Loading...
PC - Minutes - 02-05-18 Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 5,2018 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair Dang in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 8838 E.Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-Commissioner Lopez INVOCATION-Commissioner Herrera ROLL CALL-Commissioners Eng, Herrera,Lopez,Vice-Chair Tang and Chair Dang STAFF PRESENT-City Attorney Thuyen,Community Development Director Kim,City Planner Valenzuela, Associate Planner Hanh,Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ZONE VARIANCE 17-06 - Jingyao Shi of HJ Auto Group, Inc. has submitted a Zone Variance (ZV) application, requesting an exception to Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.68.040.B, by exceeding the allowable maximum height of the perimeter fence. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.140.020, a Variance is required for any development that is not consistent with applicable development standards or other regulations of the Rosemead Zoning Code. The subject site is located at 7850 Garvey Avenue and 2743 Strathmore Avenue (APN: 5284-038-001 and 5284-038-002), in the Medium Commercial(C-3)zone. PC RESOLUTION 18-02 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE VARIANCE 17- 06, GRANTING AN EXCEPTION TO EXTEND THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING PERIMETER WROUGHT IRON FENCE TO SIX FEET. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 7850 GARVEY AVENUE AND 2643 STRATHMORE AVENUE (APN: 5284-038-001 and 5284-038-002), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL (C-3) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 18-02 with findings and APPROVE Zone Variance 17-06,subject to the 15 conditions. City Planner Valenzuela presented the staff report. Chair Dang asked it the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if this property is located in the Garvey Specific Plan project. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. 1. Commissioner Eng asked if this was the same use prior to the year'2016". City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked how long this has been an auto sales use. City Planner Valenzuela replied since the year"2012'. Commissioner Eng asked if this business has always experienced these types of crime incidents since"2012"or has it recently been spiked. City Planner Valenzuela explained there was a change of ownership and the applicant,which is the new owner, took possession in the year"2016'. Commissioner Eng asked if there were any other alternative security measures that were explored to address these concerns. City Planner Valenzuela replied the applicant did follow the all the recommendations and installed camera's and an alarm system. The Chief of Police recommended at this point that they extend the height of the fence to six feet. Commissioner Eng stated the staff report indicates there was a major incident that occurred in September that triggered this request and asked if the applicant has seen similar incidents as the one in September. She also asked if staff knows if this is an on-going incident and if they know what the incident was. City Planner Valenzuela replied that the applicant may address that question. Commissioner Lopez asked what the height of the current fence is. City Planner Valenzuela replied the fence is currently four feet. Commissioner Lopez asked what type of fencing it is. City Planner Valenzuela replied it is a wrought iron fence. Commissioner Lopez asked if they are extending the wrought iron fence. City Planner Valenzuela replied they will be extending the wrought iron and the columns in-between to two more feet. Vice-Chair Tang asked if the applicant is requesting to extend this to six feet. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Vice-Chair Tang asked if increasing the fence height will deter this type of crime or vandalism. City Planner Valenzuela replied that according to the Chief of Police,yes it would. Commissioner Herrera stated the prior auto sales business was possibly not a high end type of auto sales such as this one. City Planner Valenzuela replied that is correct. 2 Commissioner Herrera stated she drove by the business and commented it was a very nice, clean, and is not inconsistent with the area. Chair Dang stated the property went through a zone change and asked it was parcel one or parcel two. City Planner Valenzuela replied it was parcel two. Chair Dang referred to page three of 14 in the staff report,which indicates the south side is zoned as R-2, and asked if it still is zoned as R-2. City Planner Valenzuela asked if he is referring to the property adjacent to parcel two. Chair Dang stated he was mistaken and thought it meant south side was south to parcel one. City Planner Valenzuela clarified that it is parcel two. Chair Dang invited the applicant to the podium. Applicant Jingyao Shi of HJ Auto Group, Inc.stated he is the owner of this business. Commissioner Eng asked what the incident was that took place in September. Applicant Shi stated they have been at this location since '2016" and this is their second location in Rosemead. He explained there have been several incidents that have occurred (such as people jumping the fence and stealing radios), but they never called the police or the insurance company because this is their first business and they just wanted to figure things out themselves. He added that at this new location, their inventory consists of high-end cars (such as Ferraris, Lamborghini's, Mercedes, and BMW's). He also said they have had four or five sets of wheels stolen and each one costs about $4,000 or $5,000 dollars. He expressed that he is worried about his insurance company dropping them and the security guard cost is high, so they are in a hard situation. He added that he is trying his best to keep his business going and would like remain in Rosemead. He added that they would like the fence to be a little higher and he realizes it will not resolve the problem, but I may help, as they do not want to move to a warehouse and they do not have room for a showroom. Commissioner Eng thanked the applicant and asked if they are just going onto the property,stealing car accessories, dismantling the cars and stealing parts,but they are not stealing the cars. Applicant Shi replied that is correct and mentioned that another dealership has had a couple of cars stolen. He added that he and his wife pay attention to the installed cameras, alarm, and even take home over 100 to 200 car keys every night to protect the high-end cars. He said they are lucky they have not lost a car, but his friend's dealership has had the gate broken into and the car driven right off the lot. He stated the person that stole his car accessories came on a Sunday night when they were closed, cut the electricity, and was aware that there is a 12- hour alarm system,so they broke in at 12:30, and stole car