Loading...
PC - Minutes - 05-15-23Minutes of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 15, 2023 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Lopez at 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE —Chair Lopez INVOCATION – Commissioner Tang ROLL CALL – Commissioners Berry, Escobar, Tang, Vice -Chair Ung, and Chair Lopez STAFF PRESENT – City Attorney Gutierrez, Interim Community Development Director Wong, Associate Planner Lao, and Commission Liaison Huang EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS City Attorney Gutierrez presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE There being no comments, Chair Lopez opened and closed the Public Comment period. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS - A. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA) 22.01 AND ZONE CHANGE (ZC) 22.02 – Green Park Property LLC has submitted entitlement applications requesting to amend the Zoning Map and Garvey Ave Specific Plan by changing the zone of the subject properties from Garvey. The project is located from 7849-7857 Garvey Avenue and from 7900-7916 Virginia Street. Current zoning forthe project site is Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) & Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Residential/Commercial (GSP-R/C). Green Park Property LLC is proposing to change the specific zone to Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed Use (GSP-MU). The General Plan Land Use Designation will remain the same as Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has determined that the regional housing need for jurisdictions in the SCAG region is 1,341,827 units and 4,612 units were allocated to the City of Rosemead. The proposed development of 93 residential units will contribute to the City's RHNA for Planning Cycle from 2021 to 2029. Green Park LLC is proposing a mixed -used development which will consist of six (6) parcels totaling 1.2 acres of land. It is six (6) stories, totaling 115,400 square feet of nonresidential square footage and 93 residential units (24 of which are live/work units). The Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development will meet all open space requirements. It will include 4,235 square feet of usable public open space, 19,114 square feet of usable private common open space, and 10,067 square feet of private open space. Green Park LLC is also utilizing Community Benefits Programs, which include lot consolidation, Family Friendly Development, Nonresidential Component of Mixed-use Development Sites, Public Parking, Sustainable Design, and Alternative Energy. A total of 208 off-street parking spaces will be located on the surface and in a parking structure. The applicant will comply with development standards within the Garvey Specific Plan and the City of Rosemead Municipal Code. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2023 Page 1 of 14 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECIEVED — During the 20 -day public review and comment period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the City received a letter from Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. The City's Environmental Consultant, Phill Martin & Associates, will respond to all comments received at the end of the 20 -day public review on May 15, 2023. On May 7, 2023, the City Clerk's Office received two public comments via email from residents Quan Le and Irene Truong. Both public comments were in opposition to the proposed driveway on Virginia Street, as the residents believed that the driveway would result in heavy traffic and a hazard to children playing within the neighborhood. PC RESOLUTION 23-03 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 22-02 AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 22-01 TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP AND FIGURE 3.1 OF THE GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN BY CHANGING THE ZONE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES FROM GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (GSP) (APNS: 5287-038-018, -019, -020 AND -029) AND GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN, RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL (GSP-R/C) (APNS: 5287-038-030 AND -033) TO GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN, INCENTIVIZED MIXED-USE (GSP-MU) ZONE, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 7849-7857 GARVEY AVENUE AND 7900-7916 VIRGINIA STREET AND ADOPT THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. STAFF RECOMENTATION — It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-03 with findings (Exhibit "A"), a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2023-26 for the adoption and approval of the associated Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Ordinance No. 1016 for the approval of Specific Plan Amendment 22-01 and Zone Change 22-02, and (Exhibits "B" and "C", respectively) with the modification of Condition of Approval Number 21, removing the restriction on emergency access and requiring that an updated traffic study that analyzes the traffic impacts on the residential streets in the vicinity and identifying any potential mitigation measures to address the issues be submitted to the City Council for review. Associate Planner Lao presented the staff report Chair Lopez opened the Public Hearing. Commissioner Tang commended the developers fortheir investment in Garvey Avenue, as Garvey suffers from neglect and stagnation. He inquired what the definition of a "Live -Work Unit" entailed. Associate Planner Lao answered that the live -work units for the project were rental units where tenants reside and utilize a portion of the unit for work-related purposes and office space. These units became more widely utilized because of the pandemic which increased remote worts. The live -work unit also provides flexibility for the residents. Commissioner Tang verified if the development had 24 units live -work. He then proceeded to ask if there were any live -worts units currently in existence in the city. Associate Planner Lao verified the unit count. She also stated that the City of Rosemead has approved some live -work units, but they were currently under plan check or under construction. Commissioner Tang inquired if live -work units were strictly for office -related use. He then inquired if residents were able to utilize the units as storefronts or other uses. Associate Planner Lao stated that live -work units would usually pertain to professional occupations and office use. Uses that create odors or additional traffic would not be permitted. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2023 Page 2 of 14 Commissioner Tang verified the composition for the 93 residential units, asking if 24 were live -work and if the remaining 69 were going to be apartments. He then inquired about the size and scope of the 69 apartments, asking about bedroom count, bathroom count, and floor layouts. Associate Planner Lao stated that for the live -work units, there will be 12 different live -work plans. These plans would range from 1a, 1b, 1c, all the way down to 3b. These live -work units will be located from the first to fourth floors. The 69 apartment units will be located from the fifth to seventh floors. These will range from 1a to 2h, composing of 1-2 bedrooms. Commissioner Tang inquired whether a vast majority of the units would be 1-2 bedrooms, meaning that the residents would be smaller families. These smaller family compositions would range from a single occupant to a couple with one child. He then asked if there would be seven, three-bedroom apartments. Associate Planner Lao verified that there would be seven, three bedroom units for the live -work units. Commissioner Tang asked if the parking space requirements would correspond to the number of bedrooms. He then asked how the parking space requirements would be calculated for the residential portion. Associate Planner Lao stated that for strictly residential units, the requirement is one parking space per one unit. Additionally, every two residential units will require one guest parking space. For the live -work units, it would be the greater of one standard parking space and 0.5 standard guest parking space OR one parking space for every 400 square feet of floor area for the work area, whichever is greater. Commissioner Tang then inquired about how the commercial parking would be calculated. Associate Planner Lao then stated that for commercial, Green Park Property LLC is proposing retail and office space, which would equate to one standard parking space for each 400 square feet of floor area. Commissioner Tang asked how many parking spaces were required and how many the developer was proposing. Associate Planner Lao answer that the developer is proposing a surplus of parking. The required parking spaces would be 199 parking spaces. However, the developer is proposing 208 parking spaces. Commissioner Tang then inquired about the definition of tandem parking and inquired about the composition of the three story parking structure. Associate Planner Lao stated that the applicant is proposing tandem parking for the live -work units only. In the Garvey Specific Plan, residential parking and commercial parking are separated. The residential parking is secured by gate. The residential parking would require an ALP (Administrative Use Permit), which will be required to be approved by the Community Development director. She also stated that past projects have done tandem parking for live -work units and have also been required to obtain an AUP. She then explained that the reason why tandem parking is permitted for live -work units is because the tenants will have control of which customers will have access to their space. Therefore, if needed, a customer can move their car. Commissioner Tang then asked if the commercial parking spaces were limited only to the first floor. Associate Planner Lao stated that the majority of the commercial parking spaces would be on the first floor, in addition to the loading spaces. Additionally, there would also be some commercial parking spaces on the second floor. The remaining parking spaces on the floors beyond the second floor would be live -work spaces. Commissioner Tang asked if the live -work parking spaces would be restricted spaces. He then asked if there would be a separate entrance or gated access to the tandem spaces. Associate Planner Lao stated that all residential parking spaces will be restricted access and gated. Only residents and their guests will have access to these spaces. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2023 Page 3 of 14 Commissioner Tang requested more information about CALGreen Tier 1 within the Density Bonus Program Associate Planner Lao answered that the applicant was not doing a Density Bonus Program, but rather a Community Benefit Program. She then stated that she would like to defer that question to the architect of the project. Commissioner Tang then inquired about the development impact fees. He stated that if there was a future installation of a traffic signal on Strathmore and Garvey, would that be facilitated by development impact fees. He then asked what would happen to the development impact fees if the traffic light installation was not warranted. Associate Planner Lao stated that development impact fees would still be collected regardless. These collected fees would then be utilized towards other street improvements. Commissioner Tang stated that he would like to see the traffic signal to be a separate item that the developer would have to pay for. He explained that the traffic signal would have significant effects on generating traffic along Strathmore, as it is a small street. Tang then suggested that the development impact fees for other improvements along Garvey Avenue in order to incentivize other developers to make investments and improvements. Associate Planner Lao stated that in discussion with the previous City of Rosemead Engineer, Eddie Chan. It was agreed there were other developments also occurring on Garvey Avenue. Thus, it would be unfair to impose such a large cost on Green Property LLC, as there would be other developments that would also add to the traffic. In consulting with Chan, it was decided that it would be fair to collect development impact fees from all of the projects that will be built along Garvey Avenue and utilize the collected sum to create the traffic signal, if warranted. Commissioner Tang stated that he would still like to separate the development impact fees and the fees collected from Green Property LLC. He then inquired about the entry points for the building along Brighton, Strathmore, and Virginia. He then remarked that the entry points were through some small streets, especially through the alleyway. Associate Planner Lao clarified that the alleyway was 