Loading...
PC - Item 4A - Minutes of September 21, 2020Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 21, 2020 To adhere to the Los Angeles County Health Officer's June 11, 2020, Revised Safer at Home Order, this Planning Commission Meeting will be held via teleconference and the public will have access to observe the meeting telephonically and to watch online. Please note that, in accordance with Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-29-20 and N-35-20, there will not be a physical location from which the public may attend. If you have a request for an accommodation under the ADA contact: Ericka Hernandez (626) 569-2100. Agenda: Planning Commission agenda materials may be viewed online at www.Cityofrosemead.org Streaming: The meeting will be streamed live on the City's Meeting web portal: http://www.Cityofrosemead.org/governmenUCity departments/City clerk/meeting agendas and minutes Listen to the meeting only by phone by dialing: 1(267)866-0999, Code ID:624-607-9406 Remote Public Comments: Public comments will be received by calling (626) 569-2100 or via email at publiccomment@Cityofrosemead.org by 5:00 p.m. Please identify the topic you wish to comment in your email's subject line. All comments are public record and will be recorded in the official record of the City. The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Vice -Chair Lopez at 7:00 pm. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Vice -Chair Lopez INVOCATION — Commissioner Leung ROLL CALL — Commissioners Berry, Leung, Tang, Vuong, and Vice -Chair Lopez STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Thuyen, Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo, Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela, Associate Planner Lao, Assistant Planner Wong, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. REORGANIZATION - Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Berry, to Nominate Commissioner Lopez as Chair. Vote resulted in: Ayes : Berry, Leung, Lopez, Tang, and Vuong Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Roll Call Vote resulted in 5 Ayes and 0 Noes to approve Commissioner Lopez as Chair. Meeting was forwarded to Chair Lopez to continue the nomination for Vice -Chair. Chair Lopez opened the nomination for Vice -Chair. Chair Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tang, to Nominate Commissioner Vuong as Vice - Chair. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, Tang, and Vuong Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Roll Call Vote resulted in 5 Ayes and 0 Noes to approve Commissioner Vuong as Vice -Chair. 1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the via teleconference meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Public comments will be received by calling (626) 569-2100 or via email at publiccomment@Cityofrosemead.org by 5:00 p.m. Please identify the topic you wish to comment in your email's subject line. All comments are public record and will be recorded in the official record of the City. Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo stated there is one Public Comment from Sherman at Vehicle Center and read: "Comments from Sherman at Vehicle Center, over 40 years at this location, see the problem daily. Now that Garvey Gardens apartment building has been built at this corner, the eye -line to make a right turn is blocked by the building. Also, green curb is needed so those 5 stores can have customers pull up to do retail business. I'm here 1-5 pm Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday and invite you to come so I can show you. Also, we have Rosemead's "thieves' hallway" behind us leading to Garvey gardens underground parking... suggest a fence be put up by the water co on their land." She added that he also left his contact information, Vehicle Center, call 1-5 pm at 626.288.1541, 8424 Garvey Ave., Rosemead, CA 91770. Chair Lopez asked if staff needs to address this Public Comment or is this just information that needs to be on the record. Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo replied this item will be forwarded to the Traffic Commission. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DESIGN REVIEW 20-04 - Selina Luong has submitted a Design Review application, requesting to construct a new 3,983 square -foot, two-story, single-family dwelling unit with an attached three -car garage. The granting of a Discretionary Site Plan and Design Review is required for any dwelling unit to be constructed that equals or exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of developed living area. The subject site is located at 3854 Delta Avenue (APN: 5371-008-052) in the Single -Family Residential (R-1) zone. PC RESOLUTION 20-07 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 20- 04, PERMITTING A NEW, TWO-STORY, 3,983 SQUARE -FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT, WITH AN ATTACHED THREE -CAR GARAGE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3854 DELTA AVENUE (APN: 5371.008.052), IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No. 20-07 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 20.04, subject to the 28 conditions. Assistant Planner Wong presented the staff report. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff None at this time. Chair Lopez asked if the applicant would like to speak. Kamen Lai, Designer of this project, congratulated Chair Lopez and thanked him for his many years of service. He thanked staff for their help and proceeded to give a brief history of Selina Luong's residence, naming addresses of six homes on this block which, are relatives of the applicant. The applicant's intention is to build a new home, move in, and visit her nearby relatives. He referred to the site plan, explained why the setback is more than the minimum requirement and commented that it makes this a more uniformed setback. He continued with the second story setbacks, dimensions, and stated it will be located behind the garage. He stated this dwelling meets zoning requirements and is similar to the other two-story residences in the neighborhood. He requested that the Planning Commission please approve this item as submitted and will answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. No questions from Planning Commissioners, Berry, Leung, and Vuong. Chair Lopez commented that Kamen Lai handles Rosemead very well, the design of this home is very nice, the Planning Commission is always happy to see what he brings to the City and thanked him. Kamen Lai thanked Chair Lopez and referred to the virtual background and hoped the City would like the modern design. Chair Lopez and Commissioner Berry both stated it looks good. Commissioner Tang commented that everything that Kamen Lai has designed in Rosemead has been spectacular. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions. Public Comment sent electronically was read by Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo, "Resident Barbara Walters and stated these are concerns in regards to the proposed project at 3854 Delta Ave., "After speaking to the neighbors surrounding & across the street from proposed structure our concerns are as follows: Why would you allow such a larger structure on such a narrow lot or on a residential street consisting mostly of small home? Mini mansions are a sore thumb compared with existing structures. How many families will be occupying the dwelling? Will rooms in dwelling be rented/leased out for any reason? How many vehicles will be used by people in dwelling, as parking is already a big problem on our street, since very few occupants house vehicles on their own property? Many of us have family in law enforcement (Sheriff, LAPD, & CHP) and have heard horror stories, of homes in small communities such as ours, being used as brothels, hometels & room rentals/leases for pregnant women, from other countries, coming to have their children here and then going returning to their home countries. Most of us closest neighbors are seniors who have lived in our residences a minimum of 47 years and are very concerned about the necessity of such a large proposed structure and the parking situation/problems it will bring to our street. Thanking you in advance for the attention given these concerns. Regards, Barbara Walters/Andrew Walters" Chair Lopez asked staff if these concerns have been addressed. He also addressed Kamen Lai in regard to the families, asked if parking is limited, and asked if he sees any of these concerns currently. Assistant Planner Wong explained the project meets the minimum code requirement for five bedrooms, 2,500 square feet of developed living area, and a three -car garage, which is allowed by code. He stated in regard to the concern of 3 rooms being rented out, it is prohibited by code to have short-term rental on the property. He added that the property owner is intending to live on the property. Commissioner Tang asked Chair Lopez if they can ask Kamen Lai what the applicant's intent was in constructing this large development. Chair Lopez addressed Kamen Lai and asked why this development is so large and is there a reason why the family wanted it so big. Kamen Lai explained that he cannot speak for the family, but nowadays, land is so expensive, and when you build a house and if it is not a big house adding bigger rooms to it will be difficult. He added currently this is being built with large rooms because the applicant has adult children, and everyone wants privacy. He commented that it is currently very popular that everyone wants their own bathroom when building a new home, especially if they have adult children, and they wanted to build a bigger home instead of adding rooms later because it is less expensive and they want to live comfortably. Chair Lopez thanked Kamen Lai and asked if the Planning Commissioners had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Berry asked how many bedrooms this will have. Kamen Lai replied it will have five bedrooms. Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing with no further questions and asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments for staff. Commissioner Tang asked for clarification because the staff report states there are two bedrooms on the first floor and four bedrooms on the second floor, with a total of six bedrooms and asked Kamen Lai if that is correct. Kamen Lai replied he replied that it is correct. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if there were any further questions. Hearing no further questions, he asked for a motion. Commissioner Berry made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Vuong, to ADOPT Resolution No. 20-07 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 20-04, subject to the 28 conditions. Vote resulted i n : Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, Tang, and Vuong Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None City Attorney Thuyen recommended an oral roll call vote be taken. Roll call vote results were motion passed to APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 20-04 and PC RESOLUTION 20.07 with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. B. DESIGN REVIEW 20.06 — Turner Healthcare Facilities Acquisitions, LLC has submitted a Design Review application, requesting to construct