Loading...
PC - Minutes - 01-17-18 Special Minutes of the SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 17,2018 The special meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:08 by Chair Dang in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 8838 E. Valley Boulevard. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE-Commissioner Herrera INVOCATION-Commissioner Eng ROLL CALL-Commissioners Eng,Herrera,Lopez,Vice-Chair Tang and Chair Dang STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Thuyen, Community Development Director Kim, Public Works Director Ramirez, City Engineer Fajardo, Lisa Brownfield, MIG Consultant, Brian Marchetti, KOA Traffic Consultant, City Planner Valenzuela, Associate Planner Hanh, Assistant Planner Lao, Assistant Planner Wong, and 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 Brian Lewin, resident wished everyone a good and peaceful "2018". He thanked his fellow Ad Hoc Sub-Committee member (Vice-Chair Tang) for all his hard work on the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and commented he hopes everyone likes what they see this evening. He thanked the Planning Commission for all their work on the residential home/temple located on Emerson Place and stated what the City Council did was very contrary to the interest of the Rosemead residents. He thanked the Planning Commission for watching out so diligently for those interests. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. SPECIFIC PLAN 14-01, ZONE CHANGE 14-01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-01, AND MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 14-02 - The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan encompasses the 1.2-mile portion of Garvey Avenue, between New Avenue and Charlotte Avenue. The area includes 88-acres (153 parcels) that abut Garvey Avenue.The area is characterized by long established community institutions(Garvey Intermediate School, Arlene Bitely Elementary School, and Jim's Burgers), newer icons (Boca Dharma Temple, the Square Shopping Center, and China Islamic Restaurant), which are interspersed among largely auto-oriented land uses. Vacant parcels make up 30.4% (nearly 27-acres) of the total project land area with no open space or parks.Approximately 55-acres of the project area may be redeveloped over the life of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. PC RESOLUTION NO. 18-01 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(SCH NO. 2015041067)AND ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT, STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION, AND A MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM; APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-01 AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 14-01, MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 14-02, AND THE GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN(SPECIFIC PLAN 14-01). 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 18-01 (attached as Exhibit "D"), a resolution recommending the City Council adopt Resolution 2018-05 and Ordinance 978 (attached as Exhibits "E and F", respectively), approving Specific Plan 14-01, Zone Change 14-01, Municipal Code Amendment 14-02, and General Plan Amendment 14-01; and 3. Recommend the City Council adopt Resolution 2018-06, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report(State Clearinghouse No.2015041067)with Reports, Findings of Fact, Statements of Overriding Consideration,and a Mitigation Monitoring Program. Community Development Director Kim presented a brief introduction and stated the lead consultant from MIG, Lisa Brownfield,will be presenting a power point presentation for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. Lisa Brownfield, MIG Consultant stated she is happy to be here and introduced Brian Marchetti, KOA Traffic Consultant and added if there are questions regarding traffic he can address them. She presented a power point presentation for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. Topics discussed during the power point presentation were: Chapter 1: Introduction (Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and Objectives, Purpose, Contents and Organization of Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Public Engagement Process, and Relationship to City Plans and Programs); Chapter 2: Contest and Conditions (Community History, Regional Context, Development Patterns, Land Use, Urban Design, Mobility, Infrastructure, and Public Services and Facilities); Chapter 3: Land Use, Zoning, and Development Standards (Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Zoning Districts, Development Potential, Allowed Use, Nonconforming Uses, and Special Use Restrictions, Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Design and Development Standards); Chapter 4: Opportunity and Project Sites (Garvey Avenue LA Auto Auction and Landwin Property Sites Mixed Use Destination, Garvey Avenue 'West Gateway Specialty Retail Destination, Garvey Avenue "Prototypical Development" Opportunity Sites); Chapter 5: Infrastructure and Streetscape (Mobility and Streetscape Infrastructure, Infrastructure, and Public Facilities/Services); and Chapter 6: Implementation (Financing, Specific Plan Administration and General Provisions). She ended her presentation and said she welcomes the Planning Commission's questions,comments, and direction. Chair Dang thanked Consultant Brownfield for her presentation. He addressed the Planning Commission and asked if there were any questions,clarifications, or suggestions that they would like addressed. Commissioner Eng thanked Consultant Brownfield and asked what type feedback was received from developers. (Barely audible) City Planner Valenzuela replied that developers are happy with the finished product. Vice-Chair Tang added that at every Ad Hoc Committee meeting many of the developers were present at all those meetings as well. Consultant Brownfield added in the beginning, at the initial stage there were interviews with the development community to ask them what their thoughts and direction. She added they did attend the meetings,challenged them, offered suggestions, provided additional comments, and had questions. She said they listened to the developers during the process. Commissioner Eng asked if there had been any residents present at any of the meetings.(Barely audible) 2 Consultant Brownfield replied there was some and explained the community meetings were early in the morning, so there was not a lot of attendance. She stated in the beginning of the process they had stakeholder interviews, as well as,the surveys of the community,so they were talking to the community at the beginning of the process as well. Community Development Director Kim stated that Mr. Brian Lewin is a resident and a member of the Ad Hoc Committee,so he was a voice as part of the community. Commissioner Lopez asked besides developers, were there any residents that have theft business on Garvey Avenue present at the meetings to voice their opinions on what they need to do. Consultant Brownfield replied yes, the property owners were most of the attendees and they would bring their architects and designers with them. Vice-Chair Tang referred to the slide and asked if comments from the last joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting are these comments to be considered to amend. Consultant Brownfield replied that she would like to remind everyone what those comments were and in general this is what people said, if you think yes, that is a really good idea, and I would like to make that change, then fine or if you would like to say thank you very much and then they would move on. She added this was like reminders and this was by the way this is what we heard. She added take what you like and request it to be included or leave things behind, it is up to the Planning Commission. Vice-Chair Tang stated he would like consider some of those points from the last meeting. Chair Dang asked City Attorney Thuyen what options the Planning Commission has for this item. City Attorney Thuyen replied the options recommended by staff is to approve the resolution recommending to the City Council adoption of the resolution, which contains these recommendations, as well as recommending approval to certify the final EIR. He added there are a lot of different options if they want to include some Planning Commissioner comments or include some suggestions for the City Council to consider and with that he would suggest depending on the length of the comments and the extensiveness of those comments they be reduced to findings to incorporate into a resolution or provide direction to staff to integrate those comments into a staff report, which might be the most efficient way to go. Consultant Brownfield suggested to the City Attorney and Planning Commission that if they would like to make changes to the Draft Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and what's proposed in the Draft Errata to let them know and they will create a matrix that would be included in the City Council staff report. She said it would state what the Planning Commission has directed, what is proposed, and staff's thoughts or recommendation. She added that her suggestion is just to have a separate document that would be added to packet that will go to the City Council. City Attorney Thuyen stated that is consistent and they can provide direction according to that recommendation. Chair Dang asked for clarification if the Planning Commission may ask additional questions, provide a punch/wish list with recommendations, and then the consultant will compile it and give it to the City Council. He also asked it this evening the Planning Commission can definitely move this item onto the City Council Agenda. City Attorney Thuyen replied that is correct it it is the will of the Planning Commission to go ahead and incorporate all of the comments and work with the consultant to make sure it is all included as part of the staff report. Chair Dang called on Commissioner Eng first to begin with her questions and comments. 3 Commissioner Eng asked what the distance is of the Garvey Specific Plan. (Barely Audible) Consultant Brownfield asked if she means the corridor itself. Commissioner Eng replied yes. Consultant Brownfield and Vice-Chair Tang replied it is 1.8 or 1.2 miles. Community Development Director Kim clarified it is 1.2 miles within the Specific Plan boundary area. Commissioner Eng asked what the distance is of the entire length of Garvey Avenue. Community Development Director Kim stated the City Engineer is indicating it is 2.7 miles within the City. Commissioner Eng asked a question.