Loading...
PC - Item 4A - Minutes of October 19, 2020Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING October 19, 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. 96s Streaming: The meeting will be streamed live on the City's Meeting web portal: Listen to the meeting only by phone by dialing: 1(267)866-0999JD:6163 10 9205 Remote Public Comments: Public comments will be received by calling (626) 569-2110 or via email at publiccomment@Cityofrosemead.org by 5:00 p.m. Please identify the topic you wish to comment in you0mail'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 Commis called to orde hair Lopez at 7:13 pm. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE —Commissioner INVOCATION — Chair Lopez ROLL CALL — Commissioners Berry, Leung, Tang, Vic - hair Vuong, and Chair Lopez STAFF PRESENT — City Attorney Thuyen, Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo, Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela, Ass ao, and Commission Secretary Lockwood. 1. EXPLA000F HEARING OCEDURES AN APPEAL RIGHTS City 4y Thuyen presented the proceaLnd 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. None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DESIGN REVIEW 20-06 (CONTINUED) - On September 21, 2020, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 20-06, a request to construct a new one story 14,853 square feet PACE (program of all-inclusive care for the elderly) medical clinic. At the end of the public hearing, the Planning Commission continued Design Review 20-06 and directed staff to work with the applicant to further enhance the design of the south elevation along Garvey Avenue. To avoid re -noticing the public hearing, the Planning Commission motioned to continue Design Review 20-06 to the Planning Commission meeting on October 19, 2020. 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 RESIDENTIALICOMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OVERLAYS (C-31RC-MUDOID-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 if the Planning Commission if there were Planning Commissioners had none. Chair Lopez referrE parked along the front entrance as discussed previously. Associate Planner Lao replied there are five "The applicant must designate at least two facility. The designated loading spaces shall Chair Lopez asked where the handicap stalls are li Associate Planner Lao reDliedAdff&e three or coma ip par ing vans will be spaces on1W site plan and read Condition of Approval No.21. )ding spaces for the transportation of patrons to and from the kbij&ion of the Community Development Department." thelocations. 90 -degree ones. Chair Lopez stated thoiWis questions= asked if t?Wanning Commission had any further questions. Commissioner Berry thankg[f forte ndW ppreciates it. Chair Lopq opened the Public HlWand invited the a-p7cant to speak. Tims, from Boulder Associates Architects, thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak with them. stated at the last Planning Commission they received valuable feedback and some great ideas. He also thanked ity staff for working with them to improve the design and he is excited to show the revised drawings. He continued with a Power Point slide presentation, which included photos/slides of the existing site, aerial views of the site, landscaping, added windows, and elevations with proposed changes from all directions. He added the last slide shows how the vans will be circulated for patron drop-offs and pick-ups. He stated he will be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Chair Lopez asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for the applicant. Commissioner Tang stated he would like to thank Tim Boers and his team for making those enhancements. He added a lot of them were subtle, but they make the biggest difference in the world as you can see when you look at the comparison between the previous version and current version. He stated he would like to thank them for that, and it looks great. Commissioner Berry stated he agrees, this looks great, and he appreciates Boulder Associates for taking the time to make these changes and thanked everyone. Chair Lopez also thanked Boulder Associates and commented this project will be great for the City. He added it looks gorgeous, they did a great job, comments were taken into consideration, and thanked them again. Tim Boers replied thank you, he appreciates all their comments, and the opportunity to bring this back before the Planning Commission. Vice -Chair Vuong stated he concurs with his colleagues, this is a great design, and he really appreciates what they have done. He referred to the loading and unloading of the patrons and the 60 feet radius and asked if there will be a roundabout or lines directing the shuttles to follow a pathway to the entrance. Tim Boers replied they had not been planning on painting those lines on they, figuring the drivers would find what works best for each of them. Vice -Chair Wong asked if there were any concerns that cars maybe parking on the44Mw right and affecting their turning radius. He stated this is a concern that he has if there are no directional signs or some way of directing traffic. Tim Boers