parts. He added that they have a person in the office at all times for security, but it's not safe as they do not carry guns. He added that the security guard is$4,000 a month and is very expensive for him and the business. Commissioner Eng stated she appreciates and understands the applicants challenge, but she lives across from an elementary school that has an eight foot wrought-iron fence and kids are still climbing over. She stated she is concerned that raising the fence height will not solve their problem. She added there must be a more efficient way of doing that, and if they are able to cut the wires and get in now, then they will still be able to climb the fence and get in. 3 Applicant Shi stated he knows this will not help 100%, but currently the fence is very low and for someone his height could step over it easily. He added his dealership sells Lamborghini's and if he sold Camry's he would not even care because the insurance would pay off for the Camry, but if they steal one of his high end cars, the insurance will only pay him$50,000.00 max for a Ferrari. He said if he loses one, he will lose$300,000.00 right away and that is why he takes the keys with him. He said the new fence will be made higher with better quality, and it will be stronger. He stated he does not mind paying for the new fence, but the security guard is way too much, and he would like to try the fence first. He also said he know it will not be 100%safer, but he does need some help from the City. Vice-Chair Tang asked the applicant when they had their security system installed. Applicant Shi replied it was installed on the day they moved in. Vice-Chair Tang asked what day was that. Applicant Shi replied the day the moved in was January 1, 2016. Vice-Chair Tang asked if their security system includes,cameras,alarms, and if there is anything else. Applicant Shi replied it has cameras, alarms, and a glass break alarm system too. Vice-Chair Tang questioned if someone was to trespass into his property, will that automatically trigger the alarm system. Applicant Shi replied yes, the police officer will call first, and then they will come if needed. He added he always checks the camera first and if it's not needed,then he will tell the police officer not to come. Vice-Chair Tang questioned if it's when someone enters the office building or when someone enters the lot. Applicant Shi replied when they enter the lot. Vice-Chair Tang referred to all the incidents that happened in "2017" and asked if all these occurrences had all triggered off the alarm system. Applicant Shi replied the only time he called the police officers was the incident where the electric wires were cut. He stated he watched the video, gave details of what the thieves did, and said they were very professional. Vice-Chair Tang questioned when they entered onto the property did the alarm go off, did he (the owner)get alerted, or does the Sheriff's Department get alerted. Applicant Shi replied they cut the electricity and the alarm was not working anymore. He explained that it has a 12- hour battery,so it shut off when the trespassers came onto the properly. Vice-Chair Tang stated he is just trying to get clarity, because he mentioned that this happened to his friend's dealership. Applicant Shi stated he does not know anything about his friend's dealership. Vice-Chair Tang asked for clarification if the electrical wires were cut and then the trespassers came back after 12 hours. 4 Applicant Shi replied yes. Vice-Chair Tang asked when the trespassers got onto the property to cut the electrical wires, did the alarm notify the Sheriff's Department or any other agency. Applicant Shi replied the trespassers shut the power off, so no one was notified. He added he was not there on Sunday afternoon and after 12 hours,the alarm/camera is not on. Vice-Chair Tang stated he is just trying to understand if the existing security system is effective. He added if it is not working, are there other security systems that will help,other than the option of just increasing the fence height. Applicant Shi stated that currently there is a two-way sensor system and pointed out where they are located on the property. He added when the fencing is completed, they are going to install a four-way sensor system around the dealership and explained where the sensors will be placed. He explained there is a lock on the electric room door and they will be adding a sensor in there as well, so if someone touches it, an alert will be sent. Vice-Chair Tang asked if that is already in place currently. Applicant Shi replied he did it right after that one incident happened. Vice-Chair Tang stated it is being mentioned that new sensors will be installed on the battery room where the gate is not facing Strathmore and Garvey Avenue, but this request is specifically for the fence located on Strathmore and Garvey Avenue. Applicant Shi stated that once the fence is up, they want to install a higher level security and to add a four-way sensor system. Commissioner Eng stated the Sheriff's Department is present this evening and asked the applicant if he has worked with them,and if they know if it is the same individual committing these burglaries. Deputy Urena replied no, they are not aware if the individual has been identified or if it is the same one. She explained that it is assigned to the detective's bureau and they are the ones that file the cases, contact the business owners, and retrieve the camera's video. Commissioner Eng stated that it sounds like it's deliberate, it is not some random person off the street, and is something that is planned. She added if the person is that smart then a higher fence is not going to help and they will find a way around it. Applicant Shi commented that if a car gets stolen, they will relocate and leave the City of Rosemead. He said that they are not making much and if a couple of their high end cars get stolen, they will not be able to continue their business. He stated this business is his dream and he would like to stay,they have their company logo in place, and have provided sales tax revenue to the City. He reiterated that he is trying his best, but he just needs the City to help, and to give him a chance by approving the fence height extension. He knows it will not help 100%, but he would like to try his best to stay in business. Chair Dang thanked the applicant for sharing some of the incidents that happened and sometimes, it is difficult to report some of these incidences, especially when you do not want the negative publicity towards his business. He said the Planning Commission would like to help the applicant in any way they can in maintaining their business in the City of Rosemead. He said that the applicant is the owner and stakeholder of this business and he would do anything in his ability to put in the proper surveillance cameras, the lighting, any redundancy system, satellite back- up, and he