Loading...
PC - Minutes - 09-21-20 Minutes 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/government/City 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. 1 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 required for any proposal to construct a new building of three thousand (3,000) gross square feet or more in the P-0, C-1, 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-31RC-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-31RC-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. 5 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 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 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 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 Vuong 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 Vuong 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 Vuong Noes: None 13 Daniel Lopez Chair ATTE : OLC2,1AA11).___ Rachel Lockwood Commission Secretary 15