stated he believes they have arrows directing people into the right lanes. He addedo ou are in the triangle area it is up to people to find the best path and to be safe while they are driving. He explaine that the 60 -foot diameter circle is plenty large for the size of vehicles that will be utilizing, and they do not anticipate any issues with that. Vice -Chair Wong replied those are all his questa nwith his ues that this is a better redesign of the project. He thanked the applicant. Chair Lopez asked if there r questions or c ents fo pplicant. Hearing None Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing hd asked if the Planning Commission had any further comments or questions for staff. Commissioner Berry th4d staff for all their work. City Attorney Thuyen addressed Chair Lopez and recomm d asking if there had been any public comments for this item. IlIk Cha asked if any pubc comment received for this item. Cc Secretary Lockwoo replied Sherare no Dublic comments for this item Commissioner Tang referred to Langford Place to the right of the property line and asked if cars are allowed to park along that street, as there are apartments behind there. F, Associate Planner Lao repWangford Place should be kept clear because it should be considered a fire lane. Commissioner Tang stated when he has driven by, there have been several cars parked on that street. He added he just wanted staff to be aware of what he has seen. Associate Planner Lao thanked Commissioner Tang for the information and added staff will take that into consideration when construction begins for this item. She added residents will be notified that parking is not allowed. Commissioner Tang thanked staff and addressed Chair Lopez and stated he would like to make a motion to approve Design Review 20-06. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Berry, to ADOPT Resolution No. 20-08 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 20-06, subject to the 40 conditions. 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. Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo stated the motion palWith TWand 0 Noes. She explained the 10 -day appeal process and reminded the applicant to remove tAn,s a Public HTWNotice. B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-01, ZONE CHANGE 19-01, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 19-01, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82875 - The Olson Company is proposing to construct 31 residential townhome units with associated parking, open space, and site improvements on a 1.2 -acre site. The proposed development will maintain one row townhome building with seven units, one rowtownhome building with 12 units, and six two -unit townhomes. The units' range in size from 1,232 square feet to 1,698 square feet with six different floor plans. The project site is located at 3133-3141 Willard Avenue in the Light Multiple Residential (R-2) zone. PC RESOLUTION 20-09 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19-01, ZONE CHANGE 19-01, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 19-01, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 82875, AND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 31 RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME UNITS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3133-3141 WILLARD AVENUE (APNS: 5288-004-054 & 5288-OW7), IN THE LIGHT MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL ZONE (R-2) STAFF RECOMMENDATIONEhat the Planning Commission: 1. Conduct a public hearing ceive public testimony; and 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-09 with findings (Exhibit "A"), a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt City Council Resolution No. 2020-43 (Exhibit "B") and Ordinance No. 997 (ExhibiC") for the approval of General Plan Amendment 19-01, Zone Change 19- 01, Planned Development ' -01, and Tentative Tract Map 82875; and the adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit" F"). Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela presented a PowerPoint Presentation. The presentation consisted of information and pictures of the existing site, elevations, and the proposed development. During the presentation, Commissioner Tang referred to the slide of the "Elevation (Facing Willard Avenue)" and commented it looks different from the next slide of "Elevation -Building 200" and asked staff where that is. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela pointed out that if you look to the left photo that will be the front. She stated it is the north building and it may look different because in the other photo, there is landscaping. 4 Commissioner Tang stated he understands and thanked staff. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela continued with her Power Point Presentation. She concluded by reading the concerns raised at the Concept Presentation, which included, 1) Traffic and on -street parking 2) Neighborhood Outreach and School Safety and 3) Privacy and Height of Buildings 1 and 11. She explained since that meeting, a traffic study was conducted when school was in full session in February and the traffic study concluded that the proposed 31 residential townhome units would not be considered a substantial number of units and is not expected to generate additional school related pedestrian trips. She then discussed the Neighborhood Outreach and School Safety concerns and let the Planning Commission know that the Olson Company did retain Kriste Ripley Public Relations (Diane Ripley), which conducted all the public relations. She added the applicant does have a presentation and will elaborate on the public relations outreach. She continued that staff did receive a letter from the Garvey School District and they are in support of this development. She commented another concern is related to privacy and building height and there isn't a height requirement for residential projects in the PD Zone, so staff and the applicant worked together and the project complies with condominium and apartment height requirements, which are typically three stories at 35 feet. She stated the applicant is also proposing a lot of landscaping throughout the perimeter and the applicant will elaborate on all those concerns. She read staff's recommendation and stated staff, the applicant, and Traffic Engineer, and City Engineer are available to answer y questions the Planning Commissi n may have. Commissioner Berry asked if the Olson Company is the ompany d the developm4hind the San Gabriel Nursery. Planning & Economic Development Managerela replied Commissioner Berry stated he thought so, because the pleasure to walk through that area. Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or Commissioner TangaSDev f the HVAC units will be Planning & Economicopment Manager Valer equipment, sA/C units, but it will be heav to that one, which is nice and a the roof of the buildings. the applicant is proposing ground level mechanical 1. so it will be screened. CommApr7ang ref to the trash disposal service and asked if it will be communal trash or will it each individual unit obtain trash dis service. Planning%orT ic Developm t Manager`Valenzuela replied that each individual lot would have to obtain trash disposal s Commissioner TanRsked if their t-sh bins would then be kept in their garage and will they have space for that. Fr Planning & Economic Devell ent Manager Valenzuela said yes and recommended that the applicant elaborate on trash services and collection. Commissioner Berry stated he is also curious on how the trash disposal process is in the development behind the San Gabriel Nursery. He knows the area is kept very clean, highly landscaped, and has large communal areas. Commissioner Tang stated just for comparison those are single -unit townhomes and the developer may explain the trash disposal process. Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to speak. Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated the applicant has a PowerPoint Presentation which staff will pull up. Steve Armanino, Representative from the Olson Company stated it is a pleasure to be before the Planning Commission this evening. He stated in terms of the townhomes that they are proposing they are individual townhomes similar to Mission Walk in City of San Gabriel. He stated the trash service proposed is individual collection where the receptacles will be kept in the garages and pulled out on trash day. They have found when residents control their own waste it will stay in much better shape and condition and they have designed niches for those spaces as well. He explained this will be identical to what they have in a lot of their other communities. He stated with that lets start the Power Point Presentation, he reiterated that he is Steve Armanino with the Olson Company, he is also joined with John Reekstin from the Olson Company, and their entire design team. He stated they are excited to present to this new opportunity to the City of Rosemead. Slide presentation included, 1) Olson's Reputation (background of company) 2) Picture of Community Site 3) Site Assemblage 4) Project History 5) Community Process 6) Community Support 7) Letter from Garvey School District in support of project 8) Continued Community Support 9) Infrastructure Upgrades (new water system) 10) Community Suggestions 11) Surrounding Use 12) Site Constraints 13) Pictures of Existing Uses 14) Pictures of Existing Conditions 15) Street Scene (Picture of Proposed Project with description of elements and style) 16) Picture of Proposed Development 17) Power Line Setbacks 18) Vehicular Conditions 19) Privacy and Scale (Landscaping and Trees) 20) Landscape Buffer 21) Pedestrian Circulation 22) Community Amenities 23) Triangle Park 24) Square Park 25) General Plan Support 26) Community Benefits 27) Street Scene. He concluded thanking staff, the Planning Commission, and stated he is available to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Chair Lopez asked if the Planning Commissi Vice -Chair Vuong thanked Mr. Armanino for his `1 are, they side by side. Steve Armanino repliertha f tandem ai Vice -Chair Vuong askeing be regu Steve Armaniryililligd it will be regulated by the or comments for the applicant. If parki paces in garages are tandem or by side parking. will be a gated community. Steve7Wino replied