a new one story 14,853 square feet PACE (program of all-inclusive care for the elderly) medical clinic. The granting of a Discretionary Site Plan and Design Review is 4 required for any proposal to construct a new building of three thousand (3,000) gross square feet or more in the P-0, C-11 C-3, CBD, CI -MU, and M-1 zones. The proposed project will also consist of new site improvements pertaining to off-street parking, landscaping, lighting, and solid waste and recyclable material collection. The subject site is located at 8399.8405 Garvey Avenue (APN: 5288.005- 029 & 5288.005-030) in the Medium Commercial with Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development and Design Overlays (C-3/RC-MUDO/D-0) zone. PC RESOLUTION 20.08 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 20- 06, PERMITTING A NEW ONE STORY 14,853 SQUARE FEET PACE MEDICAL CLINIC WITH SITE IMPROVEMENTS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 8399.8405 GARVEY AVENUE (APN: 5288.005- 029 & 5288.005-030), IN THE MEDIUM COMMERCIAL WITH RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL 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. 20-08 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 20.06, subject to the 40 conditions. Associate Planner Lao presented the staff report. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions or comments for staff Commissioner Tang referred to the access and the easement into the property and questions if 90% of the patients will be transported via shuttle service. He also inquired on where the shuttle bus will load and unload patrons. Associate Planner Lao replied that the shuttles can enter through Garvey Avenue, which is the main point of access. She said it is conditioned in Attachment A that they will designate two loading spaces and the location has not been determined yet. The designation will occur when the applicant submits to Building & Safety because they will need to meet ADA requirements also. She explained it should be in the front because a lot of these patients being transported are handicapped or they need assistance. Commissioner Tang stated it's an issue for big shuttles. He questioned how the shuttle will easily get in and out of driveway and that is his concern. He also questioned the design of the south elevation view as it faces Garvey Avenue, which is a major corridor, and there are a lot of plans for Garvey as it relates to the work being done to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan area. He stated this property is not included in that specific area, but the south elevation just doesn't have a good design or curb appeal to it. His personal view is that it is just lacking design and he does not know if staff has been working with the designer on that or if that was their preference to have it that way. Associate Planner Lao responded to the first question regarding the shuttle navigation and pointed out that if you look at the cross hatch on the site plan, there is a turn -around that can be used by a fire truck or the shuttle. She continued that if they wanted to park directly in front of the entrance, then they can use that turn -around shown on the site plan. Commissioner Tang requested that she show him the turn -around is and asked if it is located where the handicapped stalls are marked. Associate Planner Lao stated in Sheet A-1 there is a crosshatch and explained it's like a perpendicular L in the Legend and it says fire department vehicle or access. Vice -Chair Vuong asked if it is located on Sheet A-2. Associate Planner Lao clarified that the crosshatch is located on Sheet A-2. 6� Commissioner Tang asked what the width of that is. Associate Planner Lao replied it varies from 30 to 26 feet. Commissioner Tang commented that he still feels that is a little tight for a shuttle to turn -around and if there are cars parked in the handicap stalls adjacent to it, the shuttle may still have some trouble unloading. Associate Planner Lao explained this crosshatch is large enough for a fire truck and staff believes the shuttle is not as large as a fire truck. Commissioner Tang acknowledged the response. Vice -Chair Vuong addressed Commissioner Tang and suggested that maybe we can hear from the applicant. He asked staff if the applicant has a presentation other than what is displayed. Associate Planner Lao replied the applicant can speak on behalf of this concern. Chair Lopez stated if there are no further questions or comments it can be moved to open the Public Hearing. Associate Planner Lao stated she would like to address Commissioner Tang's second question regarding the south elevation. She stated staff agrees and has relayed this message to the applicant that the south elevation should be a focal point because it is located on Garvey Avenue and should have visual appeal. She added in the conditions of approval, it does gives staff the opportunity to do minor modifications and that information has been relayed to the applicant and they have agreed to work with staff to modify the south elevation. Commissioner Tang thanked staff and stated he is glad that they are in line with him on that concern. Chair Lopez asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments for staff. See None. Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to speak. C.J. Laffer greeted the Chair Lopez and the Planning Commission and stated he is an Attorney from the Law Office of Hardiing, Larmore, Kutcher, & Kozal representing the project applicant. He stated he is joined remotely with a number of members of their project team from Turner Impact, Boulder Associates, the architect, and Welbe Health, the operator. He thanked staff, and Annie Lao in particular, for her assistance throughout the application and review process. She worked with their team diligently to ensure compliance with Rosemead's code requirements, requirements of the project design and crafting appropriate conditions of approval. He presented additional information regarding the project developer and the project operator. He stated he and associates mentioned will be happy to answer any questions about Project Operation that the Planning Commission may have. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for the applicant representatives. Vice -Chair Vuong referred to Langford Place and asked how the applicant is going to enclose that portion and how will it be accessible to vehicles. He said he is looking at Google Maps and it is showing that street thoroughfare is impacted with parked cars. He added maybe staff can also provide information. Tim Boers representative from Boulder Associates, referred to the Site Plan "A1" and explained it shows eight parking spaces where that store is currently. He added there is a driveway that opens out to the private street, so there is a limited amount of particular access there and the majority of traffic will come in from the traffic light along Garvey Avenue and will proceed into the facility. He added they can also discuss how the vans will be loading and unloading passengers, parked distance, and how they will move through the site. He asked Vice -Chair Vuong if that answered his first question. Vice -Chair Vuong replied yes, he understands that most of the participants would be entering from Garvey Avenue. He is concerned if people living or working around Langford Place as it looks narrow and asked if there are plans to build a wall that would divide the property from where it meets at Langford Place. His other concern is that he does not see how Langford Place could be an access point. Tim Boers replied it is a secondary access point and there is an iron fence along Langford Place and there is a three- foot -high swing gate. He added there is also a three-foot fence parallel to Garvey Avenue along with some landscape buffer along the sidewalk. He commented, there should be a fairly enclosed feeling where you would not really decide to drive in there if you were coming to this facility. Commissioner Berry requested if staff could bring up that slide up on the screen for everyone to make it a little easier for all to understand. Associate Planner Lao stated the slide is located in Exhibit "B" and addressed Vice -Chair Vuong and explained on the site plan the dark dash lines that indicates the property line. She stated they are not enclosing Langford Place as there is an easement and the gate is proposed at the end of the parking lot, which is still within their property, but not on Langford Place. She added there will be no obstruction to the easement. Vice -Chair Vuong replied that makes more sense and thanked staff for explaining. Tim Boers stated if the Planning Commission would like they can talk about how the vans will enter the property, how they will turn around, and where they will park to unload and load passengers. He explained that the crosshatch driveway that comes in from Garvey Avenue curves to the left, then goes due north which is the fire lane, and it is a 26 -foot minimum fire lane and it is wider than that in some areas. He added there is a larger triangular area that is paved at the north end of the site, so even beyond where the cross hatch areas are there is plenty of paved area where a van can go up and they have checked the turning radius on the vans because they are not large vans and are like a Ford Econoline type van with a box on it. He explained that they can go north swing around in that triangular area and then they will head south again and come up to the front door, which faces the east of the building. He said there are three spaces on a diagonal marked as handicap spaces that have wide aisle spaces adjacent to them. He reported that is where the vans will park and the drivers will assist the participants off of the van and get them into the building, once they are in the building the van driver will get back in, back away, and drives on to another mission. It is the reverse of that when it is the end of the session and the participants are leaving the building. Chair Lopez asked if the handicap parking stalls are just for the vans to park while loading or unloading patients. Tim Boers replied yes and explained there will be two additional accessible parking spaces immediately north of that are intended for staff or visitors that are coming into the building, so there are the required accessible spaces also. Chair Lopez asked since they are handicap spaces will anyone be able to park there or are, they strictly for the van to drop off. Tim Boers replied it is strictly intended for the vans and its not to say somebody could not park there but they will be signed to say van parking only. He added most of the people that go there will understand the meaning of that. Commissioner Tang stated that is his concern that if those stalls are occupied by people, how will those vans/shuttles be able to drop off the participants. He is looking at this as the perspective where you have schools where they have a roundabout or some kind of u -driveway for students to be dropped off in a location that easily allows them to gain entrance into a facility without having to pass through another street or cars. He added he was looking for more of that 7 on this and this kind of property is unique in the sense of the shape of it, there is not