(Not audible) Consultant Brownfield replied the actual General Plan Amendment is in the back under the Land Use Chapter, but in response to her question, it is only amending the General Plan component that is associated with the Specific Plans Mixed Use Zone. Commissioner Eng asked another question regarding FAR benefits. (Not audible) Consultant Brownfield replied it is correct. Commissioner Eng stated there is a reference to the land use development and read, 'There is a ten-foot street frontage for a residential project and no minimum for nonresidential use", and asked what does this mean. Consultant Brownfield asked the location of the reference. Commissioner Eng stated it is in the staff report on page 8 of 18. Consultant Brownfield explained that the setbacks would vary with different types of zones. She said some of the zones if it is a residential development, will be a ten feet setback, but in a nonresidential with commercial, you will bring it all the way to the street frontage to the curb. Commissioner Eng asked if there will still be a sidewalk space. Consultant Brownfield replied yes, it is only bringing it up to the property line. She added you will still have the curb, sidewalk, the property line, and a little bit of the setback on the stand alone residential development. She said if it is a mixed use residential development it will come up to the property line. Commissioner Eng referred to the Senior Affordable Housing on page 9 of the staff report and asked if they receive a density bonus under Senate Bill No. 1818, are they unable to benefit from the Community Benefit Program. Consultant Brownfield replied that is correct because they did not want to essentially double dip. She also explained that if they want to apply for the Senate Bill No. 1818 and get the density bonuses/perks, you can get through that program then it would be out of scale to allow additional density on top of that. Commissioner Eng asked what the difference is between what is provided in the Community Benefit under the Garvey Specific Plan and Senate Bill No. 1818. 4 Consultant Brownfield replied that the Senate Bill No. 1818 allows density bonuses and allows other benefits/perks that you don't have to do some of the requirements for a site development. Community Development Director Kim stated that the state's guideline for SB 1818 is applied to every city in the Slate of California and the intent or goal is to create affordable housing. He added in doing so, cities are required to give certain allowances, so it could be a variance for height, a variance for parking, to make the project a little more affordable, and is an affordability element. He added the Specific Plan is for Rosemead, and it is for Garvey Avenue Specific Plan area, is the city's own document and only applies for the City of Rosemead. The goal of the Specific Plan is to create a vibrant community,walkability, all those things that we want to create for this corridor area, and it encourages developers to do a better project, design a better project, bring in a better project, and construct a better project. He stated by doing certain things that are included in the Specific Plan, developers will be given certain amenities and the Specific Plan is catered towards the City of Rosemead. Commissioner Eng stated she wanted to understand which of the two will provide more opportunities for affordable housing,is it the SB 1818 or is it the incentives under the Specific Plan. Community Development Director Kim stated it would be advantageous for the City of Rosemead if the developers follow the cities guidelines. Then it can be assured that it is a quality project that is being constructed within the City. Vice-Chair Tang stated that SB 1818 is geared for more advancement of affordable housing and that narrows the focus of it,whereas the community benefits,it can be anything such as lot consolidation, parking,sustainable design, or things like that where it is a little broader. He explained that affordable housing is addressed more in SB 1818 and the exclusion of both of those programs are so developers cannot double dip. Commissioner Eng stated she understands that and she just wanted to make sure the Specific Plan does have affordability component to it and she supports that. Consultant Brownfield stated that on the community benefits list, affordable housing is not one of the things listed. She added public parks, a park over Alhambra wash, public parking, lot consolidation, putting taller buildings in the center of the lot, sustainable design, family friendly design, where they are larger housing units where they have three bedrooms or more,economic feasibility study, and the retail component of the mixed use development and that is what is composed of the community benefits. She added right now, affordable housing is not on this list, but if the Planning Commission would prefer affordable housing, it could be added to this list right now. She stated if they are currently really interested in affordable housing,then she recommends the SB 1818. Public Works Director Ramirez stated that depending on the development depends which way is better and it is the actual outcome that the architect or property owner is looking for to determine which way they want to go. She said most of the time, SB 1818 is used because these developers usually want to get additional incentives or they want to increase the density. She said they can actually do that now with the regular Specific Plan without having to provide the affordable housing, providing the affordable housing creates a 55 year period where affordable housing has to stay affordable. So from a pro-profit developer, it's better to stay with the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and from a non-profit developer,they may be looking for the SB 1818. Commissioner Eng stated that she sees now that this is not about affordable housing, it is more about density. She referred to the Economic Feasibility Study topic and asked Consultant Brownfield if they were to do a study like that, what is the projected time that they are looking at, or is that discussed, or is it open. Consultant Brownfield replied that is generally open and when she checked the three market studies for three other projects she has ongoing are essentially snap in time of now. She added one projects out for three to four years, another projects out in seven years, and another projects ten years. She stated it really takes on what is happening 5 right now, what the market looks like now, and what does the feasibility look like right now, and some time into the future. Commissioner Eng asked from her experience of putting together Specific Plans, is there usually an Economic Feasibility Projections. Consultant Brownfield replied are they tied to certain developments, typically no. She stated a number of communities do have it when they want to assure that buildings are not just built on spec or they may stay vacant over a period of time just because they can get the financing, build the building, and do whatever. She stated one Specific Plan she is working on right now,which is in Glendora, did have a market study, but they were doing a study to help them decide what the land uses were going to be placed into their Specific Plan, and the development intensity, how high the building should be,and the FARs. She said they were using it for that and will also require the development coming in just to make sure that what the developer is suggesting or wanting to build actually has some feasibility of actually being occupied. Commissioner Eng commented that is a note that the Planning Commission needs to consider because the projects coming in are really intense and it is important to be mindful and be able to look into the sustainability of the project. She stated we want the development to be successful, so she would like for the Planning Commission to think about the importance of having the Feasibility Study as a requirement,so that they are able to gage the sustainability of the project. She also referred to the Table of Community Benefits, and stated there are a lot of points for Public Open Space and Park Space and she understands why because they have limited, but she also thinks, because of how Rosemead is located and situated it is constraint by that. She asked Consultant Brownfield if they had gotten any sense during the process of getting that option or getting that put into development is achievable. Consultant Brownfield replied the total number of points is 74, if you add up everything that they do for the parks and when you are looking at Table 3.5 on page 3—30, there are a couple of options to get these points. She said you get 30 points if you have 10% or more, if the site areas provided for open space or a park and is landscaped with drought tolerant and other stuff. She explained or you can get 15 points if 15% or more of the site is provided for open space and parks and you put in additional amenities like a stage or band shell, so you really get a lot more points for that and really upping the game, because you are the developer will be providing a lot more amenities. She explained there is also the option of getting 24 points if they are including inclusive playground equipment, so they will not get all of the 74 points right off and may only do 24 points or they may only do a certain amount because that may be all they may be willing to do. She stated this is really just a series of optional things for the development community to consider and this list was based on priorities the community kind of told them it was important as well of staff in their work in a day to day basis of what is important to the community. She added to address the question if they think they will get a park with all of these other things, because of limited space, she doubts if they are ever going to get a large park with all of the amenities. She stated this just allows if someone wants to do this or willing to do this there are benefits. She added if you are the Landwin or LA Auto Auction property with a large piece of land you can create a nice park there are additional benefits and get an additional FAR and use the rest of it, so this just provides that option. Commissioner Eng stated she would like to see more incentives given to the developer to do Economic Feasibility Studies for projections because one of the main goals of the Specific Plan is to provide economic development and there should be some type of gage to measure that. She expressed that is important for the longevity of the Specific Plan. Consultant Brownfield stated the Specific Plan requires hotels and mixed-use to do this automatically and that is a straight out requirement, but where you get additional points is when you are doing a standalone residential development or a stand-alone commercial development. 