that it mot presently planned to be gated. CommissionLlang asked for HVAC information and where it will be placed. Steve Armanino stated the A/C condensers are at grade level and will be screened with landscaping and will meet Rosemead's Municipal Code Commissioner Tang asked if the A/C units will go in-between the units. Steve Armanino replied in some cases they will go in-between the buildings or in the front elevations. He added it depends on the best locations they can find. Commissioner Tang asked if the landscaping will screen the units and also reduce the noise impact from the HVAC units. Steve Armanino replied yes. Commissioner Tang referred to Buildings 2 and 3 and stated he likes what they are doing to the frontage of the design because it is aesthetically appealing, and it looks great. He expressed that the rear does not look as good as the front and asked if there is anything, they can do to make the rear look as half as good as the front. Steve Armanino asked if Commissioner Tang is referring to the Buildings 100 and 200. Commissioner Tang replied yes, they are Buildings 200 and 300. Steve Armanino replied that he thinks Commissioner Tang is referring to Buildings buildings that are like the entry. Commissioner Tang stated that is correct. Steve Armanino commented that is a good observation enhance those elevations. Commissioner Tang replied that would be great. Commissioner Berry referred to the City of San Gabriel K the elevations that Commissioner Tang was referring to. and nice lush landscaping. He added he rel" Community. �� 200 that are the two longer ity to work with staff to in-between He described that there was a feeling of a lot of open space rtes what the Olson Company is bringing to the Rosemead Commissioner Tang addressed Mr. Armanino andd he is liar with t ork that the Olson Company has done in the San Gabriel Valley, and especially a project in Mon erey Park on Pot ro Grande. He added their work is quite impressive, expressed that he is happy they are investing in the City of Rosemead, and thanked Mr. Armanino. Steve Armanino replie(;Woappreciated and thank you. Chair Lopez stated he wo�also like to compliment the Ols ompany because it is a beautiful design especially with the oddities they had to work with. He commeM y nice and thanked them. Commi ner Tang co d he hopes the Olson Company does more projects like this in the City of Rosemead. Steve no stated they w oveto nked the Planning Commission. Chair Lopez there were arRy f�rther questions or comments from the Public Director of CommulWy DevelopmentFrausto-Lupo stated she has two public comments that she would like to read at this time. She added the first is from Miss Julie Lee, sent on Sunday, October 18, 2020, and read, "To whom it may concern: Please see below the chain of emails regarding my concerns about the development of proposed Willard & Garvey Residential Project at 3133-3141 Willard Ave. (APNs: 5288-004-054 and 5288-003-057). 1 feel these are important issues that need to be addressed. The traffic study from the environmental study tested the activities at the crosswalk at Dorothy and Rockhold/Willard. There were many people crossing the street without using the crosswalk. Many people crowded the street in front of the schools during high traffic time. The traffic study should also observe the traffic everyday throughout the week when school is in full session, not just on Wednesday and not just at the crosswalk. Another major issue with development of so many units on the lot is that it will cause significant water storage to our existing water supply. It is not connecting water supply from San Gabriel water company as previously indicated. The water company that we are using now on the street is with Amarillo Mutual Water Company. With the significant increase of population from the development, it will cause significant burden on the existing water supply. If Amarillo doesn't have enough water supply, the water company will have to buy water from San Gabriel water company, which in turn will increase the cost of the water for all residents around. This major issue is not in the environmental study. As the development will build houses very close to the electric transformer towers in the back of the lot. The close proximity to the electric tower poses major health threat to the occupants of the houses there. Many sources have shown that living as far as 600 m from the power lines have an elevated risk of cancer or health defects. This very important aspect of health issue related to living very close to the power line is not addressed in the environmental study. If the development plan were to go through, it will elicit other owners on the street to build more than allowed units on their lots. The problems we discuss here will significantly impact our neighborhood here. The Housing Planning department of Rosemead are obligated to the residents of Rosemead to keep our best interest in mind, not just to fulfill housing quotas. I want to see the above issues being addressed in the environmental study. Thank you for your attention to the above issues. These are my concerns that I feel should deter the development of