a lot of flexibility. He commented he appreciates the explanation, but is not too comfortable on how a shuttle may be able to drive in, head up north, turn around facing south, and unload passengers at the entrance if there are no spots available for the shuttle to park at. Commissioner Berry asked the developer if the handicap spaces are full, the vans should be able to pull up to the crosshatch section at the top, make a three-way turn, then back out the other way, correct. Tim Boers replied that is correct and if all the van spaces are filled up, the usual policy is that the van that just arrived will wait a few minutes until a van is finished unloading or loading and backs out. He stated the vans are being operated by the same people, so they are accustomed to the things it takes to make it all work. C.J. Laffer stated in along those lines, the facility will only serve participants in the Pace Program and will not be open on a drop-in basis or otherwise for the general public. It will be more effective means for regular communication with people that are visiting semi -regularly. Chair Lopez asked if the public comes in the other parking is for them, but those handicap parking stalls are strictly for your vans to unload and load, or do they park there temporarily or permanently if they do not have any more pick-ups. Tim Boers replied no, the vans are always in motion. He explained they are going out to get additional participants or returning participant to their homes. Commissioner Tang addressed Mr. Bowers and asked for clarification if the handicap parking spots are strictly reserved for their vans. Tim Boers replied yes, three of them are. Commissioner Tang asked if other vehicles that are handicap can also park there. Tim Boers replied theoretically they could, but they do not expect that would be the case, because the only vans coming here are ones serving this building. He explained if someone were to park there with a handicap sticker staff would come out and ask them to relocate to one of the other two handicap parking spaces that is part of the general parking area. Chair Lopez asked why keep the handicap and why don't they just make it for van access only. He recommended that way there is no confusion if someone does come in and park there. Tim Boers replied it helps to mark them that way to help keep non -accessible vans out of those spaces. Commissioner Tang stated the natural expectation is when you are serving a senior audience, you're going to see there is a need for handicap access, or parking. He added when people visit this facility naturally you will see a greater amount of folks needing handicap parking. Tim Boers explained that he can trust that all the participants coming to this facility are frail, elderly people, so they are not in a position to be driving themselves to this location. The mass majority are arriving in vans in an organized transportation system. Commissioner Berry commented these are participants that are further on and not driving themselves. Commissioner Tang stated the service that this business provides is critical and essential. He asked what kind of services the patients are provided with through the Pace Program. Tim Boers stated in many ways these clinics are intended to preserve economy for an otherwise vulnerable population. Comprehensive care, physicians, nurses, social workers, health workers, nutritionist, physical therapist, in many ways it is an alternative to nursing home replacement. There is frequent monitoring by physicians, exercise programs, dietary monitoring, and therapy to enhance mobility, strength, balance. He added so it is anything from physicians, to physical therapy, and to diet. Chair Lopez asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions. None, Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing for the public. With no comments from the public Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions for staff. Commissioner Tang asked how staff would like to have the Planning Commission address the south elevation. Does staff want to go ahead and move forward with a motion to approve this project today or does staff want to come back with a final version of what the design will look like and then move forward with it or what's staffs perspective on that. Associate Planner Lao addressed Commissioner Tang and replied the Planning Commission may direct staff to proceed and in addition a condition of approval may be added that states the applicant will work with staff to better design the south elevation, so that it creates visual interest along Garvey Avenue. Commissioner Berry commented he agrees with Commissioner Tang and it is a great idea. Commissioner Tang stated he agrees with that recommendation. He asked if there is a way staff can bring this project back as an informal item to review the final design. Associate Planner Lao replied yes, it can be brought back as matters from staff. Commissioner Berry asked if it would be motioned with that added condition of approval. Chair Lopez asked City Attorney Thuyen what he recommends. City Attorney Thuyen thanked Chair Lopez and stated the condition of approval can be added and it can delegate some aesthetic approval authority at the staff level to modify whatever the design is. Commonly he has seen that at the Director's level and that would be Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo that can approve that. He added that the Planning Commission may also recommend that the design be returned to the Planning Commission but to do that option it will require another hearing in the future. Chair Lopez stated so the options are