6 Commissioner Eng referred to streetscape and stated it has a five feet wide median on Garvey Avenue and asked if that is just to the Specific Plan area or is that throughout the whole corridor. Consultant Brownfield replied there is a median in some areas of the corridor, but not in all and the Specific Plan is having this five feet median go pretty much throughout the corridor itself. She added there may be some changes as it goes through some turn-out pockets or as necessitated by other traffic issues, but the median will be corridor wide whereas currently it is hit or miss. Commissioner Eng referred to page 12 of the staff report regarding sewer lines, infrastructure, and capacity studies and questioned who will be taking up those studies and whose responsibility will it be to do that. Consultant Brownfield replied in the "Implementation and Infrastructure" section this is where they talk about the additional studies and in some cases it will be the developers having to do additional studies and in some cases it will be the City. Commissioner Eng stated she will be referring to the Garvey Specific Plan itself and on page 3 - 5, in the GSP-RIC Zoning and modifications to the R-2 zoning parcels and asked if there are four R-2 areas impacted. Consultant Brownfield replied there are three areas impacted. Commissioner Eng asked why those three areas were selected and is it just limited to those three areas. Consultant Brownfield replied the new zoning would be limited to just those three and they are off of Garvey Avenue and are not directly onto Garvey. That was one of the choices and second of all, there is a school on one of them, the idea of this is transitional, and is stepping you back from Garvey Avenue to the neighborhood behind it. They were looking at those parcels and groups of parcels to allow for both residential and commercial but not mixed use over the course of time, they are not saying the school will never go away in the use table for this in the GSP-R/C zone, schools and institution use will continue so the school can stay there forever. She stated what they are saying is over the course of time these parcels may turn over and if they do, they still have to blend in with the rest of the community behind it and that is how those parcels were prominently selected. Commissioner Eng referred to "Figure 3.1 Zoning"and stated she had a hard time distinguishing the two colors and recommended maybe changing that. Consultant Brownfield stated she agrees and stated it is hard to distinguish between the brown and pink. Commissioner Eng stated on page 3 - 5 of the Garvey Specific Plan, and referred to the third column to the right where it says"glass windows",and requested that the windows not be covered. Consultant Brownfield stated that in their discussions, it was discussed that all the windows need to be open and cannot be covered with posters, dark shading cannot be used, and the idea is to have transparency. She added they can shade it a little bit and if there is a certain sign then that can be put up, but you cannot cover the entire window. Commissioner Eng referred to the same third column and read, The GSP zoning district also allows for flexible spaces where start-up and locally-owned businesses can establish and maintain small businesses." She asked if they are referring to push-cart types of businesses. Consultant Brownfield replied no, they are talking about like a start-up coffee shop and stuff like that. The Specific Plan does not discuss anything like the pop-up carts, but actually does not discuss about prohibiting it also. She added if the Planning Commission would like to think about that then it can be addressed because the Specific Plan is silent on pop-up carts at this point. 7 Commissioner Eng referred to page 3 - 6, second paragraph, read the first sentence and asked if 'feature designs' can be made a requirement. Consultant Brownfield replied the it's not a requirement because in a sense, the development standards that they include actually in here creates the pedestrian scale and orientation. So when the developments come through and are actually built to those standards, it will be doing just that. Commissioner Eng stated on that same page it talks about establishing new guidelines and standards for the GSP- MU zone and asked when will that be anticipated to be done during the implementation process. Consultant Brownfield replied this is Specific Plan fallback jargon and what it is basically saying is that where this plan does not specifically speak about something an existing zoning or your existing zoning will step up and take place. She stated in this case it's specifically identifying where you don't specifically don't talk about GSP-MU then your R-C/MUDO is the default. She added there is this type of language all the way through the Specific Plan just covering something in case they miss something or didn't think of something and says it's the back-up. Commissioner Eng referred to Table 3.3 Land Use Table on page 3 - 10, regarding Temporary Use and was interrupted by Chair Dang. Chair Dang apologized to Commissioner Eng and stated since she is at a section he had a question, he asked if he could interrupt. He went back to Table 3.2 on page 3 - 7 and asked if you are residential in the GSP-RIC zone, in which you would be an apartment. Consultant Brownfield replied it does not have to be an apartment, but it can be apartments, townhouses, or residential development. Chair Dang stated you can do residential development or commercial. Consultant Brownfield stated that is correct. Chair Dang questioned but you can't do both. Consultant Brownfield stated that is correct. Chair Dang stated that commercial alone is ok and residential alone is ok, but if you mix it, it is not. He questioned why not. Consultant Brownfield replied because that establishes mixed-use and the idea of this zone, which is located back going into the community a little bit more, it is not necessarily in an area that is not appropriate for mixed use given the density and intensity that is required for a mixed use. Chair Dang stated he would like the Planning Commission to consider if residential and commercial are both allowed then why can't a combination of both be allowed. He added it doesn't make sense to not allow it and suggested that if it is allowed just do not give them the mixed use intensity and benefits. He added that this is something to give to the City Council to consider and whatever they decide is alright with him. Vice-Chair Tang asked what the restrictions on a commercial use in the R/C zone. Consultant Brownfield asked if he is asking what the actual types of uses are in the commercial zone. 8 Vice-Chair Tang replied yes. Public Work Director Ramirez stated while that is being looked up, she would like to explain that these three sites were also designated this way because staff had the property owners involved in this. They were originally zoned as commercial and these property owners knew their properties were surrounded by housing and they wanted the opportunity to create housing to blend into the neighborhood if they so choose to do that. She added they did not want to necessarily give up their commercial rights because they might sell their properties. She stated it was never the intent for these properties to be considered as mixed use and to change the school district property that is attached to the property in front, so the idea would be to separate the parcels and they would have to create a housing component in the back and have a commercial in the front. She stated they did not want a mixed use necessarily, they wanted the option to sell the housing option off. They did not have any intention of selling this property off but they were looking at what they could do to maximize this property. She stated this goes for the same on the property located off of Del Mar Avenue, so with staff working with these property owners this is what they came up with that best fit with this design and those property owners. She added, however, the Planning Commission can make a decision on what they want, but typically if you want to have both commercial and housing, then it is mixed use,there is not another designation for that and referred to the City Attorney for further explanation if needed. Chair Dang thanked Ms. Ramirez for the clarification and stated he just sees that if it looks and behaves like a mixed- use building and as long as they are not given the mixed-use district incentives, it would survive as if it was a one- story commercial building with an apartment above it. Public Works Director Ramirez reiterated that she would defer this to the City Attorney, but then it could look like they are giving incentives to certain property owners that we are not allowing others, but they have the same designation. She added so if one property we are allowing commercial and mixed use, but we saying you can only go this high, and this commercial can only go that high, and she guesses they can do what they do now for the low density and high density mixed use commercial use, if they so choose to do it that way. She stated it is the will of the Planning Commission and what they are looking at and trying to accomplish. Chair Dang stated he would like to explain it from a different perspective and stated if he has a piece of land and it is perfectly legal for him to build one apartment building, ten feet away, as long as the fire proof permits, he could build another building that is commercial and it would be perfectly fine. He asked if his understanding if this code section to be correct. Consultant Brownfield asked if is asking if it will be on the same lot. Chair Dang replied yes, on the same lot. Consultant Brownfield replied it would not be allowed at this point. She added it would not be allowed because that would be considered a mixed use and explained that if you built a commercial building and an all residential building it would be permitted. Chair Dang stated if there were two pieces of property and they were right adjacent to each other you can build one apartment on one property and one commercial on the other and asked if that would be perfectly fine. Consultant Brownfield replied that would be correct, if they are two different lots that could be done. Chair Dang stated that it seems awkward to allow commercial or residential but to not allow it on the same lot. Consultant Brownfield stated that it is unlikely that you would get a developer wanting to do a mini-market type store and then have residential above it without having the additional benefit of having mixed use because typically it is not 9 enough of a development standard to allow them to do that, finance it, and build it. She added that it can never happen, it's just not likely to happen. She stated while talking to the property owners, they were thinking of compatibility with what's adjacent to them. She referred back to Vice-Chair Tang's question of what different commercial uses are allowed and said there are only a couple of differences and one difference is, if you allow that mixed-use for example, eating and drinking establishments with On-Sale ABC licenses is allowed in mixed-use, but not in the residential/commercial. She stated another one that is allowed is entertainment or spectator sports like arenas with 150 seats or more or 15,000 square feet,which probably would not occur because these sites are really small, but that is another example of what could be allowed under a CUP and in a Mixed-Use zone, but would not be allowed in the residential/commercial zone. She said the same thing with a hotel with a 50 or more person would be allowed in a mixed use but it is not allowed