20 feet. She stated that the driveway on both Virginia and Strathmore will measure 25 feet. Commissioner Tang then stated that for the 25 feet on Virginia, he was asking for a change in condition of approval 21. He stated there was a pending updated traffic study to analyze the traffic impacts. Tang stated that previously, the Planning Commission approved another project on Del Mar and Garvey from the same property owner. This project was proposing close to 100 units, with an entry point into Brighton Avenue. Tang was concerned that adding another large-scale project with an entry point into Brighton would result in significant traffic impacts. Notably, there will be a queue of cars making a right tum into Brighton from Garvey. Additionally, Tang remarked that on Strathmore Avenue, there is a center median that would not allow cars to queue. There will be significant traffic disruptions along Garvey Avenue from West to East. Tang was also unsure if the mitigated negative declaration would address the air quality in the area as a result of traffic congestion. Tang expressed that he has questions about CALGreen Tier 1 for the developer, but he will hold his questions. Commissioner Escobar remarked that she had concerns about traffic, level of service, and parking in the area. Taking into consideration the large developments in the area, she stated that it would be important for the updated traffic analysis to undergo City Council review and approval. Vice -Chair Ung asked if there was a way to screen the parking structure levels from public view in order to improve the appearance of the structure. She remarked that the screening was important, as the structure faced residential. Ung also addressed Item No. 17 on the plans, regarding equipment screening from the roof. She stated that because the parapets lacked height, rooftop screening for the equipment was needed to ensure they were not visible from the street. She also stated that she had concerns about exiting from the parking structure. Commissioner Berry had concerns about the traffic on the alleyway of Virginia Street, as it is a very small passage way. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2023 Page 4 of 14 Associate Planner Lao stated that City of Rosemead staff has talked to the traffic consultant that prepared the traffic study for the project. Lao read a statement from the consultants stating "a minimum width of ten feet is generally acceptable to public road travel lengths. Therefore, the existing 20 -foot wide alley that provides access to the project site from the west at Brighton Street is adequate to accommodate two-way travel or passenger cars. To preclude conflicts with larger vehicles, the delivery trucks and trash trucks shall be prohibited from using the alley to access the project site. Parking in the alley is prohibited." Commissioner Berry remarked that ten feet per car in the alleyway seemed small. He remarked that he had a 22 -foot driveway, and he felt like it was not enough space for two cars. He also questioned who would be responsible for maintenance in the alleyway. He then asked who owned the alleyway. Associate Planner Lao answered that the City of Rosemead owned the alleyway, as it was a public alleyway. Commissioner Berry inquired about the noise created by the traffic, as there are residences close by an asked if anything can be built on the alleyway to shield the noise. Associate Planner Lao stated that the public alleyway was along R-1 and R-2 residential. This would be public property, meaning that the residents will not be permitted to build anything on public property. Commissioner Berry expressed concerns about street width, as cars would not be driving perfectly within their allotted side of the road. He expressed wishes to open up the other end of Virginia but acknowledges that it would not be possible. Berry also stated that he would like a left turn lane signal installed on Garvey Ave, as traffic controls in the intersection were essential. Associate Planner Lao addressed concerns about left turns onto Strathmore Avenue. She stated that Condition of Approval No. 67 was recommended and the condition states that "at the city engineers discretion, a portion of the raised median on the west leg of Garvey Avenue shall be removed and replaced by a two-way left tum median." This will allow drivers to make left turns safely without causing traffic. Vice -Chair Ung asked if there was any discussion to put an entry point off Garvey Avenue into the property rather than routing through the smaller streets. Associate Planner Lao differed the question to the applicant's architect. Chair Lopez voiced concerns about clients visiting a live -work units. He asked if these offices would include clients visiting in order to purchase goods from the live -work units. Lopez asked if the sale of goods, carpentry, and construction was a permitted use. He then clarified by asking if there will be confines to restrict the use to purely office use via a computer. Interim Community Development Director Wong clarified that the live -work spaces will generally comprise of office use. Chair Lopez voiced concerns that there will be scenarios where there will be sales operations, where an office worker would want to operate a side gig. Lopez acknowledged that it would be hard to monitor. He asked if there was any type of statement or code that would be put into place that would restrict the live -work spaces to office -use, and whether there would be disciplinary actions for violators of the code. Associate Planner Lao stated that in the Rosemead Municipal Code, there were permitted and unpermitted uses. Permitted uses for the live -work spaces would encompass professional offices (e.g. architects, accountants, realtors, sales representatives, website graphic designers, consultants, and artist studios). She also noted that the City of Rosemead allowed cottage food operations, as it was mandated by the state. There will also be allowances for small tutoring services as well as additional uses that are not listed, but are subject to the Community Development Director. Unpermitted uses include restaurants, wholesale and retail sales, dating services, adult businesses, fortune telling, massage services, personal care services, medical and dental offices, automobile and boat repair, plumbing, carpentry, Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2023 Page 5 of 14 contractor