Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Madam Chair, we're live. Thank you. I'd like to call the meeting to order. This is a regular meeting of the Baldin Park Planning Commission for November 12th, 2025 at 7:10. I apologize for our late start. We'll begin with a pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Rodriguez, will you lead us in the flag salute? If I could have everybody stand. Thank you.

Um, roll. We'll start with roll call. Planning Secretary, will you please roll call? Yes. Thank you. Vice Chair Miranda Dzip, present. Commissioner Rodriguez, here. Commissioner Aas. Um, and let the record reflect that uh, Chair Escobosa and Commissioner Pena are absent. Do I have a motion to excuse Chair Escobida and Commissioner um, Pena? I motion to excuse. Negative. Second. All in favor? Um, do roll call.

I'll go ahead and do roll call. Um, Vice Chair Miranda Desit. Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez, yes. And Commissioner AAS. Motion carries.

Thank you. Oral communications. I now declare or oral communications open. Anyone wishing to address the commission on anything other than the items listed on the agenda may come to the podium, take a number, and we'll call speakers in numerical order. We'll restrict your comments to three minutes. No one. See no further interest. I'll now declare oral communication closed. We'll move on to number three, the consent calendar. Um the one item on the consent calendar is the meeting minutes from the previous planning commission meeting. Would any commissioner like to pull this item for discussion? None. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of October 8th, 2025 on the consent calendar?

I will motion to approve the action minute from October 8th, 25, 2025. I will second. [clears throat] Uh, Vice Chair Miranda Zip, yes. Commissioner Rodriguez, yes. And uh Commissioner Adios, you are not you are not present, so I I don't believe you can vote on this one, but uh still with a a two vote, we have a motion that carries.

Thank you. With that, we'll move on to number four, public hearing. Um, the only case on the agenda is a request for consideration of a zoning variance ZV26-04 to allow deviations from RG Garden multifamily residential zone for the front, rear, and side setback requirements as well as a private open space requirement. The variance would facilitate the conversion of an adaptive reuse of an existing 3,459 ft vacant commercial building into three dwelling units and one ADU. The location is 14650 Pacific Avenue. The applicant Anju Gupta and the case number ZV25-04. Thank you. Good evening, honorable vice chair and commissioners. Um, I'm here to present the on the agenda for a zoning variance, a design review and an accessory dwelling unit located at for 14650 Pacific Avenue. The applicant is Anuk Gupta and the project involved a conversion and adaptive reuse of an existing 3,459 square foot commercial building which will include three apartment units and one accessory dwelling unit.

Oh, sorry to interrupt. Uh if we could please have the uh the presentation shown on screen, please. Nick, are you not seeing the screen?

No, there's no presentation showing on the on screen. There we are. Oh, okay. Thank you. Uh for the zoning variance uh the zone is located within our garden multif family residential um which the specific variance request would be for the front rear side uh setbacks as well as the deviation from the requirements for private open space for uh for the design review. We are requesting the conversion of the existing commercial structure uh into residential and adding an accessory dwelling unit. Next slide, please. As you can see, the subject site is part of the garden uh multif family residential prior zoning map. Next slide, please. And this is just an aerial view of the location and its surroundings. Um, and it's just for context. Next slide, please. As you can see, the current site, this is the view of the street view. Um it's currently parking in the front. The unit, the commercial unit, um is towards the back. Uh it was previously occupied by a physician's office which has been vacant since July of 2020. Um since then uh the the site has been uh was previously uh commercial and because it was reszoned to general sorry garden multif family garden it's no longer compliant with the current zoning. Uh next slide please. Uh so given the site's condition and configuration, full compliance uh to meet the new residential components

would require the deviation for the zoning uh standards. Um and as you can see, the surrounding sites are mostly residential. To the north, it's also garden multifamily um with uh single family residential homes. To the east, uh it is single family residential zoning with single family homes. To the south is the Dalton Wash and to the west is residential uh single family homes. Uh next slide please. And this is just the existing and the proposed site layout. Uh to the left is the existing as you could see it's uh parking and the structure is to the left has um is a wash and to the right is the uh single family residential. Um next slide please. This is the existing propos the existing floor plan uh where it used to be the uh doctor's office. And next slide please. This is the layout for the four units. The units to the right are um two-bedroom units. The third unit in the middle is a onebedroom with a den and the last unit to the left is a the ADU also a one-bedroom unit. Uh next slide please. These are the elevations. As you could see from the top, it's the existing uh the existing view and then the middle is the proposed elevations with the bottom is the colored rendering of how it will uh uh it'll still keep the um the brick uh exterior that it currently has. It's just replacing the size of the windows to make it more of a residential uh window and residential doors instead of the commercial uh door. Uh next slide, please. This slide is just the other side uh the west side um with the back uh showing