in the straight commercial zone and medical offices as well. She stated this is a brief listing in comparing the two columns of some of the uses that would be different, if you were allowed to be in that mixed use format, even if you didn't give that additional density, but even in that form, you would be pulling in those other uses most likely as well. Community Development Director Kim asked if the permitted use list is on Table 3.3. Consultant Brownfield replied it is on Table 3.3 beginning on page 3- 10. Community Development Director Kim asked if that table has all the permitted uses, conditional use permitted uses, as set by the four zoning districts. Consultant Brownfield replied that is correct. Vice-Chair Tang asked if someone were to build a commercial building like Chair Dang has alluded to, for example, could it be an office space or a convenience store, or what type of use would be allowed. Consultant Brownfield replied under the current commercial zoning it could be a whole series of uses; it could be an eating and drinking establishment without alcohol, financial services, beverage retail, small health club, office use, personal services, and things like that. Chair Dang stated he was imagining like in San Francisco where they have small petite shops, coffee shops, and then having residential on the second or third floor above it. He added this is what he was visualizing when he was thinking of this and not to the grandeur of a mixed use project. He added it would be nice to have pedestrian traffic and having them come down to have dinner or visit the coffee shop. Commissioner Eng asked Consultant Brownfield it the rest of the parcels are small in size, with the exception of the two large parcels. Consultant Brownfield replied'all of the rest are fairly small,for the most part. Commissioner Eng stated that Vice-Chair Dang is alluding to, if someone owns a small parcel,and they want to stay and develop that parcel, he would like to give them the flexibility to develop that small parcel as a mixed use. Chair Dang stated maybe he does not want to use the term mixed use because it seems to be clouding what he is trying to discuss. Consultant Brownfield stated there is a difference in height as well, between the two types of uses. She explained in the R/C zone you only have 35 feet, so that is only a two or three-story building. She added where the other mixed use project is located it is a 75 foot building, so this is going back to the likely hood of a mixed use project working because it is so small. She stated that it does not mean that they can't and if the Planning Commission is thinking of considering this, she would not be so hesitant if the parcels in yellow along Del Mar Avenue weren't facing Del Mar 10 Avenue, because Del Mar Avenue is a busy street. She stated she is concerned with the likelihood of allowing this in the school zone areas or the other pieces of property that is back off of Strathmore Avenue because you are really in a neighborhood at that point. Chair Dang stated from his perspective, it seems softer to have a three-story office building verses having a one- story office with an apartment above it seems softer and that is why he likes that concept. He stated he would like to see a mixed-use building instead. Consultant Brownfield stated it is up to the Planning Commission to give direction and if the Planning Commission would like to see that,then they can add it to the list and it is up to their direction. Vice-Chair Tang stated he likes that train of thought looking in terms of thinking for those creative ways, but he agrees with staff that it seems awkward to have retail/office space on the first level, and then have residential on the second level, especially on a street like Jackson Avenue, which is highly residential and in a specific neighborhood. He added for example if Garvey Intermediate School was not in operation, then you would turn the back half of that Garvey Intermediate School into kind of a commercial mixed/residential use, whereas, when you have single-story homes and right across the street you have a two-story home with commercial on the first floor and residential on the second floor and expressed that seems more awkward than just saying to only having only commercial or office space there. He asked the Planning Commission for their input or thoughts. Commissioner Eng stated that she sees both perspectives. Chair Dang stated that is something for the Planning Commission to consider and moved on to the next topic. He referred to page 3 -7, R-C zoning, and stated there is a density unit of 7, and stated if he was able to maximize his community benefit, then he could ramp that up to 30 dwelling units. He added that would be almost a fourfold increase, however,when they look at the FAR the baseline is 0.75, and in the maximizing community benefit the FAR does not move up very much. Consultant Brownfield replied that is correct and the FAR 0.75 is a pretty large increase than what is allowed now. She stated that was some of their thought when they chose the 0.75 because that was already a bump up and to bump it up significantly to the 1.0 did not make sense to them. She asked if Chair Dang was questioning the bump up to 0.75,to the 1.0 or the 0.75 to the 30. Chair Dang stated that it is a good point and they are actually related. He said if they are able to bump up the dwelling unit up to 30, basically a fourfold increase, but we are slightly bumping up the FAR, you are basically telling the developer to go ahead and build more units but we want it a lot smaller. He commented that this 30 looks good but maybe when they pencil it in then it doesn't work. He added you will have smaller units and maybe have a lot of them, but they will be harder to rent,and is maybe an item for the City Council to think about. Consultant Brownfield asked what Chair Dang's recommendation would be to change that if you would want to suggest that to the City Council. Chair Dang replied he recommends that it be consistent and if it is ramped up to 30, then it should be considered to moving it to above 1.0 or the other way around it you want to lock it in at 1.0 then there really isn't a reason to have a 30. He added that the sales should be moderately consistent and they should not multiply by fourfold and then you are moving up a quarter point for the FAR. Commissioner Eng addressed Chair Dang and stated she recalls seeing that there is a room size requirement as part of a design standard. She added that Chair Dang's point is that there is a need for consistency. 11 Chair Dang stated he does not have a set number for Consultant Brownfield to present to the City Council but this is a question that can be presented to the Council and let them decide on the number for the FAR or reduce the density or just keep it the way it is. He stated he just wanted to point out the inconsistency. Vice-Chair Tang asked if the math adds up and let's say you can have 30 dwelling units per gross acre, but you have a 1.0 FAR, but you have a height limit of 35, so if you increase the FAR would the math even add up. Chair Dang stated it would be very difficult to make a building work out. Consultant Brownfield stated they will do the analysis and they will come back to see, if something is going to change,to see what would be more reasonable to change. Chair Dang stated on that same page 3 - 7 under the heading of "Maximum with Provision of Community Benefits" (see 3.4.2)he corrected a typo and stated it should say(see 3.4.3). Consultant Brownfield thanked Chair Dang and stated she will look for that. Commissioner Eng referred to page 3 - 11 under, 'Table 3.3 Land Use Table" under Care Uses and asked why "Transitional and Supportive Housing"is, not permitted in the MU Zone and the thought behind that. Consultant Brownfield replied that the thought about that was in the MU Zone you are most likely to get a more intensive development and transitional and supportive housing is typically not contusive to that. She added with that being said, if there is a senior citizen living and care that is a little bit denser then that can be facilitated, and again that would be a Planning Commission decision to be included. Commissioner Eng commented that it's a question for now. Chair Dang stated he sees that it is allowed in the R-C Zone and added as Commissioner Eng noted it seems a little awkward that it is not allowed in the mixed use where it is a little more intense use. Consultant Brownfield asked if that is the direction of the Planning Commission to include "Transitional and Supportive Housing"into the MU Zone. Chair Dang stated that is a question that the Planning Commission would like the City Council to address and make a decision on it. Commissioner Eng stated that is something she would support. City Attorney Thuyen suggested that since a list of questions is being compiled for City Council's consideration that maybe after this deliberation it would be helpful to list them out and get a sense of which ones are all shared by all the members of the Planning Commission officially and which ones aren't and that way they can properly address them. Consultant Brownfield stated she has a list so far of three to four items. Commissioner Eng referred to page 3 - 13, "Land Use, Zoning, and Development Standards", under 2) Physical Design Requirements and read, "(a) All furnishings of a sidewalk dining, including, but not limited to, tables, chairs and decorative accessories, shall be readily movable". She asked if there will be a requirement that if an establishment is closed they will have to put all of their furnishings away. Consultant Brownfield replied yes,and explained this is when it is occurring on the sidewalk. 