is sure his security consultant has brought all these alternatives to him. He added that the security system is not the issue but the applicant is requesting that the City help him by allowing him to increase the height of 5 the fence. He did look at the google pictures on his phone and the facility is well kept, everything is clean and neat, and he agrees that the fence is a little low,which can be stepped over by kids. He said that it is not fair for law enforcement officers to get deployed to just chase kids away. He said a six feet fence is practical, its not overbearing and the applicant is not asking for an eight to ten-foot-high fence, so six feet is within reason to keep people out. He stated it is a wrought iron fence and not chain-link and is not something that can be cut with a bolt cutter. It is a good precautionary measure,something affordable for the business owner,and something that they can put up right away. He also said it will give the business owner a sense of security for his personal benefit and gives him something so he can sleep better at night. He stated those are his comments and asked the Planning Commissioners if they had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Herrera asked the business owner it he had considered getting a security dog. Applicant Shi replied that he would try anything and has considered a dog, but he was told that they would just give the dog meat tainted with poison. He added he does not want a dog to be endangered, so he would rather be there himself. He also said he has been called numerous times when the alarm has been set. He stated that if there is anything he can do to make it better, he will do his best. He added that they just put new grass, new tree, and cleaned the outside. He stated they just spent a lot of money in the last three weeks to enhance the property and invited the Planning Commission to come by to look at it. He reiterated that the fence will help and will keep people from just jumping in. Chair Dang thanked the applicant and asked the Planning Commissioners if they had any further questions or comments. None Chair Dang opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone wishing to speak or comment on this item. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Eng stated there was a reason why the Zoning Code was changed to not allow high fencing on Garvey Avenue and this site is located within the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan area. She stated she sympathizes with the proprietors challenge for the business and the cost, but she also encourages the Planning Commission to consider her comment. Vice-Chair Tang stated he is sympathetic to the applicants request, but his dilemma is that he is not sure if he has all the information in regards to the adequacy of their security system to make a determination on whether they have fully exhausted their abilities to secure their property. He does not know if their alarm is triggered when someone is on their property or how it works. He asked if the security system automatically makes contact with the Sheriff's Department or if the Sheriff's Department immediately responds to the site. He added he is not sure if he has all the information to be able to say they have exhausted all their options to secure their premise and that a six-foot fence or gate will now be the last resort. He added it does not necessarily have to be the last resort today, but he also sympathizes with the Chair's comments, since it would help, it doesn't solve everything, and reiterated that he does not know if he can make a determination this evening. Commissioner Herrera stated based on the type of business this is, high end cars and a very low fence, this may be appropriate on a case by case basis. Vice-Chair Tang stated he would like to add that in Exhibit "D", which was attached in the staff report, that the numbers in regards to Part 1 and Part 2, under the number of crimes, they were staggering numbers. He added that 6 compared to other cities, including the neighboring cities,we nearly double or triple in the number of crimes. He said there needs to be a broader discussion or broader dialog about the public safety in the City of Rosemead in addition to evaluating this application. He stated if the City wants to protect businesses, they need to look at how to address these numbers and how to lower them,so these businesses don't have these problems that they are facing now. Chair Dang stated he agrees with Vice-Chair Tang and these are staggering numbers and surprised him too. He suggested that the Community Development Director look into this for the future. He also explained how the security system works and said if someone comes in, it relays to a call center, and then the call center dispatches the police department and they will call to see it this is a real emergency. If they are able to reach you,they will tell you the police are on their way and will ask you if you want to cancel the emergency. If they are unable to reach you, the police will be on their way. He then confirmed with the deputies present if that is typically how a security system operates. Deputy Urena replied yes,that is typically how it works. Chair Dang stated with the security system that the owner has in place and if he puts motion sensors throughout his property, the downfall of the last incident was that he did not have sensors on the backside of the property. So the property owner consequently is going to increase the sensors fully around the property and has probably exhausted all his resources in terms of surveillance and security capabilities. The only thing he sees insufficient, and his security consultant is recommending, is to elevate the fence to six feet tall as a last resort. In terms to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan the applicant probably came in prior to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan came into place, so he is a vested member of the community and should be protected. He came in before these ordinances were adopted and as a City they have an obligation to protect his business. He stated those are his comments and asked for a motion. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 18-02 with findings and APPROVE Zone Variance 17-06,subject to the 15 conditions. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng, Herrera,and Lopez Noes: None Abstain: Tang Absent: None Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a vote of 4 Ayes, 0 Noes, and 1 Abstain. He explained the 10-day appeal process. B. DESIGN REVIEW 16-04 - Gerard Ngo of Waikiki Property LLC has submitted a Design Review application, a request to construct a new residential/commercial mixed-use development at 8449 Garvey Avenue and 3014 Earle Avenue.The project would consist of 35 residential apartment units and 7,520 square feet of commercial floor area. The project site is located in a Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use Development and Design Overlays (C-3/RC-MUDO/D-0) zone. Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.28.030.8.1, a precise plan of design for a residential/commercial mixed-use development shall be submitted, and approved in accordance with the requirements of [Rosemead Municipal Code] Section 17.28.020(Design Overlay Zone). PC RESOLUTION 18-03 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION 2018-11 FOR THE APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 16-04 AND ADOPT THE ASSOCIATED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 7 RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AT 8449 GARVEY AVENUE AND 3014 EARLE AVENUE (APN: 5288-004-041 AND 5288-004-057), IN A MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH RESIDENTIAIJCOMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAYS (C-3/RC-MUDO/D- 0)ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION -It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 18-03 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2018-11 for the approval of Design Review 16-04 and adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. Associate Planner Hanh presented the staff report and power point presentation. Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Eng asked if the ingress and egress is only off of Earle Avenue. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng stated that her concern is that Earle Avenue is not a wide street and entering and exiting will be difficult. She added that exiting the site to make a left turn would be difficult and her inclination would be to make a right, which would direct traffic towards Delta Avenue. She asked if the traffic analysis looked at that angle and the impact it would make to the residents in that area because she did not see a reference to it in the traffic study. She referred to the trees in the site plan and stated that it shows trees in the back on the north wall. She asked if staff knows how tall those trees will get. Associate Planner Hanh replied currently he does not have information on the exact height of what the trees will grow to. He added that the applicant will be required to submit a final landscaping plan and it can be addressed when it is reviewed at that time. Commissioner Eng asked if the wall will be six feet. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. except if the wall is adjacent to the front-yard setback of the residential property to the north. Vice-Chair Tang asked how high that wall on the north side is. Associate Planner Hanh replied it is four feet when it is adjacent to the front-yard setback of the residential property and it is six feet thereof. Commissioner Eng referred to the MND regarding traffic and asked if the projections had been taken into account for the accumulative of the other projects that have been approved or that are currently in progress. Associate Planner Hanh replied that question can be addressed by the traffic consultant. Commissioner Eng stated she has the same question in regards to the impact of Earle to Dorothy or to Delta Avenues. She referred to page 87, 3.17 "Utilities and Service Systems" (Item E) and asked how that was determined because according to the site plan all the units are suites, so they have bathrooms. She added in "Unit Laundry",the only mitigation measure that is being proposed for (Item E) is to install low flow water fixtures. She asked for an understanding of how level of impact from the design of each bedroom being a suite. Associate Planner Hanh deferred the question to the environmental consultant. 8 Commissioner Eng referred to page 78 of the MND,and stated this is a question that also deals with traffic. She said it is indicating that the approximate travel of vehicles per day traveling on Garvey Avenue is 27,000 - 29,000 and asked if this was based on an actual count. She then referred to the Conditions of Approval Number"20" regarding landscaping,and asked if this will include the consultation with the City Arborist. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval Number "22" and questioned what type of security measures will be installed to prevent the construction material and equipment from being stolen during construction. She also asked if it is possible to allocate one of the units to low-income individuals with disabilities, so they may have an opportunity to live in a nice environment. Community Development Director Kim replied staff can research that request. Commissioner Eng referred to "Noise" Condition of Approval Number "47"and read (item c)"Loading of boxes, crates and building materials is restricted to the hours of 7:00 am and 10:00 pm.", and asked if this is correct. She added she is concerned about the 10:00 pm time limit because some of this will impact the residents in the area and the traffic on the residential streets. City Planner Valenzuela replied that the standard ending time is at 10:00 pm. Commissioner Lopez asked even if it is on that size of a project. City Planner Valenzuela replied for all the commercial projects it has been conditioned by the Planning Commission at 10:00 pm. Commissioner Lopez stated he understands if it is commercial side and asked it it has been approved for residential side also. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes,and stated for previous mixed use projects it has been approved for 10:00 pm. Commissioner Eng referred to Condition of Approval Number "91" read it. She then asked why it wasn't already done. She also asked in the event there is mitigation that is required after the analysis, how will it get implemented, and who is responsible for paying for it. Associate Planner Hanh replied it was completed already and this is a condition of approval required by Public Works. He added through the MND and the studies that were completed by the Environmental Consultant the Traffic Impact Analysis is already completed. Commissioner Eng stated she would like to make sure that the sewer capacities for the units are addressed. She referred to a letter from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District and stated that there was an indication that they may charge a connection fee to their sewage system. She asked if the condition of approval states who will be responsible for that. Associate Planner Ranh replied that their comments were standard comments that are typically given, and that is why they were not included in the conditions of approval. He explained that during the building permit process it will be submitted to the Building and Safety Department and it will be relevant to them. Commissioner Eng asked which type of HVAC system will be used and if it is a Central HVAC system that is being designed. 