that it's going to be uh where the private open space is located with their windows and uh it's going to be stuckco, a tan colored stucco. Next slide please. Uh this is the carports uh the elevations and the location of the uh carports that would be located towards the front which is what we're asking for zoning variance to allow for the carports to be located towards the entrance uh with a zero uh setback. Next slide please. As you can see these are the required uh development standards and what they are proposing uh for the front yard. They are requesting a uh the required is 15 ft but we are requesting zero because to accommodate for the parking for the side it requires 10 ft but on the wash side it has zero and on the residential it's uh 4' 10 in uh because it is an existing site um we are asking for that deviation in the standards for private open space they are required to provide 200 square ft they're currently providing getting 147 square ft for the reason that um building is requiring for them to have uh access for fire. Uh that uh reduced the required uh private open space. If that wasn't a requirement, they would be meeting the required 200 foot. Um next slide please. So it because it is a conversion of an existing space it is uh exempt by squa under uh new construction or conversion of small structures. Uh next slide please. So staff recommends that the approval of resolution PC 2520 uh finding of to approve zoning variance 254 design

review 2526 and accessory dwelling unit 2536 and finds the proposed project is exempt from SQA pursuant to SQA guideline section 15303 class 3 uh subsection B. Um, at the time of the resolution that was given to you, we did uh intend to include a condition that required that the existing poll sign must be removed prior to uh certificate of occupancy. Uh we did update the resolution to that was given to you at the beginning. So that's uh a new condition that will be added um for your approval. Uh and this concludes my presentation. if you have any questions.

Yeah, I have a a few questions. Um, could you explain a little bit more about the um multif family or the garden multif family residential zone? What exactly it is? Um, it's just as it it's a zone that allows for more um higher density. Uh so R1 would be single family general gardens like medium density where you are allowed to have apartments. It's not only limited to single family. You uh you could do duplexes and other um development.

Thank you. And um in in the I've only been on the commission for a short time, but how many how many I say in the past 5 years, how many zoning variances have we allowed are proposed? I don't have that number with followup to that question is is it specific to residential projects or just in general? I think to residential that would be my question

to residential to our knowledge there was another site uh few years back that was requesting a variance because it was an irregular site. So it was like um how would I describe it? Triangular shaped. Um it was close to the 10 freeway. Um and that one was considered again because the site was irregular. So it wasn't going to be able to meet the development standards as it was. Um at the time the planning commission did recommend um or did follow staff's recommendation for approval based on those existing conditions. Okay. Thank you. And lastly, notices were sent out to the surrounding residents. Correct.

Yes, that's correct. they were sent pursuant to timelines. Thank you. Um I noticed that it said that there would um necessitate significant demol demolition and reconstruction and so I'm just wondering why the current plan can't be modified to meet the standards without that

um to accommodate for parking and the location of the site if it would reduce the number of parking that is required per unit. they need to provide at least two parkings, one covered and one um not covered. Uh and if we are reduc we're already reducing the number of parking on site to accommodate for the private open space and sorry for the public open space. Um I believe we're removing two parking spaces. So if we deviate if we allow if we have to meet those standards we would be reducing the parking um requirement as u greater than what's already proposed. Uh so because it's an existing site it would just be easier to modify the current site then

and I'll also add to that point as well. So part of the request is on one side from the applicants then to preserve um the existing facade and you know in facilitate adaptive reuse of the site um which is something that you know would uh create a lower barrier to entry for these types of projects. Um, another reason to um my colleague Adira's point is the parking uh makeup for the site. Uh, it is compliant with the current residential standards. So, when she's specifying removal of parking, we're talking about the existing commercial uh, parking spaces. So, the site is still compliant with residential parking standards. If anything, they're actually providing more parking for the residential component per the code. uh removal of parking is related to again the improvements that need to be made for the private open space uh components that are required per the code.