the Planning Commission votes on this today with the addition of the condition of approval or there is another hearing and vote on it when it comes before the Planning Commission in the future. Commissioner Berry asked if the hearing process would then have to be begin again. City Attorney Thuyen stated the way he understands Commissioner Tangs comments are there are two different options the first one is to add a condition of approval allowing the staff and developer to modify the south elevation to the satisfaction of the director that way it keeps this process going along. The second option if the Planning Commission wishes is to return this item to the Planning Commission to basically add a condition of approval to require final approval by the Planning Commission but by doing that you may potentially need this item to come back to the Planning Commission and hold it up until it gets your final approval. Chair Lopez asked Commissioner Tang what he would like to recommend. Commissioner Tang expressed that he does not feel this project holds up to the criteria of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. He added because Garvey Avenue is such a large piece of what the City is trying to build up it is important for a 9 project like this to compliment the City's efforts and is worth the time and investment. He stated he would like to defer to his colleagues to see if they are in line with his thoughts. Commissioner Berry agreed and commented that is a great idea because the south elevation does seem to be very plain. Chair Lopez stated after hearing the Planning Commissioners comments this project recommended that it be motioned to be brought back before the Planning Commission with finalized details and updates for approval. Commissioner Tang motioned to have staff work with the applicant on the aesthetics of the south elevation and anything else they might think of. He continued to table this item and have this come back before the Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Berry asked if the motion is for this item is to be tabled or is it to go forward with the condition of approval for the south elevation. Chair Lopez clarified that the motion is to let the applicant work on the corrections/revisions and to come back before the Planning Commission for final approval. City Attorney Thuyen stated the way he understands Commissioner Tang's motion is to continue this item to allow for some modifications and to bring this item back later. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela addressed Chair Lopez and asked City Attorney Thuyen if staff can work with the applicant on the design of the south elevation and it be brought back to the Planning Commission as a staff matter in the future. This will allow the Planning Commission to see how the south elevation has been improved. City Attorney Thuyen replied that is what he was referencing when he mentioned the first option. He added if the Planning Commission does not want to retain final say and they are agreeable to giving direction to staff to have it approved at the staff level then it can be left as -is or the condition of approval can be added stating that the south elevation has to be modified to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. He added then it will not be necessary to come before the Planning Commission for final approval but can come back as an update from staff. The second option for consideration would be more extensive work and would require a continuance of this item for a later date. Commissioner Berry asked if the Planning Commission approves this item with staffs recommendation and the Planning Commission is not satisfied what recourse would the Planning Commission have. Commissioner Tang stated in that case it would be up to the applicant whether they would be willing to make those modifications that staff recommends. If the applicant decides they do not need to do the modifications, the leverage will be lost because the Planning Commission has already approved the item. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if their motion is to have this item come back before the Planning Commission after the modifications to the design have been made. City Attorney Thuyen recommended that staff give an estimation of time of when that can actually happen because the Planning Commission meetings have been infrequent, and it may be useful to the Planning Commission's decision today. He deferred to staff on an estimation of time. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated in regards to the redesign of the south elevation, staff can bring a draft of that revision under matters from staff, and with that condition of approval, the applicant would still 10 need to meet the requirements of the Community Development Director. She added the draft can come back before the Planning Commission and if the Planning Commission decides the design needs to be further improved, then staff can continue to work with the applicant. She stated adding that condition of approval will give staff that leverage to ensure that south elevation design is enhanced. Vice -Chair Vuong stated that looking at what has been provided in this design does not look like the type of designs the Planning Commission has seen lately and that has raised the Planning Commission's hesitations with this item. He expressed he trust staff to follow with their vision, but there are some hesitations with this item and recommended that this would be appropriate to bring it back to the Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Berry stated he also agrees with this recommendation. Chair Lopez stated Commissioner Tang had a motion to continue this item and asked staff how long it will take to make modifications and revisions. Associate Planner Lao replied the next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, October 19, 2020 and a ten-day noticing period will need to be processed. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if that date is acceptable. The Planning Commission all agreed to the next Planning Commission meeting of October 19, 2020. City Attorney Thuyen reaffirmed that he heard there is a motion to Continue this item until the next Planning Commission meeting to October 19, 2020 and asked if that was correct. The Planning Commission replied yes, that is correct. C.J. Laffer addressed Chair Lopez and asked if October 19, 2020 is the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Lopez replied October 5, 2020 is the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. C.J. Laffer stated he would like to confirm with the City Attorney whether or not if further noticing requirements will be necessary because of the hearing being kept open. He added the notices that were sent out for today's hearing would suffice and then would be subject to 72 hours for the Brown Act noticing. City Attorney Thuyen stated he mentioned the October 19, 2020 date because that was the date mentioned by staff earlier. He explained if this item is continued to another date certain it would avoid the need for another public hearing notice. Chair Lopez and Planning Commission asked staff if October 5, 2020 would be a reasonable amount of time to have back as an agenda item. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela recommended it be scheduled to a date certain of October 19, 2020, because October 5, 2020 will not give staff enough time to work with the applicant and to get all the materials ready. Commissioner Berry asked if that means the hearing can be kept open until October 19, 2020. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied that is correct. She added this item can be continued to a date certain, so October 19, 2020. 11 Chair Lopez asked City Attorney Thuyen if this will need to be voted on. City Attorney Thuyen replied the Planning Commission will have to vote on this and asked if staff understands what the Planning Commission wants to see in the revisions. He recommended that the Planning Commission give staff some direction on what they would like to see to Continue this item. Commissioner Tang asked staff if they had any questions on what direction is needed or if they're comfortable with what has been discussed. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied staff is open to improving the design and asked the Planning Commission had any preference or would just like staff to work with the applicant on improving the overall look of the building. Chair Lopez recommended staff can work with the applicant and the Planning Commission is looking for small corrections to just get a better look. Vice -Chair Vuong commented that comparing the first approved item's design presentation verses this one, just the images and visuals are stark differences. Commissioner Berry expressed that his concern is the large plain brown wall located on the south elevation and the area to the far left where they look like garage doors, but they are windows. He recommended some improvements need to be made to break up that mass wall of concrete. C.J. Laffer addressed Chair Lopez and asked if it may be possible and it may be more of a function of the way the materials were presented at the post, opposed to, what the architectures intention to respect to articulation and materially. It may help with the architects refinement and took a few minutes to let the architect explain a little more what is happening on that Garvey Avenue frontage, so they are clear, and the Planning Commission is responding not solely on what has been presented, but with the architects intention. Architect representative (name not stated) presented that the entry function of the building is one of the reasons they really have areas that need to have blank walls and he would be happy to show why that is, but there are some personal care areas where there is toilets, showers, and things like that where windows on Garvey Avenue are not appropriate. He described that they are proposing to use a stone look tile (grey color) on the blank wall that Commissioner Berry mentioned. He stated that will have some liveliness to it and has some reflectivity to it and make it more interesting part of the building. He added there will be some landscaping along there that we should be showing and if we can come back with some three dimensional views that are rendered that will help explain the design a little better than these elevation drawings, which was mandated from the City as submission requirements. He referred to the windows to left which was referenced to is where they have exam rooms in the medical clinic area, so there they do not want to have a lot of glass down low, but they can take a look at rather spando glass or something like that would help or give an impression of transparency. He mentioned the east front of the building, which is the top view of Sheet A-3 that is really the front of the building, functionally that is where the front door is and that is why the vans will pull in at that location. He explained that is where they will have canopies to protect the pedestrians and participants coming in. There will also be wood tresses that are exposed wood columns, the eyebrow canopies that are along Garvey and all these locations have wood ceilings, the