9 Community Development Director Kim stated the HVAC system is something that will be addressed during the Plan Check process. He explained that currently this is going through the entitlement process and the plans are preliminary in nature. He added that during the Plan Check process, it will be checked according to the Plan Check and Building Codes. Vice-Chair Tang referred to the MND and stated that there are references on page 69 and throughout the MND that there are 46 residential units, but it is 35 residential units,correct. Associate Planner Hanh replied that is a typo. Vice-Chair Tang stated according to that calculation and going back to Commissioner Eng's question about the water calculations, they used 46 residential units as part of their calculations for the consumption weight of the water. He said he does not know if that changes that calculation. Associate Planner Hanh replied if they did use 46 residential units, it would then be more of than if they used 35 residential units that they are proposing. Vice-Chair Tang referred to page 5 of the staff report and read part of the first paragraph. He then asked staff what it means by multiple applications. Associate Planner Hanh replied the project is allowed in the zone through a Design Review, but because pal of the project is requesting a density bonus, which is reviewed at the City Council level, the review authority is at the City Council level. Vice-Chair Tang asked what the maximum bonus they can receive is with the density bonus. Associate Planner Hanh replied 35%is the maximum. Vice-Chair Tang asked if they were already at 30%and they are asking for 5%more. Associate Planner Hanh replied no,they are asking for 35%. Vice-Chair Tang stated right, it is additional 5%. He asked what is required for this commercial size to qualify for the community amenities and what is the applicant proposing. He added he only sees the square footage for the indoor and he is wondering if the outdoor and courtyard is in combusting in that requirement. He also referred to the standards on page six of the staff report and asked if the private open space is considered as the individual unit balconies and if the common open space is considered as the combination of the courtyard and the indoor residential amenities. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes, and explained the private open space is only accessible from the units and the common open space will encompass the courtyard. Vice-Chair Tang asked how many units will be restaurants and how many will be retail. Associate Planner Hanh replied currently it is allocated as square footage, but if it is broken down it will be two units; if they are to maximize it would be the corner unit and one other unit,because they are all at 1,000 square feet. Vice-Chair Tang asked if the north side of the project where it abuts the residential unit, does the code come into place, where it talks about the line of site. 10 Associate Planner Hanh replied because the property to the north is zoned as commercial also, it did not have to provide the variable height. Vice-Chair Tang asked even if there is a residential property it is still zoned as commercial. Associate Planner Hanh replied that according to the code variable height is required when it abutting an R-1 or R-2 zone. Chair Dang stated this is a mixed use project and asked if this is also a mini-shopping center project. Associate Planner Hanh replied this could also be categorized as a shopping center according to the definition of the zoning code. Chair Dang requested that Associate Planner Hanh read the definition of the mini-shopping center. Associate Planner Hanh read"Shopping Center" means, "a commercial site with two or more separate businesses managed as a total entity, sharing common access, circulation, signage, and pedestrian and parking areas so that a public right-a-way does not to be used to get from one business to another in the C-1, C-3,and CBD zone". Chair Dang stated that it sounds like it is a shopping center and the reason he is asking is because he thinks there was a previous meeting concerning this. He asked what the parking ratio for a shopping center is. Associate Planner Hanh replied if it is 100,000 square feet or less then it is one parking space per 250 square feet and if it is over it is one parking space per 280 square feet. Chair Dang asked if this is less than 100,000 square feet. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Chair Dang requested that they go back to the restaurant parking breakdown on the power point demo and pointed out in the middle column under commercial, restaurant is utilized as one per 100 and retail is one per 250, so recognizing that this is a shopping center, and asked staff if this particular project can qualify for one per 250,as a blanket of approval. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes. Chair Dang recommended that this be acknowledged on the cover sheet of Al,. instead of calling it one per 100, have it called out as one in per 250 parking spaces,just to be consistent with the Rosemead Municipal Code,so that parking is parked as one per 250 for even the restaurants. Vice-Chair Tang asked the City Attorney if this could also be conditioned as one per 100, because this is also consistent to the municipal code,and if it is labeled as a shopping center, then it is one per 250, but the standard code for restaurants is one per 100. City Attorney Thuyen replied that if this is available to be used as a shopping center parking use and that is how staff has treated it, then that is what the applicant is entitled to in the municipal code. He added based on what has been presented so far, they did the calculations a little differently, rather than one per 250. He asked staff if that was correct. 11 Associate Planner Hanh replied originally the calculations were made by use, which is the more stringent requirement, but the applicant has satisfied and provided a surplus, and if the Planning Commission would like to modify Condition of Approval number 24,to reflect shopping center requirements. Chair Tang asked what page is that on. Associate Planner Hanh replied it is in the Stall Report on page 25,Condition of Approval number 24, which is a condition on the use that would be permitted based currently on parking calculations for land use, rather than a shopping center. Vice-Chair Tang stated he would feel comfortable calculating based on land use. Chair Dang stated he would like to request input from the City Attorney and asked if it meets the definition of a shopping center,then he does not think it can be conditioned. Commissioner Eng stated that when you consider a shopping center, a mixed use is not what is in their mind. She added a mixed use is treated differently; it is a joint project, where a shopping center is a stand-alone and does not have a residential component to it. She asked if this is correct. Community Development Director Kim stated that Commissioner Eng makes a good point and in the future, it is in the works to update the zoning code, and