so many units on the lots. Sincerely, Julie Liang". Director Frausto-Lupo added that staff did address previous emails regarding these concerns, 1) The traffic study and crosswalk at Dorothy, Rockhold, and Willard 2) The number of units on the lot and the impact on water supply and 3) The proximity to ctric transformer towers. The second public comment is from Kelly V., sent on Monday, October 19, 2020, to Public mment, Subject: Resident Response for Rosemead Council Committee Meeting 10/19/2020 7pm - Opposal to the Olson Company Construction Planning 3133-3141 Willard Ave. She read: "Good evening Rosemead council members, My name is Kelly V. and I live just two houses down from the planned construction. My family and I moved to Rosemead in 2000 when I was just 6 years old. I went to school across the street at Willard Elementary, middle school at Temple Intermediate, high school in San Gabriel, and graduated college from UC Riverside. Besides the 3 years of living in Riverside as a student, I have resided in this city, in this exact neigh1wh for over 2 decades. My family and I politely but strongly object to the housing construction next door. We deas a thoughtless way for non -local investors to make quick money, leaving the rest of the neighborhoofer a long-lasting consequences. Gentrification is occurring in places throughout our city. I can see it clearI ride my scooter through parts of Garvey Ave. I understand, it's something that is generally out of our hands, but the least I can do is express my concerns to those that can make a difference. Currently, smaller businesses are closing, making way for foreign investment companies to break down and build up giant, luxe apartment buildings and shopping complexes. The best example is the 168 Garvey Apartment complex on the corner of Willard Ave and Garvey Ave. Yes, there are some residents who are financially fortunate enough to be able to afford living in these fancy apartments, but there vacancies. And what about the businesses down below? It has been completely vacant since the grand opening. There aren't local businesses that can afford such an expensive lease. How are these new constructions helping our existing Rosemead residents that are in dire need of affordable housing? The Olson Company should not be building this large multi -family housing unit in our neighborhood. The construction would literally be smack dab in an already -established neighborhood of strictly single- family homes. On page 8 of the development proposal, the company concluded that the "31 residential townhome units proposed are not considered a substantial number of units" with regards to traffic and occupancy. I firmly believe the hired RK Engineering Group Inc should re-evaluate their studies considering that the research was done on9/14/2020, when school has been out of session for the past 7 months due to the coronavirus. This private company won't have concerns for disruptive noises throughout the construction. They have no empathy for our neighbors on Willard Ave. They don't care about how restrictive parking already is on our street. They don't worry about how the impacts of increased traffic will affect children walking to and from school. Their interests are only involved with how quickly they can build these units and fill them up with non -local folks with deep pockets. As I've mentioned earlier, I went to school across the street at Willard Elementary for all six years. And let's be frank, it's an underfunded school with limited resources. It has been since I was in the first grade in 2000. Why not allow this property to be used to expand this very small school? This can be a better opportunity to value the teachers and staff members that work there. I knowwith Covid-19, it may be difficult to imagine, but just try to think. It can potentially be a community garden, an extension center for a new teachers/administration lounge or better yet, a gym or after school program center for our students right across the street. This can be a space of so many more possibilities to support our neighborhood and local school rather than a multi -housing unit for profiteering. My family and I urge those that make a final decision to oppose this construction and premature planning deal. The Olson Company are just private investors that have no local ties to our city, our community, nor our neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Kelly". She concluded those are all the Public Comments that had been received. Chair Lopez asked if staff had any comments in regard to the Public Comments and questions. See None. Chair Lopez asked the Planning Commission if they had any further questions or comments. Commissioner Tang stated he appreciates the public comments but a lot of the issues they raised have been addressed such as the traffic study, as well as Olson's commitment to replace the waterline, which is an important aspect because they are building 31 units. He commented that he appreciates that and the benefits in this situation are extraordinary and will help this neighborhood tremendously and he supports this project. 