12 Commissioner Eng referred to page 3-28 regarding the 75-foot height requirement and asked if a new development goes up to 75-feet how does that impact the residential units behind it if they want to install solar panels on their roofs. Consultant Brownfield replied the 75-foot height limit and when you read Table 3.4 Development Standards it actually allows for a 5-foot height increase and unique features in the corners and things like that. She added there is the ability to go a little taller than that, but on that 75-foot limit outside of that additional top it includes everything, so you can't go up to 75-foot height and then add elevators, solar panels, and everything on top of that. She stated all of that has to occur at the 75-foot height. Chair Dang interrupted Consultant Brownfield and clarified that Commissioner Eng meant if you build a 75-foot building and it cast a shadow on the neighbor's house, how it affects the solar panels. City Planner Valenzuela replied in the standards they have variable height requirements, so that protects those residential units. Commissioner Eng stated that is the site line, but what she is curious about if a two-story residential property wants to put solar panels on a roof and if there is a building that is 75-feet high, what impact would that have in terms of their ability to use that source of that solar panel. Consultant Brownfield stated that she understands the question and this is in regards to properties that are not within the specific plan area. Commissioner Eng replied yes. Consultant Brownfield stated a shade and shadow analysis was not made, so that was not part of the Garvey Specific Plan. Director of Public Works Ramirez stated that it should be noted that the current height limit on this street is already 75-feet., so technically right now someone could build at 75-feet. She added the height limit is not being changed currently it is just reinforcing that it will still be the height limit that will be under this Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. She stated in regards to solar panels it will depend on how a single-family dwelling even sits because not everyone can do the panels. She said depending on how the home sits you can only get the sun from the south or the west side,which is unfortunate. Commissioner Eng stated she is trying to see what can be done. Director of Public Works Ramirez stated she hopes the Variable Height will help with that and that is the whole idea with that. She added that a shadow study was not made. Commissioner Eng referred to the frontage of multiple story buildings that are fronting Garvey Avenue and asked if the upper units are allowed to have awnings or is it only allowed on the first level. Consultant Brownfield replied she does not recall if they are and will look for an answer for that. She asked Commissioner Eng if the Specific Plan is silent and does not address awnings on the upper units, does she have a preference. Commissioner Eng replied in trying to achieve a certain aesthetic they need to have a discussion or some guidance to address this and there will be a maintenance issue. 13 Chair Dang stated he likes the awnings, it softens the facade,and if the building is facing the south it creates shading and it cools the building,especially if it is over a store front window. He added he supports canopies and awnings. Consultant Brownfield stated that Commissioner Eng was referring to the awnings on the upper floors and not on the lower floors. She reiterated that she does not recall this being discussed, and believes the Garvey Specific Plan is silent on this item. Chair Dang stated he has not seen awnings on the upper floors and has only seen them on the ground floors. Commissioner Eng stated on the ground floors she understands the placement of awnings, but it is on the upper floors that when you have vertical mixed use she would like input and asked Community Development Director Kim for his advice. Chair Dang stated that Community Development Director Kim has a good point and if it is on the ground floor it is easier to maintain, but if it is on the upper floors then a commercial truck with a ladder will be necessary to maintain those awnings. He added it may not be a good idea to have them on the second or third floors. Consultant Brownfield stated that she is hearing from the Planning Commission to prohibit awnings above the ground floor. Commissioner Lopez asked for clarification and asked if they are not talking about balconies or anything else, and just the awning covering only. Chair Dang stated they are only talking about fabric awnings. He said some of the modern buildings have a horizontal fin that is more permanent and is made of an aluminum finish. He commented that those would be alright from his perspective because there would be no maintenance involved. Community Development Director Kim stated what is important is that on the upper floors a lot of the more modern designs is that they will use some sort of trellis system or some type of permanent architectural feature and those are 100% appropriate to do. He added the maintenance items are usually the fabric awnings, they degrade over time, it's difficult to have them removed and replaced especially if there is framing around it. He stated those are the items Commissioner Eng may be referring to. Chair Dang addressed Consultant Brownfield description and stated the Planning Commission does not want to prohibit the modern architecture and the horizontal fins. Consultant Brownfield stated that the Planning Commission is referring to prohibiting the fabric awnings on the upper floors only. She referred to Santa Barbara and stated she has seen fabric awnings on the second floor and stated they are still reachable to maintain and suggested that awnings be allowed on the ground and second floor only, but not above the second floor. Commissioner Eng referred to Chapter 6, page 6-4"Financing"and asked how the concept of the Reimbursement District works, has it been successfully used, and how do you provide incentives for property owners and businesses to participate. Consultant Brownfield replied Reimbursement Districts are used but they are not used that frequently. She explained the way it works is that a lot of times the City is actually fronting the money and she is not sure if the City of Rosemead would be interested in fronting that money. She said some of the other Reimbursement Districts also look at the City, forms the district, but then a major property owner does a certain amount, and as the other people come they reimburse them for that cost. She explained it is difficult and there is this long process where the City Council has to have a public hearing,the district gets all the other property owners approval,and it usually happens in a case 14 when Developer "A" knows Developers "B, C and D", and they are coming in right after them. She said but in this case in Rosemead that may not be true because things may take a longer period of time to occur. She added they wanted to talk about this as a method, it appropriate it can be used, and it is an opportunity. Community Development Director Kim stated that this is typically used on a larger scaled project where the project itself along with the public sector, like the City, will form a Community Facilities District (CFD) and it would pay for certain types of improvements to be built as part of a larger scale of a project. It is a mechanism and not used quite a lot but it is a tool that may fit on a very specific project. He added there may be a Lighting CFD, Landscaping CFD, Utilities CFD, and the most common one is usually Melaruse CFD, when you are doing a residential project,there is a Melaruse that is floated for underground utilities, and that gets paid back over time through tax assessment. He added this is a tool. Commissioner Eng asked if this is different from a business economic source. Community Development Director Kim replied yes,this would be different. Commissioner Eng asked if this would fall under the Reimbursement Districts. Community Development Director Kim replied no,and what she is referring to is a different type of facility. Vice-Chair Tang stated he has a question about lot consolidation and referred to the staff report, page 10 of 18, 'Table 2:Community Benefit Types and Points". He stated if there are two property owners that are adjoined together do they just consolidate their lots,or does one buy the other one out, and asked how it works. Consultant Brownfield replied yes, and read that for every one or more parcels or lots that are consolidated to form a single parcel, or a lot and a lot consolidation, that are recorded with the City, 35 points will be awarded for each final parcel or lot. She stated that means that if property"A" buys property "B and C" and create one final lot, then they get 35 points. Chair Dang asked if you get 35 points times two because you are buying properties"A and B". Consultant Brownfield replied no and explained that 35 points will be awarded for each final parcel or lot. She added if you are creating multiple lots every lot does not get that additional density bonus only one of the lots would get the density bonus. Vice-Chair Tang asked, so it is not that if two property owners, properly"A"and property"B"owners can enter into an agreement and say let' redevelop both our lots and have it contiguous. It has to be one final recorded lot. Consultant Brownfield replied yes, it has to be one final recorded lot. She added that they can if they want to go through the process of owning the property jointly but that is up to them. Vice-Chair Tang referred to the staff report on page 11 of 18 under "Parking Management" and asked for the last paragraph to be explained to him. Consultant Brownfield referred back to Community Benefits in regards to parking, and said what this says is, for every one standard size parking spot marked for public use and permanently available for public use over and above what is required, so let's say she has a parking lot and her use says she needs to supply 25 parking spaces but in her parking lot she is going to have five extra parking spaces that are public and identified as public and available for public use, given that, she would be given two points for every one of those five, so she would got ten points, all the way in,and you can increase your points all the way to 50 points. 15 Vice-Chair Tang referred to the open space and the Alhambra Wash and asked what the imagined development for that open space is. He asked if it will be a bridge. Consultant Brownfield replied it could be a bridge and it will take some work with the Flood Control District and they change their mind depending on whom you are and who you ask. She stated in one of her jurisdictions they allowed properly on one side to build a bridge and actually landscape it, park cars, on this bridge that is crossing this wash. She said in another area in a project the Flood Control Distdct just said no and it was the exact same scenario but It was different people that were making the decisions. She added what this is saying is, if you are able to do this,then the capping of the Alhambra Wash would be kind of capped, then a bridge would be put over it, and then used as park space on top of it. She added there would have to be landscaping and there is different forms of landscaping that isn't necessarily so heavy so that you can still have a green amenity area over the wash. She said if you do that then you would get 25 points and if you do that and turn it into a public park instead of a landscape space, and then you get some additional points for that. Chair Dang asked if a cap can be put over the channel and provide public parking and get the two points. Consultant Brownfield replied no, because when you talk about capping here, then you are talking about capping it and using it for an open space amenity and not for a parking amenity. Vice-Chair Tang referred to the slide presentation and he knows there is a Community Incentive Program and asked if there were any incentives for developers to build outdoor dining in the Garvey Avenue storefronts. Consultant Brownfield replied right now it is being allowed to occur, but is not incentivized. She stated it can be added and the Planning Commission can give them direction to add this but the difficulty with this is that you are then saying it is a restaurant that is going to be there