the original recommendation that the Planning: Commission approved. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that only three have gone to City Council and there was one that was changed from apartments to condominiums but it was based on the Planning Commission's recommendation. 16