4 Chair Lopez asked if there were any further questions or comments. See None. Chair Lopez closed the Public Hearing and asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments for staff. See None. Chair Lopez asked for a motion. City Attorney Thuyen reminded the Planning Commission that they a)making a recon ndation from the Planning Commission to City Council to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-09 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt City Council Resolution No. 2020-43, and Ordinance No. 997 for the approval of General Plan Amendment 19-01, Zone Change 19-01, Planned Development 19-01, and Tentative Tract Map 82875, and the adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Berry, to Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-09 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt City Council Resolution No. 2020-43, and Ordinance No. 997 for the approval of General Plan Amendment 19-01, Zone Change 19-01, Planned Development 19-01, and Tentative Tract Map 82875; and the adoption of the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Vote resulted in: R.% Dire the 4. A. PC MINUTES 9-21-20 %01 ng stated the motion passes with 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. She explained Vice -Chair Wong made a motion, seconded by Chair Lopez, to approve PC Minutes 9-21-20 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, Tang, and Wong Noes: None Abstain: None Absent: None Roll Call vote resulted in 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo stated the motion passes with 5 Ayes and 0 Noes to approve PC Minutes of 9-21-20 as presented. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo announced that Rachel Lockwo0o Nill be retiring after almost 22 years of serving the City of Rosemead. She added Rachel will be missed and thanked her for her years of service and help. l Planning Commissioners Berry, Leung, Lopez, Tang, and Won gt�lated Rach cod, stated she will be missed and wished her the best. Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo announce does of anticipate a g Commission meeting on November 2, 2020, so this is also Rachel Lockwood's last Plan mmission meeti thanked her again for everything. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMJJt#AfRS Vice -Chair Wong stated he would like to discuss an issue with his fellow Planning Commissioners. He brought this to the attention of staff that he had noticed two projects under construction or being renovated in the city. He stated one of the home's is located on Jackson and Fern Avenue, right next to Bitely Elementary, and it had a single window that made the home looked like a cyclops. He described that the home looked out of place and there was another home on Klingerman that lacked the characteristics that have come before the Planning Commission for approval. He added staff has been working with those homeowners to address the design characters to add more curb appeal, but he recommended that this is an issue the Planning Commission should address. He stated the Planning Commission should want to make sure the City has a certain curb appeal that's attractive that makes residents proud of the community they live in and also attract new and future residents. He stated that after speaking with Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo and Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela, they have assured him that they press on the Planning team to look at the Design Guidelines, but as a Planning Commission he recommended that they should have a discussion on what their expectations are for some of these projects that do not go before the Planning Commission. He requested that this be brought up as an agenda item on the next available Planning Commission meeting. He expressed'as a resident and future homeowner, he would like to see that the city changes its character for the better, it needs to attract new residents, and to make the city more vibrant because vibrancy means more businesse will come in as well. Commissioner Berrys a good idea. Commissioner Tang stated he supports that also Chair Lopez addressed staff and requested this recommendation be put on the agenda for the next available Planning Commission meeting. Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo thanked the Planning Commission for bringing that to the attention of staff and it will be agenized for a future Planning Commission meeting. Vice -Chair Vuong asked if this will require a motion. 10 City Attorney Thuyen replied no, this can be just a direction for staff Commissioner Tang asked if staff has enough direction in regard to Vice -Chair Vuong's comments to present a detail report for a future Planning Commission meeting. Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo replied yes, staff will present the Design Guidelines and some of what the Municipal Codes state in regard to the Design Guidelines for their review. 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair Lopez adjourned the meeting at 8:29 pm. The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, November 2, 2020, at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers. Daniel Lopez Chair ATTEST: Rachel Lockwood Corr 11