essentially forever and you have given them development rights. She said it may be a restaurant now that works for 3- 5 years and then the restaurant goes out and then that space is then being used as a bookstore and would they like to give them additional density if they are a different type of use, rather than an outdoor dining use. Vice-Chair Tang stated that whole element of outdoor space regardless of its use helps achieve the goal of this pedestrian friendly streetscape kind of environment and not only that but he thinks it also helps alleviate the size and scope of the project when you are walking along a street like Garvey Avenue and you see a three or four story building that outdoor element helps to mitigate the massiveness of building or project. He stated that is what he would like to see. Consultant Brownfield stated that Vice-Chair Tang would like to have a new line item added to allow for incentivizing for outdoor dining and/or other outdoor use. Public Works Director Ramirez stated this is something that needs to be discussed further with the City Attorney because outdoor dining can actually go into the public-right-away and we don't want to necessarily give up the public- right-away. She said so by giving them this incentive then what is being said is that we are basically giving up our public-right-away. She added the City may need that public-right-away to do some of the improvements the City may want to do in the future. She recommended that this item be worked on a little more between now and the next meeting to make sure the City is not giving up rights to their land. Vice-Chair Tang agreed that recommendation makes sense. Consultant Brownfield suggested that if it is just the concept if it is just outdoor dining occurring on the private property. 16 Vice-Chair Tang agreed and stated that he would not foresee doing outdoor dining into the public property because number one,there is not enough space to do that. Public Works Director Ramirez stated it is possible and it could be in places that you could do that, and that is why we would have the City Engineer look at those places, but again, you would not want to give away any of the City's rights. Chair Dang asked staff if outdoor dining triggers parking and is it part of the parking tabulation in the Rosemead Municipal Code. He stated it the answer is yes, then if it is made into an incentive that if you do outdoor dining under this Specific Plan, then you do not have to provide parking. He added that once the outdoor dining leaves and retail comes in the parking will not be affected. He stated in the case that if the outdoor dining is in the public-right-away then the City can execute a revocable permit and then you can take it back at any time. He recommended the best way to incentivize is to just tie it with parking and if you do it within this Specific Plan no parking is required. Consultant Brownfield stated rather than a Community Benefit you just incentivize outdoor dining by not requiring parking for just that 100 square foot area. Chair Dang stated or for just that outdoor area that is needed. City Planner Valenzuela stated currently the Rosemead Municipal Code states that when there is outdoor seating and if it exceeds over 50%of the gross interior floor area of the restaurant,then there is a requirement and anything that doesn't exceed 50%is not counted. Consultant Brownfield stated that makes sense if it is more than over the 50%because what if you had only a kitchen that was enclosed. Community Development Director Kim stated for clarification there was a project that allowed the public to congregate and have outdoor dining in an open space element and that could be used also as an option to synergize dining area. City Planner Valenzuela agreed that could be used. Chair Dang referred to outdoor dining and if they have it outside and there is a breezeway or covered awning is that considered outdoor dining. Consultant Brownfield clarified if Chair Dang is asking if the building is a u-shape and if there is a breezeway in- between. Chair Dang replied yes, or a covered pedestrian walk-way, and if you put some tables and chairs outside is that considered outdoor dining. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Vice-Chair Tang stated that is what he would like to recommend if the Planning Commission is in support of this idea. Consultant Brownfield replied she has a comment on that concept when they go through the punch list. Chair Dang referred to page 3-24 of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and read the restaurant parking requirement. He asked if everything needs to be standard and compact is not allowed or is it parking in general. 17 Consultant Brownfield replied it is parking in general and the Specific Plan does discuss the allowing for compact parking spaces. Chair Dang asked staff if tandem parking is allowed in commercial. Consultant Brownfield replied the Specific Plan says tandem parking is not allowed in nonresidential use but only in residential, but she does not know what the city's current code says. City Planner Valenzuela stated the code does not make reference to tandem parking in commercial, but it has been allowed in the past for example;a car dealership has been allowed because they move their own cars. Chair Dang suggested to the Planning Commission that tandem parking should be allowed in the commercial and what businesses have done is executed a parking attendant affidavit. He said they hire a person that is there all day and he just moves the car for you. He stated he would like to make that an item available for the developers. Commissioner Eng asked it the business has a valet service then tandem parking will be permitted. Chair Dang replied yes. Consultant Brownfield suggested that if there is tandem parking then it is required for the duration of 50 years to provide valet service. She added she does not know if maybe this may become a code enforcement problem if it stops and perhaps staff can address that. City Planner Valenzuela stated since she has been with the City of Rosemead, valet parking has never been approved. For this reason,she does not have any information on whether it would be an issue. Public Works Director Ramirez stated that there probably wouldn't be any complaints from the property owner; it would be probably from the tenants or people actually using the valet service and they may have an issue. Staff would then find out about it. Chair Dang stated that sometimes lots are so small that it is difficult to park left and right side. He said if you park in tandem you could save some very expensive real estate. He commented that this is an important tool for the developer to have and requested it be added to the punch list. Community Development Director Kim stated the current trend now is to find innovative solutions for parking because Southern California parking is an issue. He referred to the City of West Hollywood and that they did an automated parking structure. Chair Dang stated he was part of that project and explained you get off and hit a button and it takes the car. Community Development Director Kim stated if you go to a lot of the metropolitan cities all over the world they have parking systems. He added that there are a lot of bad parking systems where the parking facilities are on a skeleton type of equipment, where it is not sheltered, and it looks like racks. He added he would not recommend that if the Planning Commission is going to pursue this,there are many ways it can be done if they would like to explore this. Vice-Chair Tang commented that there is an example of a poor parking system located in Monterey Park. Chair Dang referred to restaurants and if it is a small restaurant with floor area less than 2,500 square feet, it will be parked at one per 400 square feet, and if it is a larger restaurant it will be parked at one per 200 square feet. He asked staff if the current code for restaurant is 200 square feet. 18 City Planner Valenzuela replied the current code for restaurants is one per 100 square feet. Chair Dang asked if either way they are getting an incentive. City Planner Valenzuela replied yes. Chair Dang asked staff what is the current code for retail parking. City Planner Valenzuela replied it is one per 250 square feet. Chair Dang asked if in the Specific Plan is there a break on that also. Consultant Brownfield replied no and stated that all nonresidential is one per 400 square feet and explained the breakdown. Chair Dang referred to the table on page 3-25 in the Garvey Specific Plan regarding landscaping. He stated in the third column under GSP it states 6%minimum and asked if that is for commercial use. Consultant Brownfield replied yes. Chair Dang asked if this is consistent with the City program of Tree City USA and if the tree ratio was higher. Public Works Director Ramirez replied that the Tree City USA deals with the public-right-away and the Specific Plan deals with private property. Chair Dang asked if Tree USA has any component on private property at all. Public Works Director Ramirez replied no, not for private it is strictly for public-right-away. Chair Dang asked if currently the City is at 6%also. City Planner Valenzuela replied the code requires 6%. Chair Dang recommended that he would like to encourage more green landscaping, especially in these big parking lots, where everyone is looking to park under shade from the trees. He stated that 6%is kind of slim and requested this item be added to the punch list. Consultant Brownfield asked Chair Dang what he would like to see and would he like to see this in only the GSP because it is also listed in the GSP-MU and is required as 6%. Chair Dang replied he would like to see it changed in both columns the OSP and GSP-MU. Consultant Brownfield asked Chair Dang what he would to see it as. Chair Dang asked why residential is required at 20%. City Planner Valenzuela replied because the code currently requires 20%. Chair Dang asked if there is a reason why it requires 20%or is it a number that has just been carried on. 19 City Planner Valenzuela replied a survey was conducted when the code was updated and that was the number that most other cities required. Chair Dang asked staff if they had a survey is available for commercial also. City Planner Valenzuela replied that percentage use to be at 3% and when the code was updated in the year"2013" is was changed to 6%. Consultant Brownfield asked if it is currently 6%,what would Chair Dang like it to go up to. Chair Dang stated he does not have a magic number but at a discussion point he would like to say 10% and requested staff to check on what the City of El Monte and Monterey Park has. He would like it to be at least consistent with the neighboring cities. City Planner Valenzuela replied she would check. Consultant Brownfield confirmed that Chair Dang would like it to state at least 6%or if they are higher then be higher and not be lower than that 6%. Chair Dang replied that would be good. He then referred to the same page under open space and this is from the Errata on page 