storage yard, laundering of clothes, animal kennels, and additional uses that create dust, electrical interference, fumes, gas, odors, and any other uses that would require a Conditional Use Permit. Chair Lopez stated that he wanted to confirm that such ordinances and codes were in place. Lopez also voiced that he had concems about parking. He also inquired whether the City had any other seven story buildings. Associate Planner Lao stated that there were no such units currently constructed. However, Prospect Villa, which is located on Prospect Avenue and Garvey Avenue, is a seven -story development that has been approved within the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. Chair Lopez stated that it was impossible to guarantee that all of the parking for the large development will stay within the structure. He stated concerns that the development would displace existing resident on -street parking, remarking that it was important to look after the long-time members of the community. Chair Lopez then invited the architect of the project to speak. Roland Lo from Scale(s) Lab Architects was invited to speak. Commissioner Tang thanked Architect Lo for coming up speak. He then proceeded to ask what the property owners' intentions for the commercial first floor was. Architect Lo stated that the commercial portion of the project is speculative. He also stated that he understands the desire of the city to create vibrant corridors and entertainment areas. He stated that commercial uses were encouraged, to engage the street. He also addressed the question of why there was no driveway leading up to the property on Garvey Avenue, stating that such a driveway would destroy the urban quality of the project. Lo also stated that the developers are following the Garvey Avenue Specific plan, which describes the intended quality and vibrancy of the area to be walkable. Additionally, he stated that opening up access to the property from Garvey would create additional traffic issues. Commissioner Tang agreed that driveways were not a good use of space and land. He commended the beauty of the design and verified the use of the commercial space. Architect Lo stated the commercial space would entail hospitality, cafes, and more home-grown businesses. Lo then noted that these commercial spaces would be speculative in nature, meaning that the developers will put in all the necessary components to accommodate such uses. Commissioner Tang asked if there were plans for a small outdoor dining unit. Architect Lo stated that the design set the fagade of the building back in order to accommodate outdoor seating. He stated that the seating will not push too close to the property line. The setbacks will be designed to facilitate interaction with the street. Commissioner Tang asked how many feet the setback was. Architect Lo stated that the required setback according to the Garvey Specific Plan was twelve (12) feet from the curb line. Lo stated that the architects decided on a seventeen (17) feet setback. He stated that a wider setback would allow for landscaping elements such as trees and plants, creating a more walkable street. Lo stated that the design standards are regulated by the Garvey Specific Plan. Commissioner Tang asked for a description of the CALGreen Tier 1 portion of the community benefits program. Architect Lo stated that CALGreen Tier 1 is an incentive program. Lo stated that every development in the state of California must comply with the Green Code. CALGreen would be a mandatory basic requirement, with Tier 1 being a voluntary requirement. Lo gave three base requirements for CALGreen: Providing infrastructure EV charging stations, Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2023 Page 6 of 14 using solar energy, and providing a calculation of whether there is enough solar energy based on the orientation and location of the panels. Commissioner Tang inquired which elements of the plan would be in compliance with Tier 1. Architect Lo answered that the elements would be EV charging and some solar. Lo stated that the solar component must be justified in order to determine if it was doable. He stated there must also be an analysis done in Title 24. Commissioner Tang asked to differentiate the differences between Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. Architect Lo stated that there was only CALGreen, Tier 1, and Tier 2. Both Tier 1 and 2 are voluntary while CALGreen is mandatory. Commissioner Tang asked about LEED Certification. Architect Lo answered that LEED is not law, but rather a voluntary elective. He stated that LEED would be through the U.S. Green Building Council and would not be related to anything the state of California is mandating. Commissioner Tang stated that he would encourage the development to incorporate a lot of the green elements. Particularly solar would be an element that he would like to see. Tang also stated that he would also like to see more EV charging, especially in a city that lacks the infrastructure to accommodate it. Tang remarked that he would also like to see the charging made free for the public. Tang inquired if the rental apartments would have an element of affordability. Associate Planner Lao stated that the city does not have an inclusionary ordinances to mandate that apartment units must be affordable. She stated that the rental units can have an affordability element, if the applicant decides to implement it. Commissioner Tang stated that he had no further questions. Commissioner Escobar stated that she had no further questions. Vice -Chair Ung stated that she had concerns about putting a driveway on a small cul-de-sac residential area and a tight alleyway. She stated that she understood Architect Lo's preferred method of not putting a driveway on Garvey, but she stated that access to the building needed to be provided access on Garvey to not impose onto the residents. Ung stated that as a large building, the mass of the project was already imposing. She stated that she had concerns about the traffic situation. Architect Lo stated that the issue will be examined in the updated traffic study. He stated that there will be three access points to the project, which will serve to relieve congestion by diverting access to different points of entry. Vice -Chair Ung replied that she wanted to make a trade-off by putting an access point on Garvey in order to eliminate the proposed access point on Virginia. She explained that Virginia would be more private cul-de-sac. Architect Lo stated that the permeability of the building fagade and the walkability of the streets should be taken into consideration. Vice -Chair Ung stated that currently, Garvey is not walkable. She stated that while having a residential project will encourage walkability, but at this time, Garvey was not walkable. Ung added that she understands that the aim is to get Garvey to become walkable, but she was unsure if it was worth the trade-off of imposing negative effects on the small cul-de-sac street. She stated that she would like more attention given to the parking levels facing the residents, similar to the fagade facing Garvey. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2023 Page 7 of 14 Architect Lo stated that for the parking structure, there will be setbacks that incorporate landscape. Lo referred to the landscape plans, stating that on the ground, second, and third floor there will be 10 feet, six feet, and an entire floor of landscape, respectively. Lo stated that the landscape would serve as a noise buffer and prevent visual blight. Vice -Chair Ung encouraged equipment screening. Architect Lo stated that there was already a requirement to screen rooftop equipment from view. Associate Planner Lao stated that the community development director has a discretion to approve an additional five feet for an unique architectural feature that will screen all mechanical equipment. Commissioner Tang inquired about the streetlight in the submitted renderings. Architect Lo stated that the streetlight was merely a part of the artistic license for the computer program that was used to create the rendering, but there will be no streetlight installation, unless it was conditioned as part of public improvement. Commissioner Tang conveyed his relief, as he felt like that would alarm many people by putting a streetlight on a cul- de-sac. Commissioner Berry stated that he had a concern about drivers getting in and out of Strathmore Avenue, but no comments otherwise. Seeing no additional questions, Chair Lopez asked if there was any public comment. Public Comment: Alejandro De La Torre, who resides at 7852 Whitmore Street stated that he is representing himself and his mother. He stated that he received the Public Notice through the mail and thanked the Commissioners for their time. He stated that everyone has seen the changes that have been occurring in the City and the surrounding cities. He provided an example of a project on Valley Boulevard and Del Mar Avenue, which is located in an adjacent city, and stated that that project is a prime example of a project he does not want, as it creates traffic. He stated that on Garvey Avenue, there was already a shipping company that generated significant traffic with their singular freight truck that has to be squeezed into a narrow entrance. He is aware of this situation as he lives there. He also stated that this project would enrage much of the community. Mr. De La Torre also stated that he could not find much information on whether the developers, Green Park LLC, was helping the community. He asked if property values will raise, how long the construction will take, and the environmental issues. Mr. De La Torre voiced his concerns about air quality, noise, trash, and the mixed-use development blocking views. He stated that he would like to have the residents of Virginia Street and Whitmore Avenue be more involved in the project and be present for the meeting. He also stated that large scale projects that would upgrade the walkability of the Garvey would also impose additional traffic, pollution, and noise on the area. He expressed concerns that the project was not for the locals, as it was unaffordable to the current residents. He also had concerns about the retail block, as many local businesses in Rosemead have failed. He also mentioned that business in West Hollywood are also failing. Public Comment: Susana Rivera and Rudy Martinez both own a fourplex at 7829 Virginia, which their family has owned since 1937. Ms. Rivera had concerns for the residents of her fourplex, as many have small children that play on the street. She stated that the quiet nature of the cul-de-sac was what allowed her tenants' children to be safe. She also stated that they disclosed the proposed project to their tenants as they have seen the on-site public hearing notices. Her tenants voiced concerns about the potential traffic increases. She also stated there was limited parking for her tenants, there was an overflow of at least one vehicle per tenant to on -street parking. Ms. Rivera also had concerns about the EV stations in the parking structures taking up parking spaces. She also expressed worry about uncontrolled access to the structure from unauthorized people wanting to use the EV charging stations. She stated that she is trying to stay positive and would like the City to grow in a slow paced way. Rudy Martinez spoke after Ms. Rivera and he had concerns about the flow of traffic already on Virginia from the existing properties. He stated with the new parking structure, there would be four times the amount of car flow traffic from Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2023 Page 8 of 14 Virginia to Strathmore. He stated that on the comer there was a sinkhole that just recently got patched. He stated that the sinkhole was the result of approximately 50 cars from the existing residents, and stated the increased traffic from the development would result in greater impacts. He also stated concerns about the seven -story height of the building, remarking that not even in Pasadena, on Colorado Boulevard has a seven -story building that can be accessed from each side. The project would be overwhelming and perhaps, the development can be cut in half. He did not agree with the location of the project. He stated that perhaps the site could move to the location of the old auto auction. In addition, he expressed concerns about roaming outages, and how Southern California Edison will prioritize who will receive electricity. Public Comment: Geraldo Hijar lives at 3031-3035 North Brighton Street. He stated that he agreed with all the previous public comment speakers. He stated that Rosemead already has existing apartments on the streets, and residents struggle everyday to find parking. He stated that adding more struggle to finding parking would not benefit the residents. He