bottom surfaces where you see as pedestrians is wood the rest is metal, and described the rehab gym area. He expressed the elevation drawings kind of collapse the amount of variety that there is, and we can come back and show the Planning Commission three dimensional views that will really help explain the building better than these do. Commissioner Berry stated he really appreciates that, and that east elevation does look a lot better and looks like the kind of storefront that would face Garvey Avenue. He explained the exam room area looks like that should be in the back of the building, but it cannot be moved, yet that is the part that is facing Garvey Avenue. He suggested that if 12 they would do more archetural aesthetics like on the east elevation facing Garvey Avenue, so it looks more store -front inviting rather than so solid. Architect Representative stated they will take a look at that and also pointed out if you are westbound on Garvey Avenue the east elevation is the frontal view that you get to see and in some respects a more important view and coming in from the other direction you do get to see that. Commissioner Tang stated that the west and east elevation looks great in terms of curb appeal, but Commissioner Berry's point is that the west elevation looks like a six-foot block wall almost and there are windows that break it up a bit. He compared that to the east and west elevations, where there are certain design elements that makes it not look like a six-foot wall. He added that the City has been working a lot on Garvey Avenue because it is a good opportunity for a major traffic corridor area that we want to beautify and hopefully bring in more of these types of developments. He expressed he has no doubt that this project will make that area look much better than what it looks today, but nonetheless, the Planning Commission would like to do due diligence. Commissioner Berry stated that he wants the facades to look welcoming. Vice -Chair Vuong stated he would like to let the applicant know that these programs are great and he has a family member that has been involved in a local PACE Program around here and the Planning Commission would like to make sure local seniors get to stay independent in their home. He added that adding a PACE Center in the City of Rosemead would be a good addition to the City, it's just that we would like to make sure it fits our vision of the City down the line. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments. See none Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Berry, to CONTINUE Design Review 20-06 and ADOPT Resolution No. 20-08 with findings and subject to the 40 conditions, to the Planning Commission meeting to be held on Monday, October 19, 2020. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, Tang, and Wong Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Motion passes to Continue this item to the October 19, 2020 Planning Commission meeting with the vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC MINUTES 6-15.20. Commissioner Wong made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Berry, to approve PC Minutes 6.15.20 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, Tang, and Wong Noes: None 13 Abstain: None Absent: None Roll Call Vote results - Motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes to Approve PC Minutes 6-15-20 as presented. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo expressed it has been awhile since the Planning Commission has met and she hopes everyone is doing well. She announced staff has no comments and the next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, October 19, 2020. Chair Lopez asked if a Planning Commission will be held on Monday, October 5, 2020. Director of Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo replied there are no items for the Planning Commission meeting of Monday, October 5, 2020. City Attorney Thuyen reminded the Planning Commission forthe record that forthe items that the Planning Commission took action on there is a 10 -day appeal process from today's decision. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Vice -Chair Vuong stated this relates to the first project we discussed and it relates to policy and asked staff since the project was a duplex and is now being converted to a single-family residential does that impact the housing stock or the RHNA numbers. His bigger question is that if a lot of these duplexes or multi -units are being converted to single- family residential will that impact the City's RHNA numbers long term. Associate Planner Lao replied if it was originally a duplex and they are now converting to a single-family home, the City will have to report it on the Annual Progress Report that the City did lose one unit. Vice -Chair Vuong asked staff if the Planning Commission should visit that issue down the line if or have, we seen any historical data of duplexes being converted into single-family homes. Associate Planner Lao replied no, currently staff has not seen a trend of downsizing and usually applicants want to increase their number of units. Commissioner Tang reported that the Rosemead Place Shopping Center sign next to the 10 -Freeway heading east and west, a couple of letters on the sign are not lit. He requested the property owner be contacted so that it may be taken care of. 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Lopez adjourned the meeting at 8:22 pm. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, October 19, 2020, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. 14 ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary Daniel Lopez Chair 15