to make definitions dearer. He added this is one of the items they are looking at, the definition of a shopping center and how parking is calculated. He stated he will make a note of this and he would like to point out that the parking requirement that is contained in the code is the minimum parking requirement, so regardless it this is calculated as a shopping center and do this as one per 250 or worst case scenario, break it up to one per 100 the applicant or developer can provide more than necessary. He added in this particular case even with the worst case scenario in one per 100, the applicant has choose to provide additional parking spaces and they are safe here on how the parking is calculated. Vice-Chair Tang asked if the applicant can come back and say they want to change the parking a little bit because they can now potentially qualify as a shopping center and change the parking configurations where they are not providing the area with a surplus after it's approved this evening. Community Development Director Kim replied yes, he added any applicant may come back at a later point,and request an augmentation of the approval or set of plans that have been approved. The Planning Commission should be aware that this applicant in particular is going through an entitlement permitting process. So in this particular case when the City Council reviews this and if they approve this with the Planning Commission's recommendations, the project as a whole, it is being approved is what is being proposed. He added there is always an adjustment or minor adjustment here and there, they may gain or lose parking spaces, but if any applicant were to come back and say they were going to do a significant parking adjustment by applying this code, then he would be comfortable stating something that needs to be reviewed ata higher level just like the prior application as well. Chair Dang asked staff if the last project that had five restaurants and was parked as one per 250, if that had been a mixed use project. Associate Planner Hanh replied yes, it was. Chair Dang asked if that had been approved in November or December of 2017. Commissioner Eng addressed the Chair and stated that project was two separate parcels. She added this project is one parcel. 12 Chair Dang stated that it was categorized as a mixed use shopping center and that parcels had anything to do with it. Commissioner Eng stated that they sold off the commercial arm. Vice-Chair Tang explained it was a mixed use as in the initial introduction. It came back because they separated the residential portion in the back from the commercial portion in the front, and the commercial portion came back because they wanted to apply for a shopping center because they did not have enough parking spaces to accommodate for the restaurants. He asked if it was considered as a stand-alone parcel and they were not looking at the residential at that point. Community Development Director Kim replied yes they were just looking at the commercial portion at that point. Associate Planner Hanh stated it is a mixed use project, but it was two parcels. Chair Dang question if the parking in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan is one per 250. Community Development Director Kim replied it may be 1 per 400, but does not have that information on hand. He added this property is not within the Garvey Specific Plan area and it would not apply. Commissioner Eng stated she applauds the applicant for being conscientious and even under the strictest standards for providing more parking than required. She added it will work to benefit the project in their success and parking should not be an issue here. Chair Dang stated he wanted to recognize this also and the applicant is providing surplus parking for the benefit of the City. He would just hate to have them change the use to a restaurant and not having that availability to them. He added if this is consistent with the Rosemead Municipal Code, then it is what it is. He added he was just reading the definition of a shopping center and the definition does not exclude it from a mixed use project or have that qualified, so he brought this up. He reiterated what the Community Development Director Kim stated that perhaps this may get addressed during the Zoning Code update. He referred to Sheet A1.1 and stated,there is a breezeway fountain area focal point in the courtyard, and asked in the event this breezeway fountain area was used as an outdoor dining area; (example: Starbucks putting tables and chairs outdoors) would that trigger parking or is outdoor dining exempt from parking. He stated just looking at this as a long term perspective of the project because this is not required open space. Associate Planner Hanh replied according to the zoning code, when the outdoor seating area exceeds 50% of the gross interior floor area, then you need one parking space for each 200 square feet of the floor area exceeding the 50%, otherwise no additional parking shall be required for the outdoor dining area. Chair Dang stated those are all his questions and asked the Planning Commission it they had any other questions. None Chair Dang invited the applicant to the podium. Mike Lewis, Representative, stated he is here in behalf of the applicant Mr. Yang and Simon Lee. He added he will do his best in addressing the questions the Planning Commission may have about this project. He said he is not an architect and Simon's Associate Peter is present to help with any numbers they may need to cover other than what staff has already covered. He thanked staff for their effort that they have put into this and he has worked with Mr. Yang on several projects, this is the second one that has come before this Planning Commission, and there is a third one that will be coming down the road on the west side of town. This is due to the City's effort in revitalizing Garvey Avenue and incentivizing the property owners to package up parcels and to come back with commercial mixed use 13 projects that include both commercial and housing. He said this is one of those, the design came out great, and he does a lot of projects around the region and he really likes this design. Some of the highlights of this project are that there is a 20% affordable component to this, which would be six of these units, would be affordable. To address Commissioner Eng's question whether one of these units may be allocated for the disabled community he does not know if this can be done, but it is worth looking into. He said as a result of doing those affordable units they are allotted a certain amount of concessions and those concessions have to do with building height. The current allowed height being 50 feet and the overall height of the two highest spots on this building would be 55 feet. He said the flat roof of the top floor of the apartment is at 44 feet. He stated in terms of ingress and egress, he does not know