3, and stated it is 75-square feet per dwelling unit or 60-square feet minimum for private and the remaining will be for common open space. Consultant Brownfield replied yes. Chair Dang commented that amount seems difficult to achieve because in saving fifteen square feet, it will give another 290 square feet somewhere. Consultant Brownfield stated the way it works now is that in GSP-RC and in GSP-MU it is 75-square feet private so like a balcony or patio would have to be 75-square feet, plus 290-square feet out in the common area. She added so they are already requiring 290 square feet out there and maybe that is what is confusing on the Errata because both are not listed. She added if you are allowed to do 60-square feet and are a little smaller, now the 290 square feet increases to 350 square feet. She added the numbers were discussed and suggested by the Garvey Avenue Specific Committee. Chair Dang stated that if you are going to build a 10-unit apartment, asking someone to give you 60-square feet plus 350 square feet is 410 square feet, times ten is 4,100 square feet of area to give up, and stated that seems kind of high. He stated he was looking at other cities and it was not even half of this, this is an item he was looking at, but feels it is a little restrictive. Consultant Brownfield stated that they can go the other way and they can do 75-square feet per unit. Chair Dang stated plus 290 square feet and expressed it still is a pretty high number. He added the number he saw was 175 square feet per unit. Consultant Brownfield stated that she recalls the Garvey Specific Plan Committee wanting these numbers and having the private units be really amenities having large community areas and private space because they wanted to minimize the impacts to the nearby parks that are already over-used. She stated their thinking was that the private development sector will start to take on their own recreation responsibility. She added by having a little higher requirement for common and a little higher requirement for personal space is minimizing the impact on parks. 20 Vice-Chair Tang stated that is how the committee came up with that too and it was initially 75 square feet. He added there was a question from a developer and they asked it it could be lower or another option to it. He stated this is the option the committee came up with in working with those developers to alleviate the demand on public parks in the neighboring areas. Commissioner Eng stated it also provides incentives for the residents or occupants who stay locally to enjoy the other amenities. Vice-Chair Tang stated that they also recognized that because these are high intensity developments these types of spaces are suitable for that. He added if it was a smaller scale of development then it would probably not make sense. Consultant Brownfield stated that another part of that is if the Specific Plan allows for useable common open space to be things like community recreation rooms, it allows for it to say it not be a green open space. She added it allows you to do libraries, community recreation rooms, and some other spaces that the community can truly use as a recreation space. Chair Dang stated regardless if you are doing a studio or a three-bedroom house, you will be taxed for the same amount of open space. He added the formula he is used to seeing is based on habitable room, so if you are less than two habitable rooms, kitchen,and a studio bedroom,then you are at a lower tier maybe at 125 square feet and if you do a bigger unit three bedroom, kitchen, etc.,then you are at a higher tier, maybe at 175 square feet per unit. He said that at the end the developer has an option of combining a smaller unit with larger ones if his open space is not really pan out for him. He stated with this particular formula it is hard at set rather if he does a studio, a big house, or big unit you will get taxed the same way and it seems a little unfair. He stated some developers the way their business motto is to build two bedroom housing, some like to build really luxury apartments, and some like to build three bedroom homes, so it you give them a little sliding scale they could manipulate or formulate into their business motto which will help them. Consultant Brownfield stated she has added this recommendation to the punch list. Chair Dang referred to page 3—29 of the Specific Plan in regards to Public Parks and asked if a developer builds a big apartment and wants to use his public park incentive,is it truly a public park. He asked will the City of Rosemead go in and do maintenance it they need to or from this point forward will the developer do all the maintenance it will need. He asked what will the perimeters of this public park. Consultant Brownfield read the definitions on Table 3.5 on page 3-30 of the Garvey Specific Plan. She added that it is the developer's choice they can maintain it permanently on their own and keep it open to the public or they can deed it to the City. Chair Dang stated the only hiccup with that is if he is a developer and he is taxed to take care of it, at what point can he lock it up,say it's getting late,and I don't want people walking around. Consultant Brownfield replied that cannot be done because the reason you will be getting the community bonus, benefits,and amenities is because you are providing a public space. Chair Dang stated that even it a developer would like to do this, it is difficult for them. Consultant Brownfield stated the developer does not have to apply for the bonuses. 21 Chair Dang stated that he likes the bonuses and expressed that the developer may have security issues and suggested that maybe the Community Development Director impose limitations. He added no one should be walking around at 10:00 pm on private property. Consultant Brownfield asked Chair Dang if he would rather see this required to be deeded automatically to the City. Chair Dang replied no. He stated that it is alright for the residents to walk around at night because it is their property but people that do not live there should not be there after 10:00 pm. Commissioner Eng asked if in this type of development there is usually a management plan in place that would address this concern or issue. Chair Dang replied there would be but it is being said that even the managers cannot request them to leave the premises. Public Works Director Ramirez suggested that staff can look at the current regulations of our City Parks and base this with the direction of the Planning Commission and use the same hours that our current City Parks are. Chair Dang stated that is within reason. Consultant Brownfield stated she agrees and confirmed that it should just say it will follow and be applicable to the current rules of operation of a public park. City Attorney Thuyen suggested this can also be resolve this as a set condition of approval for any proposed project or development in addition to any of those other rules. Chair Dang referred to page 3 - 28 of the Specific Plan and read the last paragraph in the right hand column. He stated that LEED is a voluntary system verses a Green Code which is a California requirement and the Green Building Code has a thing called Tier 1 and Tier 2,which is roughly equivalent to LEED Gold or LEED Platinum,so in lieu of developers spending more money, getting their project qualified as LEED Gold, perhaps it can just be written as Green Building Code Tier 1 or Tier 2,because they are going to pay that fee anyway, but let's just keep that fee in house. Consultant Brownfield agreed and confirmed Chair Dang's recommendation. Chair Dang referred to page 3- 30, Density Bonus, third column and read it. He asked why it has to be immediately adjacent to it(Alhambra Wash). Consultant Brownfield stated she does not recall but it can be added as an item. Chair Dang referred to page 3 - 33, left hand column, and bottom of the page. He read it and asked if the 24' driveway is coming from a Zoning Code item or is it a Fire Department access requirement. Consultant Brownfield replied when the development standards were looked at,that is where there is a minimum and maximum width for driveways. She added driveway access width for a one-way the minimum is 14' and maximum was 20'and the minimum for two-way was 24' and the maximum was 30'. She added this was in this Table and this piece says the review authority can change that number. Chair Dang referred to page 3 -37, and asked staff what are the current window sign requirements and it it conflicts with the Specific Plan. 22 City Planner Valenzuela replied that the current code only allows 15%of the windows to be covered. Consultant Brownfield asked if that is with a sign. City Planner Valenzuela replied with any window coverage. Chair Dang asked Consultant Brownfield if that would be a conflict or is that a line item that should be placed to be specific, so there will not be any issues down the line, or does she think it is alright. He also noted that it states Section 5.5.1 and asked if it is the sign section. Consultant Brownfield replied yes, and is probably talking about their rules. She added the Specific Plan at this time is not allowing that to occur but the Specific Plan also says to create a signage program. She said one of the implementations is talking a little bit more about signage,so it may be able to be addressed a little more at that point. Chair Dang asked if it should be included or not included. Consultant Brownfield replied let the implementation of the Specific Plan where they are considering signage take precedent. Chair Dang stated so not to allow it. He referred to page 3-39, and stated the diagram says maximum 60%times the lot width and asked if that is correct. Consultant Brownfield replied yes. Chair Dang stated should it say, going to the page above this on 3-38 on the upper middle column, 60% building frontage or lot width.He is asking about the formula and which one is it. Consultant Brownfield replied it should say 60%of the building frontage. Chair Dang stated so the diagram is a little off. Consultant Brownfield replied yes and it will be changed. Chair Dang referred to page 3- 42, right-hand column, item number(e), and read"Courtyards internal to a project or enclosed on at least three sides", and stated he has encountered courtyards that are L-Shaped building and they are enclosed two sides and recommended incorporating two sides. He referred to the same page 3 - 42, left-hand column, where it talks about open space amenities for the public and to use shade trees. He stated so shade trees shall be provided in all open spaces and some jurisdictions put a number of 15%or 20%and asked if that needs to be done for the specific plan or who takes care of the number of shade trees. Consultant Brownfield asked staff if there are existing standards. City Planner Valenzuela replied there aren't any existing standards, but it is reviewed in the landscaping plan. Chair Dang stated so this is something that can be worked out. He referred to page 3 - 43, upper left-hand column, number(b) and read it and asked if this is