Loading...
PC - Minutes - 03-06-17 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 6,2017 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Lopez at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers,8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-Commissioner Tang INVOCATION-Vice-Chair Dang ROLL CALL-Commissioners Eng,Tang,Vice-Chair Dang and Chair Lopez ABSENT-Commissioner Herrera STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Murphy, Community Development Director Ramirez, City Engineer Fajardo, City Planner Valenzuela,and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Murphy presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. He stated both items are for recommendations to the City Council, so there will not be an appeal from an action but you would want comments to be on the record as the items goon to the City Council. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 16-01,TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 74095, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 16-01, AND ZONE VARIANCE 16-02 - La Terra Development, LLC. has submitted entitlement applications for the construction of a 21-unit planned development project. The project includes four home designs and three floor plans. The size of the single-family dwelling varies from 1,706 square feet to 2,353 square feet with an attached two-car garage. The proposed development will include three private streets, 19,908 square feet of common open space, and 18,287 square feet of private open space. The subject site is located at 1151 San Gabriel Boulevard in a Planned Development(P-D)zone. PC RESOLUTION 17-03-A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 16-01,TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 74095, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 16-01, AND ZONE VARIANCE 16-02 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 21-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 1152 SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD IN A P-D ZONE (APN:5275-015-042). Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17-03 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2017-12 approving General Plan Amendment 16-01, Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16- 01, and Zone Variance 16-02 and adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. City Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report and a power point presentation. 1 Community Development Director Ramirez stated the added condition of approval would be number 31 and the others would be moved down one. Chair Lopez asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked staff if this added condition will be under the Engineering Conditions of Approval. Community Development Director Ramirez replied no, it is not an Engineering Condition of Approval, it is a Project Specific Conditions of Approval. She added it will be number 31 and the remaining numbers will be moved down one. She added if there are questions this evening please refer to the numbers presented in the staff report. Commissioner Eng stated some of her questions may be for the applicant, so if they are please let her know. She asked how long this project will take beginning with grading to ready for occupancy. City Planner Valenzuela replied that question may be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Eng stated the site is slightly elevated and asked if there are plans for it to be built at that level. City Planner Valenzuela replied that question may be deferred to the applicant. Commissioner Eng asked if there are plans to have a gate at the entrance. City Planner Valenzuela replied currently on the fencing and wall plan there is not and explained it is up to the applicant to choose to have a gated development. Commissioner Eng stated she will confirm that with the applicant and asked if the Traffic Consultant is present this evening. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng referred to page 60 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which indicates that the construction noise level for this project will not exceed the City's noise decibel of 65 and asked how realistic this is for a project of this size and to keep it there. City Planner Valenzuela stated the Environment Document Consultant is present and can address that question. Commissioner Eng referred to page 66 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and stated they are using Sheriff's Personnel data from the year"2008"and asked if that data is still current. City Planner Valenzuela replied the data is being obtained from the City's General Plan and is the most current. Commissioner Eng asked if the General Plan was updated in 2008. Community Development Director Ramirez replied it was updated in 2010. Commissioner Eng asked if staff knows if there are 23 deputies,one sergeant,and one lieutenant. Community Development Director Ramirez replied she does not have that information but there is one sergeant, one lieutenant, and there are deputy teams. 2 Commissioner Eng referred to the site plan, Lot number 7, and stated there is a parcel that looks onto the neighbors property,which has a swimming pool,and asked what is proposed for privacy issues. City Planner Valenzuela replied a condition of approval has been added that privacy landscaping shall be provided throughout these three residential properties. Commissioner Eng stated she is not sure if the other properties have expanded back-yard areas and she wanted to make sure the property with the pool had been addressed. She referred to Condition of Approval number 21, read the second sentence, and stated there may be a typo because it reads commercial building,but there are no commercial buildings. City Planner Valenzuela replied that is a typo. Commissioner Eng asked staff what it will be changed to. City Planner Valenzuela replied it will be changed to residential. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 23, read it,and asked if it is referring to the garages. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if there are no carports and if guest parking is out in the street. City Planner Valenzuela replied that is correct. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 24,the comprehensive Construction Management Plan. She asked if there is a standard condition and plans to include security for the site, as well for the construction equipment, and if this is something staff looks for. City Planner Valenzuela replied no,but if the Planning Commission would like that included staff will add it. Commissioner Eng replied yes. She explained that while construction is not taking place there may be trespassing, things may be taken,and someone may get hurt on the equipment. She asked for City Attorney Murphy assistance in the placement of this condition. City Attorney Murphy stated in Condition of Approval number 24,the second sentence list a number of items that need to be addressed in the plan and the word security can be added to the list of items. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 27, read the first sentence,and asked if the common areas include the pdvate streets. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. City Attorney Murphy stated if streets are not dedicated to the public,then they will be called out in the CCR's as part of the common area. Commissioner Eng asked if this project will have a Homeowners Association. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. 3 Commissioner Eng asked City Attorney Murphy if it can be stipulated that the Homeowners Association be professionally managed for a project this size. City Attorney Murphy replied he is not sure if that can be required. He stated most Homeowners Associations will contract that out and in terms of having to put a second level of authority on that, and contract with a single manager, rather than dealing with various maintenance,landscape maintenance, or other type of maintenances on their own. He stated he defers this to the Planning Commission and if they would like to recommend to City Council to take that step,they may do so, but that may get into the details of the HOA functions. Community Development Director Ramirez stated any other HOA's within the City,the City does not get involved with the HOA's,they do not review them,they do not give any input,and they are privately ran. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 29 asked if the streets are wide enough for the Trash Disposal trucks to maneuver,to enter, and exit. Rafael Fajardo,City Engineer, replied yes, and gave the width of the street. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 51 and asked if parcel refers to the project or does it refer to each of the individual parcels within the development. City Engineer Fajardo replied this is a typo and where it is stated public driveway it was meant to say per unit. Commissioner Eng confirmed that this is applicable to each of parcels within the project. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. Commissioner Eng read Condition of Approval number 67 and stated there is a typo and there should be a space between the words "relocated" and "as". She asked who will be responsible for the cost of the relocation of that power pole. City Engineer Fajardo replied the developer is responsible for the improvement. Commissioner Eng asked if that should be clarified on the condition of approval. City Engineer Fajardo replied the developer is responsible to contact Edison for the relocation of the power pole and to pay the permit fees. Commissioner Eng asked if that will be at the developer's expense. Community Development Director clarified that it is at the applicant's expense. City Attorney Murphy recommended to not putting that phrase in one condition because all of the conditions have to be satisfied by the applicant. He explained if that phrase is put in one condition, then it will need to be phrased in all the conditions or else it will create some confusion. He stated it is generally understood that the conditions are on the applicant and the applicant must meet them. He recommended that this condition be left as is. Commissioner Eng stated the reason she asked was because she had seen it in other places that is specified that the expense was the responsibility of the applicant. She stated if this is generally understood and staff is satisfied with this,then she is also. 4 Commissioner Tang referred to Condition of Approval number 67 and stated in the last discussion regarding this lot, there was a question regarding the entrance to that lot. He stated it was mentioned that it was 20 feet wide and it needed to be expanded to 24 feet and asked if that was correct. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes, it was 24 feet. Commissioner Tang asked if the only way to get those 24 feet was to relocate the light pole. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. He explained a transition will take place as part of the condition and referred to Condition of Approval number 60, which requires an off-site improvement plans that the applicant will need to be submit. He stated under the construction plans they will have to indicate how they will do that transition on the sidewalk to achieve the 24-26 feet. Commissioner Tang asked if currently it is at 20 feet. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. Commissioner Tang asked if there are walls in-between each individual unit. He stated he is trying to get clarification of the wall plan for the entire lot and within the individual units. City Planner Valenzuela referred to the wall plan and pointed out the privacy fences within the power point presentation. Commissioner Tang asked how high those privacy fences are. City Planner Valenzuela replied the fences do vary, some are 6 feet, or 5 feet 6 inches, and she explained they do have to meet the City's code requirements and they are required to submit a final wall plan. Commissioner Tang asked if that is the wall that is made of vinyl. City Planner Valenzuela replied that the vinyl is the privacy fencing shown in green. Commissioner Tang referred to the property wall and fencing on the North and South side and asked what type of wall will that be. City Planner Valenzuela replied on the North there currently is an existing wall that belongs to the Church and there is a condition stipulating the will have to install a new fence. She explained that it has not been decided if it will be a block wall or what type they will be. She added the applicant is still researching that to make sure the right type of materials will be used. Commissioner Tang asked what will be on the South side. City Planner Valenzuela replied on the South side a tubular steel fence will be used and the colors will match the slump stone they are proposing. Commissioner Tang asked what is on the East and West wall. City Planner Valenzuela replied the East and West will be slump stone. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further comments or questions for staff. 5 None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to the podium. Daryl Sequeira,stated he is present on behalf of the applicant La Terra Development, LLC. He thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their help and guidance in this process. He gave a brief summary of their company, the project, and let the Planning Commission know that Public Outreach was completed for this project and they received favorable feedback from the public. He addressed questions asked by the Planning Commission (barely audible). The first question was in regards to the timing of the project and he replied the over-all time frame will take about 12- 15 months. Second question was in regards to the elevation of the pad and he explained it is raised slightly to allow for drainage purposes. The third question was in regards to a gated community and he explained it will not be gated as they would like it to be an extension of the community, not walled off or separated so that it fits better into the neighbor context. He addressed the last question in regards to privacy concerns for the homes that back up to Orange to the East and West property line. He stated most of the homes orient to the North and South, so the windows face the West, they are smaller bedroom windows, and they will have some screening and landscaping along that edge to address those concerns. He addressed the fencing question and stated during their Public Outreach they had met Pastor Wu from Evergreen Baptist Church and he had a concern with the combination fence and privacy issues. Vice-Chair Dang referred to the Civil Plan and Landscaping Plan and asked in terms of the street will it be asphalt. Daryl Sequeira replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang asked if that is the dark colored one. Daryl Sequeira replied yes and looks like the City streets. Vice-Chair Dang asked the City Engineer is the City uses asphalt or does it use concrete. City Engineer Fajardo replied it depends, they are trying to use concrete in the intersections because the life span is about 25 years. He added currently they are using rubber asphalt within the City. Vice-Chair Dang stated the reason he is asking is because dark colored asphalt is very hot and creates a lot of heat. He added per the California Green Building Code it restricts a lot of use of dark asphalt. He asked the applicant if they would consider using a lighter concrete instead of dark asphalt. Daryl Sequeira replied they have considered it with other projects, but on a maintenance standpoint, asphalt is in the long term is easier to maintain. He added it is difficult to repair concrete and harder to maintain. He added whereas asphalt is low maintenance and they are conscience of keeping the HOA Fees at a low cost level. Vice-Chair Dang agreed that asphalt blends itself much easier for maintenance,especially if it rains and there is a pot hole it is easier to install asphalt. He stated that concrete will give a longer better life span and asked that they consider. He also referred to the landscaping plan and the pavers at the entrance of the driveway and asked the dimensions of the pavers. Daryl Sequeira replied they are about 20 feet. Vice-Chair Dang requested that the architect add 20 feet to the dimensions. Daryl Sequeira agreed. 6 Vice-Chair Dang referred to sheet L1, dealing with vinyl privacy fencing, and asked clarifications on the locations of the vinyl. Daryl Sequeira clarified where vinyl privacy fencing will be located. (Not audible) Vice-Chair Dang stated that vinyl does look great, it is easy to install, but it does not have the shell life and over time it will become brittle. He encouraged the applicant to use something such as metal or CMU. Daryl Sequeira explained reasons why vinyl is being used, which is for space issues,locations of where it will be used, and that the CC&R's would address the issues with the fencing material.