if you can actually put a driveway in off of Garvey Avenue because there is an island in one portion. He added that it would prevent you from making turns in and out and the driveway would be too close to Earle Avenue by the City's standards. He said so they can only put the driveway on Earle Avenue and he believes there is some additional right-a-way being given along Earle to widen the street a little on that side. He said the property in the rear is also zoned as mixed use and it is an L-shaped property and there is a residence on it but there is also a warehouse there and he thinks the property is used for some kind of commercial activity currently. He addressed the question on time of construction and as someone that does a lot of work with the construction industry, he can tell them that staying late isn't the problem it is how early they start. He said they like to start early in the morning, so the big problem is people trying to start before 7:00 am rather than staying late. During the summer it is light later and it is possible they may work later but on these kinds of projects you have work crews that work 8 hours and you don't want to pay them over-time they would rather start at 6:30 or 7:00 am and work for 8 hours and be home early in the afternoon. He is not sure even if you allow construction to go that late other than a few exceptions when they are doing finishing work inside or those kinds of things that that is allowed to happen. He stated the HVAC systems will be individual to the units and they are usually located in the ceiling above the water heaters, and the washers and dryers. He stated in terms of the parking this project is fortunate that it is able to provide more parking than the code requires, and that does provide a little bit of flexibility and they would say currently they calculated and you make assumptions on who the tenants will be, so 2,000 square feet for restaurant and 100 for retail or other commercial activities. If for some reason the 3,000 feet were needed for restaurants that extra 1,000 square feet is currently counted for parking spaces but if it were going to be restaurant it would require ten, they have six additional and it would be eleven overall extra that would give them the flexibility to do that to make sure you get a proper mix of tenants in the facility. He added that he may answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Commissioner Eng asked what the inspiration was in developing this apartment mixed use project in this location. Representative Lewis replied that is a market question, but there is an enormous demand in this region for rental housing and it will continue. He stated they are a million units behind in what they need in this region and they are falling behind by 100,000 units every year. He said for many people renting is their only option and there is a strong market for it. Commissioner Eng stated she agrees and has no personal objection to apartments. Representative Lewis stated when his clients file these projects he recommends that they file a tract map so they can convert the apartments to condominiums at some point if they wanted to, but for some reason they opt to just keep them as apartments. Commissioner Eng asked what types of retail is envisioned for this project. Representative Lewis replied he does know, but they may be cellular shops and will tend to be smaller because the units are 500 to 1000 square feet. He stated they will not be big retail units so it will be small visitor serving,such as a dry cleaners or something of that sort. Commissioner Eng stated in the MND it has a project completion date of at the end of "2019" and asked if that is realistic. 14 Representative Lewis replied the end of"2019", it depends on this evening's hearing, but it is not unreasonable. Vice-Chair Tang stated this is an outstanding project being presented and congratulated Mr. Lewis and Mr. Lee. He said this is a very nicely designed project, a well thought out project, and thanked them again for providing the excess parking and that gives them some cushion in terms of the businesses they want to attract for retail and restaurant use. Representative Lewis thanked Vice-Chair Tang and stated that this design will raise the bar for everyone else that comes down the road. Chair Dang stated he would like to echo Vice-Chair Tang's thoughts and it is an excellent and well needed project especially on the Garvey Avenue area. He said hopefully it will put a spark of energy in that area, create additional developments, and he likes the modern design, color, and rendering. He referred to having a driveway along Garvey Avenue and stated this is a more clever design. He added having the retail spaces on Garvey Avenue will generate pedestrian traffic that is needed. He said if they were to introduce a driveway on Garvey Avenue it would take away the aesthetics and the gravity of this facade. He said it would also take away the much needed store front and by having the driveway on Earle Avenue is a better circulation point from an aesthetic view. He added it is a residential street but the way the project is laid out it may be for the best to have the access from Earle Avenue than Garvey Avenue. He stated the way the project is presented is nice. Representative Lewis thanked Chair Dang. Chair Dang asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments. None Chair Dang opened the Public Hearing. Raymond Cheng, Architect, stated resides in San Marino and he owns property in the City of Rosemead. He is present this evening as a guest and wanted to see how the City operates. He has friend that is working on a mixed use project, so he has heard some of the comments that have been said by the Planning Commission and it is nice to hear that the City of Rosemead is encouraging mixed use projects in the Garvey Avenue area. With the housing shortage in California any residential unit addition will be a plus factor and also by having a mixed use type of projects in the commercial areas compliment the residents that live on top. He added that there will be required uses that will better their quality of living by providing uses that are within walking distance instead of driving around. He explained there may be uses such as cleaners, book store,and it is all there below you, so it will be of good use. He referred to the shared parking arrangement requirement and the City can take into the consideration that the people that live there will also be shopping there. He slated if you have to provide parking for the residential and the commercial your body and the City Council can really look at it and make a judgment call. He expressed that this type of use is the right kind of use for this corridor and will be the right thing to do. He stated that he serves the City of San Gabriel, which is a neighboring City and is also a Planning Commissioner for the City of San Marino and he thanked the Planning Commission for their time and effort in helping the City. Vice-Chair Tang addressed Mr. Cheng and said if he has a future project pending for the City of Rosemead they welcome it. He added as he can see he has a tough design to follow. Raymond Cheng replied that they know that it is a good project and it will come in the future. He added he is just a personal friend of theirs and he is trying to understand the process in working with the City. He stated it is also a very nice project and thanked the Planning Commission. 