expressed concerns about the building size being too big for the area but perhaps staff can talk to the developer to potentially downsize the property. He also stated that the fire and sheriff departments were already overburdened, we can take a look into their response times. He requested that the Commission take more time to think about this project. Seeing that there were no additional public comments, Chair Lopez closed the public hearing and asked if the commissioners had any additional questions. Commissioner Tang expressed that he had one more question and asked the developers if there was any outreach conducted on the existing residents. Architect Lo answered that he was unsure if staff did any outreach, but he stated that they were in compliance with the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. Commissioner Tang expressed that it was important to conduct outreach, as a seven -story building would have significant impacts. Usually, for large development projects in the City, developers conduct outreach with the residents. He also stated that a development this large should have warranted an outreach plan as the residents who have lived there for decades and are used to a one-story building and minimal traffic, would have appreciated the outreach. Commissioner Tang also stated that he is aware that the bare minimum is to mail out notices within 300 feet of the project site. Architect Lo stated that no outreach efforts were required and would like to defer that question to staff. Commissioner Tang replied that it should not be on City staff, and that it was the responsibility of the developer to conduct outreach. He reiterated that sending out notices was the bare minimum, and the developer should have conducted more outreach. Architect Lo stated that there was numerous public outreach efforts completed when the City was in the process of developing the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. Commissioner Tang thanked Chair Lopez for allowing him to ask Architect Lo about community outreach. Seeing that there was an additional public comment, the Planning Commission reopened the public hearing Public Comment: Imelda Hijar lives at 3031 North Brighton Street. She has resided there since 1974 and has had the house passed down from her parents. She stated that many of the people that live on the street are renters, and that most of the homeowners are out of state or out of the country. She stated concerns that if there were significant traffic and parking impacts, renters can simply move away. Ms. Hijar also stated that the homeowners would be the ones to suffer, as they would have difficulty selling their properties because there is no parking. She stated that firetrucks struggled to navigate through their street twice this week, because they went the wrong way, and they had trouble backing out onto Garvey Avenue because there was too much traffic. She expressed concerns about the limited scope of the traffic study, as it did not take into account traffic on the 60 or 10 freeway and how it would impact the traffic on Garvey Avenue. She stated that the traffic engineers are not there 24 hours, seven days a week, as they conduct their Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2023 Page 9 of 14 studies during specific hours. Ms. Hijar stated that Valley Boulevard looks great, but would like the renters, homeowners, and business owners to come together to develop and beautify Garvey Avenue. She also expressed concerns about the infrastructure, power, and water challenges presented by the large project and perhaps the developer can downsize the project. She also stated that there would be issues of traffic displacement into surrounding residential neighborhoods. She reiterated that renters should be more involved, as that is the reason why there is such low turnout today. There being no additional questions or public comment, Chair Lopez closed the public hearing period. Commissioner Berry inquired how the traffic studies are conducted. Traffic Engineer, Bahman Janka introduced himself as the City's Contract Engineer. He stated that he works for Transtech and has been working with public agencies for the past 30 years. He stated that traffic engineers refer to a manual to figure out what aspects to examine when a new development is proposed. After that, the traffic engineers would apply a traffic model and distribute the traffic to the surrounding streets and driveways to forecast potential traffic impacts. He stated that other developments would also be considered in the traffic forecasting. After the traffic is distributed, the level of traffic is compared at intersections under existing circumstances and under future circumstances. He also stated that Level of Service (LOS) is no longer utilized for CEQA and studies now utilize Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT). In addition, Traffic Engineer Janka addressed concerns that were brought up by the other commissioners regarding traffic. He confirmed that a traffic analysis was conducted on the intersection of Strathmore and Garvey, and it was concluded that a traffic signal was not necessary on that intersection as it did not meet a certain threshold. In addition, he also stated that the previous City Engineer implemented a condition of approval that required the developer to conduct a study one year after the project is completed to see if the traffic will warrant a traffic signal. Furthermore, Traffic Engineer Janka addressed the concerns of the left -turn traffic, stating that a condition of approval will require the center median on Garvey Avenue to be partially removed so there would be opportunity for westbound and eastbound turns. Lastly, Traffic Engineer Janke, also stated that an access point on Garvey Avenue should not be opened, because traffic engineers prefer to restrict or minimize access from major streets out of consideration for traffic safety as the speed of traffic is approximately 40 mph. He explained that making a left tum into a two-lane road would be salter than making a left tum into a five -lane road. Commissioner Berry stated that traffic signals would promote more walking due to added crosswalks. He also asked whether the traffic studies were conducted in different times of day. Traffic Engineer Janka answered that traffic analysis was done manually at intersections, during different times of day. Commissioner Tang asked