(Barely Audible) Commissioner Eng complimented the applicant on the design of the homes,the functionality,and the private outdoor space in each of the yards. She stated she appreciates that public outreach was conducted in that area because this is significant addition to the neighborhood and is glad the feedbacks were positive. She referred to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and stated it indicated that during the construction phase for a residential neighborhood the noise levels would not exceed over 65 decibels and asked if that is realistic for a project of this size. Daryl Sequeira deferred this question to Olivia Chan, Representative for MIG, Inc. Olivia Chan, Representative of MIG, Inc., referred to page 61 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration report and explained process for noise level measurements, what they are based on, and stated they should be realistic. (Not audible) Commissioner Eng asked if this is a one phase project or will it be completed in different phases. Daryl Sequiera replied it will look like one phase, but generally it will be constructed in two phases. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant is planning to have model homes. Daryl Sequeira replied yes,there will be models to some extent, depending on the interest. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions for staff. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and called Brian Lewin to the podium. Brian Lewin, resident, stated that it is good they have improved the access point to the site, but the choke point up there is that it is being the sole access point to the site, and that is what concerns him from a safety viewpoint. He stated it will be better than it was, but it is still very constricted relative to a regular street. He stated when there are 21 residences and only one access point to it, you want to have a standard width street as the access point. He stated that is his primary concern with this project and in terms of aesthetics it looks nice. He also echo's Commissioner Eng's comment of appreciation for Public Outreach because there are too many projects that get dropped unexpectedly on peoples laps and he is glad they actually talked to people. Reverend Chuong Nguyen stated he is the Director/Administrator of Saint Joseph Retreat Center. He stated that this site is the most sacred site in the City because there is a Baptist Church in the North, a Catholic Church retreat in the South,and a school in the East. He stated his concerns are privacy and noise due to the Retreat Home being on the South side and requested this be considered. 7 Chair Lopez stated while construction is taking place a sound barrier will be used if the machinery is too loud. He stated that staff will have to make sure this is addressed if it is too loud. Vice-Chair Dang requested to look at the Civil Plan, Sheet 1,shown on the power point presentation, looked at Section E, and stated the development is 7-B feet above the Church, and the Reverend has concerns with privacy. He echo's that concern and recommended that the applicant put a solid mesh or something to obscure the viewing onto the Church's property. Daryl Sequeira stated they looked at that property line and it is proposed that that a new keystone wall with a iron fence on top of that, which is the open wire fence. He stated currently there is an iron fence so they were just replicating that and unless there is an objection by the Civil he does not know why a block wall could not be on top of there. Vice-Chair Dang asked so in lieu of the rod iron it would be a block wall. Daryl Sequeira replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang requested that be added as a condition of approval. City Attorney Murphy recommended rather than a condition of approval,when this goes to the City Council with their recommendations that will give the applicant time to update their plans to show it will be a block wall rather than the split wall. He stated the conditions of approval start by saying that the development is in conformance with the plans and that will be the best way to do it because it will actually be on a revised plan. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff agrees and will make sure that happens. Chair Lopez asked if there is anyone else wishing to speak. None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Eng asked in regards to Brian Lewin's concern in the egress and ingress to the site, if staff or the applicant had considered feasibility for a better access point to the site. Daryl Sequeira replied the only access to the property is from Orange Street and regarding the ingress and egress, the plans were engineered and looked at by the City's Engineer and was also reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. City Engineer Fajardo stated there will be a 26 feet clearance, a red curb will be installed, so there will not be cars parked there,and will be clear most of the time. Chair Lopez asked if there were any other comments or questions. None Chair Lopez requested a motion. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Chair Lopez,to ADOPT Resolution No. 17-03 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2017-12 approving General Plan 8 Amendment 16-01,Tentative Tract Map 74095, Planned Development Review 16-01,and Zone Variance 16-02 and adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dang,Eng, Lopez,and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: Herrera Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with a 4 Ayes and 0 Noes vote. She stated there is no appeal process because this item will go to the City Council for approval, which tentatively will be held on Tuesday,March 28,2017. B. DESIGN REVIEW 16-02,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-01, AND ZONE CHANGE 16-01 -Ivor Eagle, LLC has submitted entitlement applications to construct a new five-story Hampton Inn & Suites with 123 guest rooms. The hotel includes a business center with a computer, fax machine and photocopy machine; fitness center; meeting rooms; swimming pool; and, snack shop. The project proposes to provide 125 parking spaces. New landscaping will be provided along the northern, western, and southern project boundaries to buffer the project from the adjacent uses. A three-toot tall block wall and landscaping will be constructed along the eastern project boundary to separate and buffer the project from the UFC Gym and its parking lot adjacent to and east of the site.The hotel is proposed to be 67'-9" in height. The property is located at 8900 Glendon Way(southeast corner of Ivar Avenue and Glendon Way) in a Medium Commercial with a Design Overlay (C-3/D-0) and a Planned Development (P-D)zone. PC RESOLUTION 17-04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 16-02, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-01, AND ZONE CHANGE 16-01 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HAMPTON INN &SUITES WITH 123 GUEST ROOMS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8900 GLENDON WAY IN A C-3/D-0 AND A P-D ZONES(APN: 5390-018- 036). Staff Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 17- 04 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2017-10, approving Design Review 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit 16-01, adopt Ordinance 972 approving Zone Change 16-01,and adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. City Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report and power point presentation. She added that staff has received two letters from the public.She stated one letter is from the owners of the UFC Gym and is in regards to an agreement between the two owners, which the applicant will address. She added the second letter is in opposition to the project. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commissioners if there were any comments or questions for staff. Commissioner Eng stated some of her questions may be for the applicant. She asked staff how many hotels does the City of Rosemead have and what the occupancy rate is. 9 Community Development Director Ramirez stated that staff does have that information but it is not available this evening and the occupancy rate is very high. City Planner Valenzuela stated there are 14 hotels. Commissioner Eng asked what the occupancy rate is. Community Development Director Ramirez replied that the occupancy rate is generally at 95%. She added having these hotel units busy every night is not an issue. Commissioner Tang asked if this includes motels or is it just hotels. City Planner Valenzuela replied 14 and includes both hotels and motels. Commissioner Eng stated the reason she is asking is because recently it seems like everyone is developing hotel projects. Community Development Director Ramirez stated staff sees that and that is why they scrutinize hotel projects when they come in because like the Planning Commission, they want to make sure this hotel comes in and functions, and does turn into something undesirable that they don't want within the community. She added staff looks through it very carefully during this process. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant did a market study. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes,they did. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant already has a franchise agreement with Hampton Inn. City Planner Valenzuela replied according to the applicant yes. Commissioner Eng asked what the height of the Qiao Garden Hotel is. She stated she knows it is 3-stories. City Planner Valenzuela replied it is 43 Feet 2 inches. Commissioner Eng stated she noticed as part of the amenities the hotel has meeting rooms and ball rooms and asked if that was accounted for in parking spaces. City Planner Valenzuela replied there are no ball rooms and the meeting rooms are only for hotel patrons. Commissioner Eng asked if the meeting rooms they currently have are only for the hotel patrons and it is not like a conference center. City Planner Valenzuela replied that is correct and it cannot be leased out. Commissioner Eng stated the staff report indicates that there are 5 RV spaces, asked where they are, and are they designated on the site plans. She requested the site plan be displayed in power point presentation. City Planner Valenzuela referred to the power point presentation and pointed the 5 RV spaces out to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Eng asked if those spaces will accommodate tour buses. 10 City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked if there is a loading or delivery area. City Planner Valenzuela replied that item is something staff is going to request be a condition of approval, because then they can use any of their standard parking spaces for loading. She added they will have to dedicate 12 parking spaces for loading to meet the municipal code. Commissioner Eng asked if a condition of approval will need to be added for that. City Planner Valenzuela replied a Condition of Approval will not need to be added because in the conditions of approval it does state that they do have to meet the parking requirements and off-street parking requirements. She added that is part of the Municipal Code Off-Street requirements. Commissioner Eng asked if the applicant will have to designate loading spaces. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes, and it can be put into Condition of Approval number 1, where the plans are revised to call out those loading spaces. Commissioner Eng stated that is direction to staff then. She asked staff if during the traffic study was it taken into account the trips generated by Qiao Gardens. Elie Farah,Traffic Engineer, replied yes,they did take that into account for the 2018 Analysis. Commissioner Eng stated she could not tell from the Traffic Study. She requested the traffic consultant walk the Planning Commission through the study, because she is concerned around the area of the on-ramp and off-ramp of the 10-Freeway and on the side. She stated she found it confusing when she went to do her site inspection and would like to know how the study was conducted. City Planner Valenzuela stated Keith Rutherford, Traffic Consultant from Phil Martin &Associates, is also present to speak on behalf of the traffic study. Commissioner Eng stated when the Public Hearing is opened she requested that the Traffic Consultant speak because traffic is a major concern for this area. She stated in terms of waste water and that in the Mitigated Negative Declaration it indicated it has less that significant impact or no impact and it has 123 rooms with high turnover, laundry area, and the volume seems large to her. She stated she would like to understand how that would not have a less than significant impact. She would like to know what is reviewed for this analysis. City Planner Valenzuela replied that Phil Martin is the consultant and he is present to answer that question. Commissioner Eng referred to the Resolution Finding, on page 22, of the staff report, and stated this is something she learned by attending the Planning Commission Academy, she recommended adding to the second finding to the last sentence "The proposed amendment would correct the dual zone classification by changing the subject site to only C-3/D-0 because it promotes good zoning practice'. She added it would just describe the reason for the zoning better and because the Zone Variance will bring the zoning into consistency. City Attorney Murphy asked Commissioner Eng to clarity her request. He stated he has no problem with the change but for clarification it is not a Zone Variance it is a Zone Change. 11 Commissioner Eng referred to the Mitigation Measure Program there are a couple of mitigation measures numbers 14 and 15 in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, but it does not appear that is part of the mitigation monitoring reporting program and she is wondering if that needs to go in there. City Planner Valenzuela stated that was a technical mistake and when she was making copies page 12 was omitted. She added that it has been printed out and number 13, 14,and 15 were added to the conditions of approval and are in the program correctly. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 24 and asked if there was any covered parking for this project. City Planner Valenzuela replied no. Commissioner Eng read Condition of Approval number 24, which refers to covered parking spaces City Planner Valenzuela replied that is a standard condition of approval in place and it is in case in the future they may request to have a covered structure. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 25,which is the Construction Management Plan, and requested that the following be added: 'Security for the site and equipment during construction'. She referred to Condition of Approval number 27 and read it and asked how this performance will be guaranteed, is there a MOU, or what will hold both parties to make sure they will perform. City Planner Valenzuela replied they will have to submit a recorded easement, and, staff and the City Attorney will review it. Community Development Director Ramirez stated what ensures that it gets done is that declaration of restrictions,which is already recorded against both properties. Commissioner Eng asked it that is the guarantee of performance. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes. Commissioner Eng read Condition of Approval number 48, regarding a Pedestrian Route Circulation Study and asked why this has not already been done. City Engineer Fajardo replied it is to his understanding it has not been done because it is part of his condition from the Engineering Department. He stated it needs to indicate if they need to include any new crosswalks in this vicinity and how the pedestrians are going to go into this shopping center. Commissioner Eng stated this is an important concern for the City and she is curious why this isn't something that has not been required already or is something that is worked with the applicant on. City Engineer Fajardo stated this was a condition that was brought up after the Traffic Analysis was revised for the traffic circulation for both hotels. He added to be accurate another analysis will be necessary to find out the best way to have pedestrians safely cross over to the shopping center. Commissioner Eng asked before the applicant can pull permits a plan will have to be developed and get approved. City Engineer Fajardo replied this is part of the condition of approval and the applicant will have to submit a circulation plan for their approval. He stated suggestions will be made but safety is what is emphasized. He 12 stated there will be other considerations included such as timing of signal lights, new crosswalks,flashings in the crosswalks and intersections of Glendon Way and Ivar Avenue, or whatever is necessary for the safety of the pedestrians and patrons of these facilities. Commissioner Eng expressed this is an important component of this project. She stated you would want to take advantage of the commercial amenities across the way and to be able to have people access it safely. She referred to Condition of Approval number 67 and asked how it will be enforced or checked. City Planner Valenzuela explained that was one of the mitigated measures and the consultant may address that. Commissioner Eng referred to Mitigated Measure Conditions numbers 69 and 70 and the phrase "certificate of occupancy for the first residential unit or leasing the first retail space"and asked what that is. City Planner Valenzuela explained that was just a typo and staff can make that modification. Commissioner Eng asked if that correction needs to be made to make it clearer. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes,and stated it can just say"hotel". Commissioner Eng stated those two conditions should correspond to Mitigation Measure Conditions number 14 and 15 and staff should do whatever it needs to clean it up. Commissioner Tang asked since this is next to UFC Gym was the parking requirement taken into account for both the gym and the proposed site. City Planner Valenzuela replied UFC Gym has its own parcel, own parking requirements, has 185 parking stalls for that lot itself,which accommodates their project. She added that they do not need any further parking from the side to meet their requirements. Vice-Chair Dang asked the City Engineer when street trees are required to be placed. City Engineer Fajardo referred to Condition of Approval number 46 and stated Parkway trees will be required. Vice-Chair Dang asked how many trees will be required. City Engineer Fajardo replied that the number of trees that will be planted is decided when Civil Plans are submitted with off-site improvements. He explained there are currently mature trees on Ivar Avenue and he will check with the Arborist to confirm which trees stay and how many more may be needed. Vice-Chair Dang asked if Glendon Way will also have trees planted. City Engineer Fajardo replied it will be the same for Glendon Way. Vice-Chair Dang asked if in general is there a rule of thumb that they are every 20 or 30 feet away from each other. City Engineer Fajardo explained the process. (Not audible) Vice-Chair Dang asked if it is roughly every 50 feet. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. 13 Vice-Chair Dang asked if that was the rule of thumb. City Engineer Fajardo explained that utilities, such as sewer lines and utility poles, also need to be considered. (Not audible) Vice-Chair Dang asked if the Utility Plan needs to be reviewed to make sure the trees do not interrupt the infrastructure. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the site plan is a little premature and does not show all the trees. City Engineer Fajardo replied yes. City Planner Valenzuela stated the applicant will submit a final landscaping plan and all that information will be called out. Vice-Chair Dang referred to the site plan, pointed out a trash container, and looking at the property line, it looks like it is within the UFC Gym property. He asked if it is serving the hotel. City Planner Valenzuela replied this trash container does serve UFC Gym. Commissioner Eng asked if the two driveways are existing driveways and if they are going to be moved. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes they are existing driveways. City Engineer Fajardo explained that the driveways will be brand new and be replaced, so will the sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. Commissioner Eng asked if the driveways are being relocated or moved. City Engineer Fajardo replied no. Commissioner Tang asked if there is street parking heading East on Glendon Way. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Tang stated this is a very narrow street and for a project of this size he requested that he would like to get the Traffic Consultants opinion on that piece. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments for staff. None Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to the podium. Simon Lee, Architect of the project, introduced and requested Patric Pan, Representative for Ivar Eagle, LLC to the podium. Representative Patric Pan stated they feel fortunate to manage to reach this stage thanks to the help and cooperation of the Planning Division and Hilton. He stated this project will not only bring a benefit to Ivar Eagle but to 14 the City as a whole by bringing in more revenue and provide a use for what was previously an un-used parking lot. He stated he will address some of the concerns of the letters that had been sent. He stated in regards to the easements they do recognize the significance of the existing easement and they take enforcement of it very seriously. He referred to the plan and stated most of the entries are as existing, however if necessary, the southernmost entry where it is the awkward L-shape, they are willing to correct it and make it completely straight to meet ingress and egress easier, but it would require moving the fire hydrant, since it is in that exact spot. He stated as for the second letter he has not had the opportunity to view it and he is not sure what Mrs. McDonald concerns are. He requested a summary and he would be happy to answer to the best of his ability. City Planner Valenzuela gave Patric Pan a copy of the letter. Representative Patric Pan stated if there are any questions in regards to the architecture or traffic study they can ask Simon Lee or Traffic Specialist Keith Rutherford. Commissioner Eng stated she would like to hear from the Traffic Consultant. Phil Marlin, from Phil Martin & Associates, stated they are in contract with the City and they prepared the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He stated in regards to the question Commissioner Eng had regarding waste water treatment, when they started this project he sent service letters to various service utility companies that serve the project, including the sanitation districts of Los Angeles. He said the numbers in Table Number 23, on page 79, are there waste water generation number and it was in the letter that they sent back to him dated August 16th of last year. He stated their letter also did not indicate any impacts or issues with them not having adequate capacity to treat the waste water from the project. He stated in regards to traffic he will not attempt to answer traffic questions so Keith Rutherford,from Stantec, will address those. Keith Rutherford,Traffic Consultant from Stantec Consultant Services, referred to the Power Point Presentation and pointed out the accesses into the site. He addressed and asked Commissioner Eng what part of the Traffic Analysis would she like him to address. Commissioner Eng replied she would like to understand what they look at and her main concern is the freeway on- ramp and off-ramp and the impact of this project. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated in the beginning there was a Scoping Meeting with staff and Caltrans here in the City,to get Caltrans to buy into and provide input on what they wanted them to study. He stated the ramps and intersections they wanted studied were also included in this study. He added Caltrans did review this study and those concerns were identified up front and were addressed. He stated the Qiao Garden Hotel was included, new traffic data was collected for this, and is less than a year old. He stated when that hotel re-opens, it will add 53 additional rooms and those were added in and treated that like a cumulative project. He also added in the traffic from identified projects in the neighborhood that would cumulative traffic volumes. He addressed the question on how they generate the traffic,they did use 100%occupancy rate,considering worst case to have the hotel completely full, so the project analysis they do includes the volumes they took, grown 1%until the project is completed,so they fluff up the existing, they add the project traffic to that combined with traffic generated by any local development projects that have been identified. He stated it is very conservative and they do cap a wide net to capture the traffic that could impact these intersections. Commissioner Eng asked if they have a study of that area of the on-ramp that can be provided. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied yes, and referred to the study area, Figure 3 in the Traffic Study, and it documents the existing lane configurations, existing traffic controls, and shows what the existing network is in their study area. 15 Commissioner Eng requested that figure be pulled up on the Power Point Presentation. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated this is in agreement with Caltrans and the City, they included Ivar Avenue, the on-ramp and off-ramp of the freeway,and the actual signal light intersection at Rosemead Boulevard and Glendon Way. Phil Martin, from Phil Martin & Associates, stated it is Figure 18 in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is a project trip distribution and shows the site and the all the surrounding area roadway system. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated that is the exhibit he is referring to. He pointed out the areas on the power point presentation to the Planning Commission, which were discussed and agreed upon in the scope meeting with Caltrans and the City. Commissioner Eng asked if the numbers are the current existing trips. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied yes,those are existing peak am, and pm,volumes. Commissioner Eng referred to the number 3,618 and asked what that number represents in this study. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated that number is a link volume for the am, peak hour, and that is the two-way link volume. He stated of all the numbers they have up there that is all the traffic they have going both ways on Rosemead Boulevard during the am peak hour. Commissioner Eng asked if the existing number includes Qiao Garden Hotel. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied yes, with am peak hour. He stated the Qiao Garden Hotel is closed currently and not open to traffic, so that is one reason explicitly modeled their traffic and added it into the analysis. He added they could not capture them in existing volumes. Commissioner Eng stated the two-way am peak hour number is currently 3,618 and asked what that number will be once this project is completed. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied that would be on Figure 11A, page 3.9,and the number is 3,631. He explained they use that for informational purposes and what they really use is the peak hour analysis and look at the intersection. He added the intersection really determines the level of service of the roadway, because that is where the bottlenecks are. Commissioner Eng asked what the difference in number is. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied it is 13. He added there really is not a lot and Caltrans had wanted them to look at Valley Boulevard and they tried to balance where they go and if they send everyone to the intersection on Valley Boulevard they are not really going to get any impacts down there, so they have to use a reasonable distribution so they sent 50%of the traffic to the freeway and sent 15%up Valley Boulevard. He stated so they are getting 15% of what they get in the am peak hour, which is only 15 trips. He stated when they look at this, they use two tools and Caltrans uses a Highway Capacity Manual Method, which calculates delay and assigns a letter grade based on delay. He stated the County uses a fraction of capacity ratio along with capacity and assigns a letter grade based on that. He added they look at both methods for this report. Commissioner Tang asked how they will anticipate the traffic flow with both the project site and with the opening of Qiao Garden Hotel along Glendon Way. 16 Traffic Consultant Rutherford referred to the Power Point Presentation Figure 3 and 4 on page 2.6, and explained the directions of the traffic flow at intersections. Commissioner Tang stated the reason he asked is that the intersection on Figure 4 does get bottlenecked during peak hours or non-peak hours and he does not want to see it happen at heading on east bound Glendon Way also. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated this is a non-project move and like it was stated, there will also be people that will want to walk to some of the retail, and then you are talking about an enhanced cross-walk treatment. He explained the traffic flow, delay values, movement,and stated there is no significant impact associated with this project at those intersections. Commissioner Tang stated that is why he asked his initial about parking at the UFC Gym on Glendon Way heading east bound, because if there was a need to improve traffic flow,then they would have to eliminate parking for cars to turn right or entering the freeway. He added then they would still have an access or to have a free lane to do so. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated striping is proposed to allow access on Glendon Way and it would require in the east bound direction or west bound direction on Glendon Way that parking is allowed on the first 70 feet. He referred to a diagram and showed where it will have to be striped red to eliminate the parking for about 3 vehicles. He stated this is the same type of treatment that exists for the UFC Gym access and movement number here is small, the am peak hours would be about 21 vehicles for the left turn, and a pocket of about 40 to 50 feet should be needed for a volume of level. He stated that way they will make sure thru traffic will not be impeded by those vehicles turning left into the Hampton Inn. Commissioner Eng asked if there is a proposal to eliminate parking on the East side of Glendon Way. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied he is going to call that the north side and does not believe there is any parking here. Commissioner Eng asked if parking will be eliminated on the South side then. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied on the South side yes,just immediately West of Ivar Avenue. He stated there is a small 75 foot stretch that is not red curb, it's allowed, and that will have to be red curbed. Commissioner Tang asked what about the section that is 75 feet closest to the entrance of the 10-Freeway. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied that is not their frontage and they will not be proposing any changes to it or be required to make any. He added that is restricted in that area, approaching that intersection too, it has been cleaned out, and that is why they painted a symbol in the ground for the 10-Freeway. Vice-Chair Dang asked for the traffic study the pm hours are from what time. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied pm hours are from 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Vice-Chair Dang asked what the am peak hours are. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied they are from 7:00 am to 9:00 am. Vice-Chair Dang stated to put things into perspective it would a perfect storm to have the hotel guest leave between 7:00 am to 9:00 am. Traffic Consultant Rutherford stated that is what they assumed. 17 Vice-Chair Dang replied of course to have a conservative report. He added they assumed the hotel guest were leaving the exact peak hours when the street is fully congested, which is morning rush hour, and on the flip side, the afternoon rush hours when people are coming home. Traffic Consultant Rutherford replied exactly, and they use the ITE, Trip Generation Manuel, they actually surveyed uses and they take the data from those times and they call it a one hour created before 4:00 and 6:00 pm of the adjacent street traffic. He stated they are actually surveying those uses at that time. Vice-Chair Dang asked if they assume a perfect storm scenario in order to calculate this study. Traffic Consultant Rutherford agreed,but for example they do not look at the peak hour of the generator,the site may generate the most traffic at 10:00 but who cares because the streets are much more open at that time. He added they do have that data and they do check the on-site flow based on those numbers because they are significant for on-site circulation. Traffic Engineer Fajardo stated he has a clarification and addressed Mr. Rutherford. He stated they are proposing a red curb to adjoin the existing red curb of 761eet. He added he would like to add another new red curb to the new proposed driveway to the existing driveway of the UFC Gym. Traffic Consultant Rutherford clarified which side and agreed to his request. City Engineer Fajardo stated staff will add a condition of approval for this request. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that is something staff will add when it goes to the City Council. Representative Patric Pan stated he has had the opportunity to read Mrs. McDonald's letter and while she has legitimate concerns, they are not significant to this project. He stated her first concern is the height of the building being 5 stories and they made a deliberate design decision to keep it kept at 5 stories because they believe it is the ideal height to maximize the square footage without it having to peer over the private residences. He stated if you look at the site plan you have the UFC Gym to the East,there is the U-Haul,there is a storage area,the Qiao Garden Hotel to the West, and the 10-Freeway to the South. He stated the only residential area is adjacent to the condo/apartments to the North where there are no back-yards or private areas to look into. He stated Mrs. McDonald's address is on the other side of the Qiao Garden Hotel and there is no realistic way tar someone from the Hilton Inn to look into her back yard. He added her other concerns such as lights, noise, and air pollution they believe the Mitigated Negative Declaration has all of the mitigating strategies to answer those. He stated she commented this is a cheap motel but this is the Hampton Inn, which is a large and successful hotel chain that is owned by Hilton. He added that is there response to that letter and that he is open to any question in regards to the project. Commissioner Eng asked how long they anticipate it will take from grading to occupancy. Representative Patric Pan replied it will take about 18 months. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval number 67 regarding the shakiness and asked how is that going to be enforced. She asked it that is a geological concern and if a consultant will address that. Representative Patric Pan replied that is a question for one of the engineers. 18 Vice-Chair Dang stated he is looking at the conceptual landscaping plan and he recommended it would be a good feature to have pavers within the first 20 feet or so adjacent to the driveway. He commented it would add a more welcoming appeal as you turn into their very nice establishment. Representative Patric Pan replied he will take that into account in the design. Vice-Chair Dang asked if the parking area will be asphalt or concrete. Representative Patric Pan replied asphalt is commonly used and the current parking lot is asphalt, so they are using a similar type. Vice-Chair Dang asked if they are re-doing the entire parking area or is it being left as is. Representative Patric Pan replied that it is very likely they will re-do the entire parking area as pal of the construction. Vice-Chair Dang asked if they are going to replace it with asphalt. Representative Patric Pan replied yes. Vice-Chair Dang stated he would like to reiterate the concern about the heat island effect. He requested that perhaps they will talk to their consultants into looking into the Green Code requirements. He added he will leave that to their consultants to address. Commissioner Tang stated they are barely meeting the parking requirements and they have 123 guest rooms, plus 6 employees,with 1 parking per 3 employees, and asked if this is sufficient parking for a hotel. Representative Patric Pan replied that is a question for the Architect because he is the one that came up with the numbers. Architect Simon Lee stated he will have 3 shifts, with 6 staff per shift,which should be sufficient. Commissioner Tang expressed concern that even with switching shifts that 6 employees would not be able to manage a 123 room hotel. Architect Simon Lee stated that usually 123 rooms are not entirely occupied. He also commented that the parking spaces will not be filled entirely at the same time, the City's parking code requirement, and that they have 125 parking spaces. Commissioner Eng slated she knows that studies have been made for this project and asked if any additional community outreach had been done for this project. Architect Simon Lee replied not for this project, this project is in a commercial area, does not have very much residential, and named the surrounding businesses. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that in other franchise hotels it is actually the franchise that dictates the design on how the hotel will be done. She explained even when residents want to have input it may not be what the Hampton Inn's will allow and will have to go through the Hampton Inn franchise for approval. Representative Patric Pan stated even though Hampton Inn does have a say they are usually very cooperative, so if there is a legitimate concern,then they will try to make some kind of accommodation for it. 19 Resident Brian Lewin, stated that he disagrees with the lack of residential character and name the UFC Gym, the Qiao Garden Hotel, pointed out there are condominiums directly across the street and immediately on the other side of the Qiao Garden it is entirely residential. He stated that it would have been appropriate to do community outreach. He recommended that delivery times should be restricted because hotels are a 24-hour business and a 123 room hotel will probably get a fair amount of deliveries. He stated some of those delivery routes may decide to drive on Muscatel Avenue to Glendon Way, hopefully the others may come off of Rosemead Boulevard, and some of those trucks are very loud, especially when they are unloading. He stated he also agrees with Commissioner Eng's concerns with Condition of Approval number 48,and appreciates that they wanted to do the traffic study before the pedestrian route study, but he does not see why they couldn't of both be done before bringing it to the Planning Commission for approval. He stated that is an important component and it would be good for the public to be able to see it and not be something that is going to be done later, where the public cannot see it, until it's been approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. He added in interest of transparency something like this and as potentially important should be done prior to any kind of approval for this project and asked that this be considered. Chair Lopez called Bao Zhu Wong to the podium. Speaker left before being called to the podium. Chair Lopez asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak. Vice-Chair Dang stated that when the predevelopment meetings were held, he was one of the Planning Commissioners that stated it was a very important element to have the hotel guest be able to walk across to the Target shopping center. He stated that the applicant did state that they would work on details to facilitate that concept, rather it is a shuttle bus or improve the pedestrian pathway. He requested that the design team work with staff, so that this particular element is ready, before it goes to the City Council. Community Development Director Ramirez stated this is something that the City Engineer needs to review and approve. She stated it can be specified that this item will need to be approved by the City Engineer prior to any issuance of permits that way it would let staff know it was handled prior to the issuance of building permits. She asked the City Engineer if this would be doable and stated this is an option the Planning Commission may take. Vice-Chair Dang stated he would like to ask the Planning Commission if they want this to be an item that requires to be taken care of prior to it going before the City Council. He added that way the public would also have a chance to view it,see the conditions, and will be able to voice any concerns they may have. He stated the problem with having the City Engineer approving this prior to issuing permits is that this item will not be visible for public viewing. Community Development Director Ramirez stated this could possibly delay the project and may have to go to the Traffic Commission. She asked City Engineer Fajardo if this will have to go to the Traffic Commission. City Engineer Fajardo replied. (Not Audible) Commissioner Eng stated she shares Vice-Chair Dang's concern, it is a safety component, and asked how much time they are looking at. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the Traffic Commission meets only once a month and will not be able to get it onto their Agenda until April,so they are looking at 3 month delay. Commissioner Eng asked if that is the reason why it is not a condition of approval for the Planning Commission because of the limitation of the Traffic Commission's meeting schedule or are there other factors affecting putting this pedestrian plan together. 