15 Chair Dang stated that he would like to extend their invitation to him to bring projects into the City. He said the City of Rosemead is going through a renaissance and would like to energize Garvey Avenue area. He stated there are a lot of incentives and recommended he speak with the Community Development Director for further information. He also encouraged Mr. Cheng to let his contacts know that the City of Rosemead welcomes new projects and will do everything they can to promote and secure their funding's. Raymond Cheng replied that there is nothing better than to make your City business friendly to bring in new businesses and also make it residential friendly. He expressed it is important in any City in our area to be friendly to all the business partners and residential people. He thanked the Planning Commission and stated he appreciates all their work. Chair Dang thanked Mr.Cheng and asked if there were any further questions or comments. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Eng asked if the Traffic Consultant will be invited to the podium, Phil Martin introduced himself and stated he is from Phil Martin and Associates. He said to answer Commissioner Eng's question on page 87, Table 21, there is a footnote number 26, the waste water generation rate was provided by the County of Los Angeles Sanitation Districts. He stated they have loading factors for various types of land uses, so they use their waste water generation factors to calculate the waste water. He said if there was capacity and based upon their comments and responses he received from them, they did not identify any impacts with not having waste water treatment plant capacity to serve the project. Commissioner Eng asked when they calculate this do they look at the plan of the project itself. She added this project has suites/units with their own bathrooms; they have multiple sewer lines, and laundries. She asked if this was taken into account in determining capacity. Phil Martin replied they looked at the site plan, but their waste water generation factors, they look at many types of facilities that are called multi-family, which they use that waste water generation factor, so they take waste water loads from a variety of multi-family projects and they average out those rates. He added so that is how they get those rates in, whatever number of units, water closets, they take all of that into account when they do their factors. He stated it is not specific for every project but they have them based on a variety of multi-family projects, just like single-family residential units generate more waste water than a multi-family unit, they base those factors on looking at many residential projects like that. He added that Commissioner Eng also had a question on accumulative traffic. He said their traffic analysis did take into four accumulative projects that were identified in the area and they are on page 11, in the MND, and the four accumulative projects are listed there. He stated Commissioner Eng also had traffic comments and he will have Keith Rutherfurd from Stantec that prepared the traffic analysis address those questions on traffic. Keith Rutherfurd,from Stantec Consulting Services Inc.,stated they did look at the volumes of the driveway on Earle Avenue and brought them out to the intersection of Garvey Avenue. He explained that they use a very conservative of estimate of what that outbound traffic would be and they have the volume. He said the volume for the am peak hour egress of that driveway when they make a left onto Earle Avenue and make their way up to Garvey Avenue is 28 outbound trips in the am peak hours. He stated those 28 trips come out the driveway to Earle Avenue and go up to Garvey Avenue and they split approximately 50/50, so that is 14 trips additional lett-turns out and additional right-turns out. He said that is one additional left-turn every four minutes, onto Garvey Avenue and that is very well under the threshold of significant impact. 16 Commissioner Eng asked if they would look at the egress if they were to turn right too onto Earle Avenue. Keith Rutherfurd,Traffic Consultant, replied yes. Commissioner Eng asked what that number was. Keith Rutherfurd, Traffic Consultant, replied it is 28 total trips, because you have the driveway, and they break into right and left turns at 14 and 14. He stated the pm peak hour volume is at 27 trips,so that is about 13 and 14. Commissioner Eng asked if the number of 28 is based on what, one car. Keith Rutherfurd, Traffic Consultant, replied the volumes they get and the trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Trip Generation rate and that again is a very conservative number and they do not take anything into account for discounts for a project like this. Commissioner Eng asked so going northbound egress of the project would generate 14 trips(cars). Keith Rutherfurd replied in the total am peak hours outbound are 28 and in the evening it is 27. He added this was based on real counts for this project and they are the two counts that go across the machine that crosses the road and counts the traffic. Commissioner Eng stated she just wants to make sure that was looked at because it will impact the travel route. Chair Dang asked the Planning Commission if there were any further comments or questions. None Chair Dang asked for a motion. Vice-Chair Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herrera, to ADOPT Resolution No. 18.03 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council ADOPT Resolution 2018-11 for the approval of Design Review 16-04 and adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Kim stated this motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noe's. He explained that the item will be forwarded to City Council for consideration at a future date. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. NONE 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF None 17 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR &COMMISSIONERS None 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Dang adjourned the meeting at 8:32 pm. The next regular Planning Commission meeting to be held on Monday, February 19,201874 be cancelled. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, March 5,2018,a17:00 p the Council Chambers. Sean Dang Chair ATTEST: Len ^ p Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 18