to define what a low VMT area would entail. Traffic Engineer Janka answered that a low VMT area would be an area that, upon examining adjacent land uses, would generate relatively less traffic than other zones. He stated that, for example, an area closer to transit and bike routes would offset some of the traffic. He also stated that mixed-use projects would create low VMT because people can utilize the commercial portion of the project on foot. Commissioner Tang asked that upon project completion, would the mixed-use complex cause the area to become a high VMT generating area. Traffic Engineer Janka answered no, as a mixed-use development would generate low VMT as people would potentially be working and living in the same place. He stated there was also a possibility that residents would use the subway three miles away instead of a single occupancy vehicle. Commissioner Tang asked if the traffic study included queued traffic. Traffic Engineer Janka stated that there was no queuing analysis performed. He stated that the nature of mixed-use project would not generate many vehicle trips. He stated that the project trips at each driveway would be minimal and only be around 24 cars. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2023 Page 10 of 14 Commissioner Tang stated that at peak hours, there would be significant traffic generated. Vice -Chair Ung stated that she wanted clarification for condition for approval No. 21. She asked that by opening up the Virginia access point, would it only be for those with secured parking to enter and exit. Associate Planner Lao answered that only residents would be able to access the Virginia Street driveway. This would not include customers, guests, or non-residents. Traffic Engineer Janka stated that the forecast for the traffic generated by the Virginia Street entrance would only amount to eleven cars during peak hours. He stated that more people would utilize the major driveway on Strathmore Avenue rather than on Virginia Street. Chair Lopez asked for a Motion. Commissioner Tang stated that before a motion was made, he would like to make a few statements. He stated that the economy of Garvey Avenue has been largely anchored by an auto auction site, that ceased operation a few decades ago and now there is an enormous duty to revitalize Garvey Avenue and bring in more development. He remarked that residents do want more vibrancy on Garvey Avenue, as there is now urban blight. While the aesthetic appeal of this project is very nice, it lies on an oddly shaped parcel, and a lot of parcels in Rosemead have been cut oddly, for example, the UFC parking lot is a different property owner than the gym itself. He stated that he would like the Commission to be mindful of the decisions they make as he did not want to leave problems for future Planning Commissions to address. Commissioner Tang also mentioned that while there are credible traffic models, he is not confident that the traffic signal warrant study to be completed 12 months after the project has been completed would solve any traffic issues as there are unique circumstances as such as its proximity to the Garvey Avenue and Del Mar Avenue intersection and the Garvey Del Mar mixed-use development. He also believed that the development impact fee and the traffic signal requirement be separated, as the developer should be required to install a traffic light. He stated that he did not have an issue with parking as it is mostly a residential project, so there would be limited commercial use. Another issue that Commissioner Tang expressed dealt with housing disparity on the south side of Rosemead and along Garvey Avenue. He stated that the reason why there is a visual disparity is because there are not enough homeowners south of Rosemead, and homeowners tend to be more invested in their property. He mentioned that the developer is taking advantage of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and he has asked the developer when he approved their past project, to address the housing owner disparity that Rosemead was facing by facilitating homeowner ship in their next projects, which was not done. Commissioner Tang stated that he was not ready to make a decision in this meeting as there were outstanding items he would like addressed. He stated that he would like the project to include units for sale, had doubts on whether the developers would deliver on their green building promises, such as solar and EV charging, and wanted to see a traffic study on the effects of opening up Virginia Street, and the feasibility of each of the three entry points. Chair Lopez asked for the assistance of the City Attorney and suggested that the decision on the project could be postponed to next month. City Attorney Gutierrez clarified that the decision made today is a recommendation to the City Council and the Commission is permitted to continue the item. In addition, she stated that there is a modified condition of approval to include an updated traffic study that is not presented before the Commission today. Interim Community Development Director Wong explained that staffs recommendation is to move the project along to the City Council and allow them to make the decision based on the updated traffic study. Chair Lopez stated that the Commission would like the traffic updates before presenting the item to the City Council. He added that it is simple to move the project along, but the Commission would like to make sure the project is a right fit for the community. Commissioner Tang stated that he would second that motion if Chair Lopez motioned. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2023 Page 11 of 14 Vice -Chair Ung stated that she would like to challenge Commissioner Tang's opinion on home ownership because the property would be maintained by the developer as there are also commercial units below that will need to be upkept. She stated that Garvey Avenue was in need of more on -street activity and street revitalization, and this project would ignite that, so she did not want to table the item and was ready to recommend the project for approval to the City Council. Commissioner Berry stated that the Commission needed to move forward as Garvey Avenue needed to be revitalized in terms of aesthetics and walkability. Traffic Engineer Janka asked what the commissioners would like to see in the updated traffic analysis. Commissioner Tang stated that he would like a traffic analysis on all three proposed entry points for the project, specifically on Virginia Street on Garvey Ave. He stated that wanted the traffic signal to be built, if warranted twelve months after the project is built. He stated concerns about Brighton Avenue being an entry point for two large projects. Commissioner Berry agreed that there needed to be traffic signals due to safety and access concerns. He stated that it was unfair for the property owner to pay for the traffic signal. Commissioner Tang asked if there were air quality impact concems with cars queuing for a long period of time. Traffic Engineer Janka stated that he could do an analysis of traffic of the cars that are entering and existing the area. Commissioner Tang stated that he would like to see mitigation measures to minimize the impacts on existing residents. The Commissioners discussed if they should make a motion to postpone the meeting until June 19th. Vice Chair Ung inquired if the postponement will entail additional outreach to the community. Associate Planner Lao stated that if the meeting was re -noticed, there will be a 20 -day noticing period required due to the MMD that was prepared. Commissioner Tang made a recommendation that the developer conduct more resident outreach. Commissioner Berry asked how long the queuing study would take. Traffic Engineer Janka responded that the traffic engineers would be able to get the queuing study done by June 19". Architect Lo stated that a very through report was already conducted, and he was unsure what was being asked of them. However, he will do whatever is necessary. He stated that he was unsure what an queuing analysis would entail. Traffic Engineer Janka stated that a queuing analysis would look at the AM peak and the PM peak of traffic and figure out how much traffic was making right and left turns into the project. He stated that an analysis for feasibility would be conducted based on how much distance was on Garvey to the first driveway and the traffic volume. He stated that he would also take into account all the possible parking scenarios for the added cars. Traffic Engineer Janka stated there would also be efforts to encourage people to take transit or utilize bicycles as part of the mitigation measures. Lastly, he stated that he would like the traffic engineer that prepared the traffic study to speak. Consultant Ganddini introduced himself and explained that based on the levels of service at the primarydriveway and on the comer of Garvey Avenue and Strathmore Avenue, it did not appear that there would be operational issues. He stated that the data in the analysis did include an output for queuing. He stated that during the PM peak hour, which would be when most of the residents would be returning home from work, the traffic study forecasted about 21 vehicles making a left tum from Garvey onto the project site. He stated that every 2.5 minutes, it was forecasted that there would be vehicle movement within the project site. He stated that on the southbound lane on Strathmore, there would not be significant queuing on a regular basis, certainly not to the extent that it would back up all the way to Garvey Avenue. Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2023 Page 12 of 14 Commissioner Escobar inquired if the traffic updates would be presented to the Planning Commission or the City Council. Interim Community Development Wong stated the traffic updates will be reviewed by the City Council. ACTION: Chair Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tang, to table the hearing to a date uncertain in order for the applicant to conduct additional traffic studies which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Lopez and Tang Noes: Berry, Escobar, and Ung Abstain: None Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 2 Ayes and 3 Noes. ACTION: Vice -Chair Ung made a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-03 with findings (Exhibit "A"), a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2023-26 for the adoption and approval of the associated Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Ordinance No. 1016 for the approval of Specific Plan Amendment 22-01 and Zone Change 22-02, and (Exhibits "B" and "C", respectively) with the modification of Condition of Approval Number 21, removing the restriction on emergency access and requiring that an updated traffic study that analyzes the traffic impacts on the residential streets in the vicinity and identifying any potential mitigation measures to address the issues be submitted to the City Council for review. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Escobar, and Ung Noes: Lopez Abstain: Tang Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 3 Ayes and 1 No and 1 Abstention. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PC MINUTES 04.17.23 Chair Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Escobar, to approve PC Minutes 4-17-23 as presented. Vote resulted in: Ayes: Berry, Escobar, Lopez, Tang, and Ung Noes: None Abstain: None Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2023 Page 13 of 14 Absent: None Roll call vote resulted in 5 Ayes and 0 Abstain. 5. MATTERS FROM STAFF Interim Community Development Director Wong stated that this meeting would be the last meeting for Administrative Assistant Huang. He stated that the city of Rosemead will miss her, and they have all enjoyed working with her. The Commission congratulated Huang on her new endeavor. 6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS Vice -Chair Ung asked who was in charge of maintaining landscaped area off of the New Avenue freeway exit. Chair Lopez responded that Caltrans has jurisdiction. Vice -Chair Ung stated that the weeds were very overgrown on the south side of the freeway exit. Commissioner Berry inquired if the City could remove the overgrown weeds. Traffic Engineer Janka stated that the City can reach out to Caltrans' maintenance division. Commissioner Tang mentioned the passing of Supervisor Gloria Molina, who has been a trailblazer in the community. Chair Lopez recounted a fond memory of when he met Gloria Molina. ADJOURNMENT Chair Lopez adjourned the meeting at 9:09 p.m. The next Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for June 5, 2023, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers ATTEST: Chair Annie Lao Associate Planner Rosemead Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 15, 2023 Page 14 of 14