My other question is is actually regarding the parking. Um so is it am I correct in that the parking is going to be placed in the front? Okay. So with because of that, is there going to be any sort of like landscaping or um screening for the carports to mitigate the visual impacts for the surrounding neighbors? So here the site's a little unique to where it's recessed a little bit into the property. You can kind of see it if you go back to the slide for the street view. Um there there's a slope that you have to kind of go over with respect to the driveway apron. So the property is a bit inset uh or recess down into a different grade than the than the street view. So it's already screened um just by how it's kind of um uh developed right now. And there's already existing uh parkway areas that you know uh will be you know enhanced to provide that uh safety barrier. Um but the site conditions themselves already lend themselves to be less visible uh because again it's it's um recessed in

Okay. And then explain to me so uh the other thing I noticed that kind of stood out was the sideyard setback where it's the minimum code is is 10 ft and we and um the proposal only have 4T um 10 in. How would that affect surrounding neighbors or the the project itself? um affect them in uh noise or

so what because we have a minimum of 10 ft and when we're not even the proposal is not even half of that what would be the I guess the the downfalls of that or what would would that have any significance on any of the neighbors like would that be less like a a visual for for maybe the neighbors to the Yeah, I wouldn't mind commenting on that. So, um, so talking talking about the sideyard setbacks. So, the neighbor to the south, there it's a flood control channel, so there's not really concern there. To the north, you're looking at that 4 foot 10. That's that's essentially what we have for the minimum for single family residential. We allow five. uh most of the folks in in town uh enjoy a five foot step back with their single family residential house. So this would be nearly on par with that and um and then that is one of the requests staff is finding that to be a reasonable request. There still plenty of uh distance to provide access through. So it's the safe safety will be preserved in that um with that. But it's it's it you're right. It is less than what the standard is for multiple family, but it's still a decent amount,

but not uncommon. It's Yes. And then I guess just a last question is um were neighbors in the surrounding area notified that this um Yes. And do we get any comments from them? No comments. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions?

Okay. So, thank you. We um at this point we will move on to open public hearing. Um if there are no further questions of staff, I now declare the public hearing open. Um is there there's public testimony? Do I go into that or not yet? Well, um typically at this time we would have the uh the applicants on the project.

Thank you. Uh good evening um Jung Lee. I'm architect for this project. Uh first of all uh thanks yada for explain this project very well and then um I would happy to answer any question or concern from today's uh presentation.

No questions from the commissioners. Okay. Is there anything you'd like to share about the project?

Uh the basically uh let me uh explain about the the parking I mean the side setback uh modification. So our goal is try to minimize the impact to the neighbor from this construction. So then with that said we try to just uh remodel this project instead of doing uh any audition with expanding the project. So obviously you only have a 4y 10 in side set back but the thing is um that is not the major circulation for the tenants all the tenants major access from the front and then only this um uh size set back with a forit 10 in will be used as kind of fire emergency access. So from the neighbor they're not going to see many circulation from this through the side yards. Thank you. Other questions? Okay. Thank you.

Right. Thank you. Is there anyone um in the audience wishing to testify in the matter either for or against? So, um I guess at this time we'll ask for a motion. Is there a motion? I'm sorry. I'm going to close the public hearing. I think I forgot to do that last time as well. Um, is there a motion for this project? I will motion. Thank you.

I will Yes, I'm moving. I am motioning for to approve the project with staff's recommendation and additional conditions in the resolution and a categorical exemption. And is there a second? Thank you. Um, roll call, please. Vice Chair Miranda Zip. Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez. Yes. And Commissioner Aas. Motion carries.

Thank you. The planning commission has voted to adopt resolution PC25-20 approving ZV25-04, a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Baldwin Park, adopting the findings of facts and approving the request for consideration of a uh zoning variance ZV25-04 to allow deviations from RG Garden multifamily residential zone for the front, rear, and side setback requirements as well as a private open space requirement. to facilitate the conversions and and adaptive reuse of an existing 3,459 ft vacant commercial building into three dwellings and one au location at 14650 Pacific Avenue. And with that, we'll move on to number five. Um, non-public hearing items. There are none. And six, report of officers. Um, we will introduce our new planning commissioner.

Yes. At this time, I'd like to uh I'm sure you've noticed we have an a new face on on the dis. Uh we're joined by uh Commissioner Benny Aas. Thank you for joining us. Benny, do you want to tell us a little about about yourself? Got it. My name is Benny Adas. I've lived here for 28 years. usually on on that side of the planning commissions. I figured I'd be on this side for once. So, it's a learning opportunity for me on various aspects. So, I'm glad to be here. Oh, welcome. I'd also like to take a moment to thank our fill in city attorney Ivy Sai. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Okay. Um, number seven is the commission staff communication. No, no communications. Okay. And then adjournment. If there are no further comments by the commission, I'll accept a motion for adjournment. A motion to adjourn. All in favor? Roll call or all in favor? We'll do We'll do a roll call. Vice Chair Miranda Zip. Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez. Yes. And Commissioner Adios. Motion carries. Thank you. We are adjourned at 7:34 p.m. Thank you.