20 City Engineer Fajardo replied this is something the applicant can address, because staff has established the conditions of approval, but the applicant is the one that will develop the study. He added they may take a week or a month and it depends how long they will take before it is submitted to the Engineering Department for a review and approval. He added then it will go to the Traffic Commission in case there are any necessary traffic improvements for this vicinity. He added so it will depend on how long it will take for the applicant to develop this study. Community Development Director Ramirez stated the City Engineer pointed out a keyword and that is"if"this needs to go to the Traffic Commission. She stated staff does not know if it actually does until it is reviewed. Commissioner Eng stated Vice-Chair Dang's request is that the improvements be made, but that there is a plan for the public to be able to understand what is happening. Community Development Director Ramirez replied yes,that is correct and that is what staff understands also. Vice-Chair Dang requested the Traffic Engineer from Stantec approach the podium to share his thoughts. He asked if this is a plan that can be put together in a week or so. Community Development Director Ramirez stated this is a question for the applicant and the not Traffic Engineer. Architect Simon Lee, stated this condition is not required in many other hotel projects and this is their first time. He stated they are willing to work with staff and work this out. He added there are options such as providing a shuttle bus with a schedule located in the lobby to take patrons to the nearby shopping center. He stated the pedestrian plan is not easy to do a quick study and get a quick response. He stated this is not a traffic engineer issue and he is not sure who he should contact to do this study. He stated their primary option is to provide the shuttle bus service. Community Development Director Ramirez recommended that it be included in Condition of Approval number 48 that at a minimum a shuttle bus be used. She stated that way at least they will know that at a minimum there will be a shuttle bus for the hotel guest. Vice-Chair Dang stated a shuttle bus is a good alternative because it will not affect the traffic flow very much. He stated it a pedestrian study is done, then it would involve street lighting because of security issues and you would have to check with the traffic engineer, because when you touch the traffic signal pedestrian crossing it affects the timing of signal lights. He added there is a little more involvement in terms of the study, but the shuttle bus is a good alternative and will get their patrons to the shopping center safely. He stated it may also shuttle the patrons to other venues around the City. Community Development Director Ramirez asked if the City Attorney has a recommendation of how to state this condition. City Attorney Murphy stated he is concerned if it is appropriate to provide a solution if the pedestrian route circulation study doesn't wind up requiring that solution. Community Development Director Ramirez stated if the applicant is willing to do this regardless, then that would solve the issue all-around. City Attorney Murphy asked if the circulation study will still be needed. Community Development Director Ramirez stated that is part of the condition of approval and they will still be doing that, but at a minimum there is a solution. 21 Commissioner Eng staled this is fair because their concern is the safety of the pedestrians to get to the shopping center. City Attorney Murphy addressed the City Engineers office, and stated as the pedestrian circulation study moves forward they will need to take into account the fact that the shuttle van or bus is being provided, so that this applicant isn't required to pay more than their fair share for capital improvements, given the facts that its impacts are going to be decreased by the use of shuttle van. He stated it is important that they do not have up ending this applicant pay more than his fair share given they are being asked for this alternate. He said if it is the will of the Planning Commission this could say: "The Pedestrian route circulation study of commercial businesses and neighborhood which addresses pedestrian travel and indicates any needed improvements shall be developed and approved by the City Engineers Department prior to any issuance of building permits and at minimum a shuttle van shall be provided for transportation of hotel guests during the duration of this permit". Vice-Chair Dang stated to clarify he wants to make sure he is communicating properly to all the Planning Commissioners and stated the pedestrian study and it going through the City Engineers office is a good thing to have. He stated what he is proposing is for the sake of time because having that study will not reach its completion prior to the applicant going in front of the City Council. He stated in lieu of that, they are substituting a plan in place by having this shuttle service. He added in the future if this pedestrian study works all the signal lights and traffic studies, at that point and if the City has authority, then it will give staff the authority to terminate the shuttle service. He reiterated that by asking the developer to offer the shuttle service, and then this item can move forward to the City Council. Community Development Director Ramirez asked the applicant it he agrees with this request. Architect Simon Lee, replied yes. Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Tang commented that he appreciates the developer coming in, looking at this properly,and wanting to invest in it, and to bring a great quality brand and franchise. He stated he unfortunately does not think he can support this project,this design is somewhat of an anomaly, and does not really flow well within the surrounding businesses, as well as its residential areas. He stated it feels a little disjointed and disconnected from the local community and it is a unique area because there is a little commercial area against a heavy residential area. He slated that it is not that he does not appreciate the quality of project, he just does not think it is not a quality design and does not blend into the flow of the area. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further comments. None Chair Lopez asked for a motion. City Attorney Murphy stated the motion would be to adopt Resolution Number 17-04 with the amendments and direction given to staff on the record. Vice-Chair Dang made a motion, seconded by Chair Lopez to ADOPT Resolution No. 17-04 with findings, which is a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2017-10, approving Design Review 16-02 and Conditional Use Permit 16-01, adopt Ordinance 972 approving Zone Change 16-01, and adopt the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. 22 Vote resulted in: Yes: Lopez and Dang No: Tang Abstain: Eng Absent: Herrera City Attorney Murphy stated under Roberts Rules of Order an abstention goes with the majority for purposes of moving this forward, so it will go to the City Council with the notation that the recommendation of approval with the amendments and direction has been given on a 2 Ayes, 1 Noe, 1 Abstain,and 1 Absent vote. Community Development Director Ramirez stated since this item will be going to the City Council there is no appeal process. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of 2.6-17 Chair Lopez made a motion,seconded by Commissioner Tang,to approve PC Minutes 2-6-17 as presented. Vote resulted in: Yes: Dang, Eng, Lopez,and Tang No: None Abstain: None Absent: Herrera Community Development Director Ramirez stated the motion passes with 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, and 1 Absent. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Community Development Director Ramirez announced the time, date,and locations of the Community Area Watch Committee, City of Rosemead Passport Day, and the Rosemead Plaza Skate Park Ribbon Cutting. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR 8 COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Eng stated she attended the Planning Commissioners Academy on Thursday, March 3, 2017, and it was educational and informative. She added will share her notes with the Planning Commission once she puts it together. She stated that if a Planning Commission meeting is held on April 3, 2017, she will not present she will be out of town. 23 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting Adjourned at 9:20 pm. The next regular Planning Commission will be held on Monday,March 20,2017,at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. Daniel Lopez Chair A T: S- Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 24