talking about the balcony guard rail. Consultant Brownfield replied yes,a guard rail of some sort, and so you basically don't say open space and then you have all these walls around you. 23 Chair Dang asked if the guard rail is required to be rod iron and cannot be a stucco guard wall around the balcony edge. Consultant Brownfield replied that is correct and added it could be stucco but they are still trying to get some open air and your balcony or patio is not completely closed. This doesn't say you can't have a short stucco wall it just says must be open air. She recommended that it needs to have a definition of what type of wall is allowed with the dimensions. She asked if it would be allowed to say it would be to the discretion of the Community Development Director. Chair Dang replied yes. Commissioner Eng referred to page 3 - 12, regarding drive-through businesses and asked if they are permitted in open space. Consultant Brownfield replied no,they are permitted only in the GSP,which was in the hard to tell brown color,and is only permitted with an Administrative Use Permit. Commissioner Eng asked why it is permitted with an Administrative Use Permit and not a Conditional Use Permit and she is asking because of the intensity of the project itself and there will be more impact. She said it will also give the community an opportunity to give more impact on it. Consultant Brownfield stated that this is a City Code reference and may be a reflection of that. City Planner Valenzuela stated the code currently permits this by right, so this is being more restrictive. Commissioner Eng suggested that be re-evaluated because of all these developments coming in and the intensity. She added this will impact circulation,parking,egress, and ingress. Consultant Brownfield stated it has been put on the punch list to evaluate with the Planning Commission. Public Works Director Ramirez stated one of the reasons this is an AUP instead of a CUP is because the City is trying to make this business friendly as much as possible. She added when you start adding the CUP then it becomes a more difficult level for them to go through. She said they did not want it to go by right but they did think the CUP was a bit of overkill for that and that she does understand Commissioner Eng's point. Commissioner Eng stated she appreciates that but she is also looking into long term development and a CUP in this instance is reasonable because it is drive-through and you are going to require more circulation, more space, more room, more traffic control.so it is a number of things. Chair Dang stated he does not see any further comments from the Planning Commission and opened the Public Hearing. Resident Brian Lewin thanked Ms. Brownfield and staff for all their hard work on this project. He would like to speak very strongly in support of changing the drive-thru to a Conditional Use Permit because all drive-thru are not created equal. He compared"Taco Bell"and"In-N-Out"and stated "In-N-Out Burger' has massive impacts on circulation for everything all around it. He said with all the other elements with this project you need to have a more direct public view because where you place not all locations are created equal. He stated the community may have more insights with all due respect,than the Community Development Director may not have. He added bringing something out that could potentially impact neighborhoods and areas as strongly as a drive-through can, it is important to bring that out to the public through a Conditional Use Permit is very important. 24 Chair Dang asked if the Specific Plan has guidelines for streetscape. Consultant Brownfield replied yes. Chair Dang asked if there is anyone else wishing to make a public comment. None Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing. He requested that Consultant Brownfield read the punch list. Consultant Brownfield suggested that as options the Planning Commission may say yes they support this or, no they do not or maybe with their comments,as she reads the punch list off. City Attorney Thuyen stated that is the most proficient way to go and suggested using a hand raise. He added if there is a three out of five and agrees or there is a consensus to make the change, then they can add it to the list to ask the City Council for consideration. Consultant Brownfield read off the Punch List. 1. Allowing M-U in GSP-RC(Without M-U Bonuses) Agree—Dang Disagree—Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang=No Consensus 2. FAR& Density/Intensity- Increasing from 7-Units to 30 Units to GSP-WC Recommendation to City Council to re-think and decide Agree—Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang=Consensus 3. Awnings-Allowed on first and second story only and not on third or above floors. Recommend trellis and other permanent structures Agree—Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang=Consensus 4. Landscaping - Changing the required landscaping requirement in the GSP-MU and GSP zones from 6% - not lower than 6%and to have staff survey adjacent cities. Agree—Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang=Consensus 5. LEED- Changed to California Green Building Code with Tier 1 and Tier 2 requirement Agree—Dang, Eng, Herrera,Lopez, and Tang=Consensus 6. Errata — Changing the 75 square feet (Patio's & Balconies) to 60 square feet, totaling 350 square feet (Community Space)by creating a tiering system on unit size, (based on habitable rooms) Agree—Dang, Eng,and Lopez Disagree- Herrera and Tang=Consensus 7. Public Parks—To get extra points they are allowed to operate them like a City Park Agree—Dang, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Disagree—Eng=Consensus B. Tandem Parking-Allowed in nonresidential use requiring valet service or other technique perpetuity Agree—Eng, Herrera, and Lopez Disagree—Dang and Eng=Consensus 9. Require Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for drive-through as opposed to Administrative Use Permit(AUP) Agree—Eng and Dang Disagree—Herrera, Lopez, and Tang=No Consensus 25 10. Density Bonus- The Alhambra Wash Building does not need to be immediately adjacent Agree—Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Disagree—None=Consensus 11. Open Space Enclosure- (Change to 2-sides,instead of 3-sides) Agree—Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Disagree—None=Consensus 12. Open Space Enclosures-Add definition and dimensions of enclosures of Patio's and Balconies Recommendation was made to let the Community Development Director Review and Approve Agree—Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Disagree—None=Consensus 13. Window Signage—15%Coverage Only on Windows included in the Specific Plan Agree—Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Disagree—None=Consensus 14. Incentivize the Outdoor Dining Use on private property(A. Incentive is to reduce parking requirement) Agree—Dang, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Disagree—Eng=Consensus Recommendation to City Council to decide Incentivize the Outdoor Dining Use on private properly(B. Incentive as a Community Benefit) Agree—Eng, Herrera,and Tang Disagree—Dang and Lopez=Consensus Recommendation to City Council to decide 1. Transitional Housing—To allow this as a permitted use in the GSP-MU zone. Agree—None Disagree—Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang= No Consensus Supportive Housing—To allow this as a permitted use in the GSP-MU zone Agree—Eng Disagree—Dang, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang=No Consensus 2. Residential Parking Capping—No more than 1.5 Maximum (Remove this sentence) Agree—Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Disagree—None=Consensus City Attorney Thuyen stated that there are two Resolutions to be adopted and suggested that item 3.A Number (3) first,which is the Final Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Tang, to approve item 3.A number (3) the recommendation to the City Council to adopt Resolution 2018-06. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Eng,Herrera,Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. Vice-Chair Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to adopt 3.A number(2), a Resolution recommending the City Council adopt Resolution 2018-05,and the adoption of the recommendations of staff, and the direction to incorporate the comments agreed to by the Planning Commission for consideration by City Council. 26 Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera,Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a 5 Ayes and 0 Noes vote. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC Minutes 11-20-17 Commissioner Eng asked that PC Minutes 11-20-17 be pulled and stated there are corrections that need to be made on pages 13, 14, and 15. Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Chair Dang, to approve (4.A) PC Minutes 11-20-17 with the corrections. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang,Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: Eng Absent: None Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Chair Dang, to approve (4.B) PC Minutes 11-27-17 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Dang, Eng,Herrera, Lopez,and Tang Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF None 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Eng wished everyone a Happy New Year. She stated she has two concerns in regards to the conditional use permit application for the religious assembly property on Emerson Place. Her first concern was that she was disappointed that the history of code violations was not included in the staff report and that a City Council member had to file a formal public records request to obtain the information. She added the application for the CUP was initiated due to the code violation complaints and that code violation history was relevant to the application. She said she does not know why that code violations were not included in the staff report but she does want to reiterate that it is important for the Planning Commission to have reliable information to aide them in their task in making sound and fair decisions. Her second concern is the potential negative impact to the integrity and quality of 27 residential neighborhoods as a consequence of persons or groups using religious assembly to convert existing single-family homes into social gathering uses. She stated that she is concerned about that impact to the residential neighborhood. Vice-Chair Tang wished everyone a Happy New Year and thanked Consultant Lisa Brownfield and City Staff for putting together this EIR. He also thanked the Ad Hoc Committee members. Chair Dang also thanked Consultant Lisa Brownfield, City Staff, and the Ad Hoc Committee members for all their hard work. Commissioner Eng also thanked Consultant Lisa Brownfield,City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting Adjourned at 10:21 pm. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday,February 5,20 8, 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. • 1 • Sean Dang \. Chair ATTE4 Rachel Lockwood, Commission Secretary 28