Loading...
TC - Minutes - 12-12-17 Special MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, TRAFFIC COMMISSION, AND BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING DECEMBER 12,2017 The special meeting of the Rosemead City Council, Planning Commission, Traffic Commission, and Beautification Committee was called to order by Mayor Low at 5:02 p.m. in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California PRESENT: Mayor Low, Mayor Pro Tem Ly. Council Members Armenia and Clark Planning Commission—Chair Dang, Vice-Chair Tang, Commissioners Eng, Herrera,Lopez Traffic Commission —Chair Masuda, Vice-Chair Ornelas, Commissioners Berry, Quintanilla Beautification Committee— Chair Armenta, Committee Members Aragon Jr., Berry, Lewin, Liu ABSENT: Council Member Alarcon, Traffic Commissioner Sevilla, Beautification Committee Members Padilla-Sornoso and Yang STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Manis, City Attorney Richman, Assistant City Manager McKinney, Director of Finance Lieu. Director of Parks and Recreation Chacon, Director of Public Works Ramirez, Director of Community Development Kim, and City Clerk Donohue 1. WORKSHOP A. Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Study Session Dr. Tom Williams, representing the Conservation Committee of the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter spoke on concerns with the final Environmental Impact Report or a certified Environmental Impact Report for public review. Mr. Williams inquired on how the specific plan boundaries were determined. He expressed there are concerns with consistency and equal opportunity and visual requirements of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. City Attorney Richman announced Council Member Clark owned property within 500 feet of the project and therefore would participate as a member of the public. Council Member Armenta asked Mr. Williams what other group he was referring to in addressing concerns with the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. Dr. Williams replied he was representing the Conservation Committee of the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter and another group named Citizens Coalition for a Safe Community a 50l(c)(3) dealing in Los Angeles County. Neither group had tics within the City except for him, owning a property on Bartlett Avenue. Rosemead Cit} Council, Planning Commission, Traffic Commission, and Beautification Committee Special Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page l of s Director of Community Development Kim introduced Lisa Brownfield, consultant from MIG Inc., to facilitate the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan presentation. Lisa Brownfield, consultant at MIG Inc_ gave an information overview of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. She explained the City was interested in revitalizing the Garvey Corridor due to slow economic growth and scattered mix of commercial and light industrial land uses. The purpose of the specific plan is to establish a vision and objectives for new development and define action to reinvigorate the corridor. As part of the planning process there have been stakeholder interviews, ad-hoc committee meetings, city department meetings, and community surveys. Characteristics of the specific plan include improving pedestrian orientation through active transportation and urban design. Four new zoning categories would be established for land use and development standards for site planning. building. parking. architectural, and open space provisions. Garvey Avenue improvements would include landscape medians, bikeways, on-street parking, and bus loading hays, restriping, and traffic signal upgrades. "Phe specific plan also focuses on infrastructure improvements such as water systems, sewer system study and improvements, and a project level analysis of the storm drainage system. John Kanlund, consultant at MIG Inc., spoke on the environmental impact report process for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, starting with an initial study, notice of preparation resulting in a draft Environmental Impact Report. Public hearings were conducted, and all documents were sent to the State's Clearing House. In the process there were several impacts that were not significant: however, air quality was the only ^^ significant unavoidable impact. Mrs. Brownfield continued with the Garvey Specific Plan presentation. Planning Commissioner ling asked for clarification on the remodel, re-use and redevelop concept with landscaping; how was the depth of properties determined under the new four zones; were there any considerations for electric vehicle charging stations; lastly, asked if there was an option for special business zone. Mrs. Brownfield replied landscape varied throughout the corridor and we are suggesting implementing measures on the next level. The remodel. reuse or redeveloped concept would be up to the property owners. the depth of the corridor is one lot deep, except for some north and south streets. As for special business zones, the city did not require a business zone. Lastly, electric vehicle charging stations are not in the plan. but would be a good idea in the future or could be added to the Community Benefits Program. Planning Commission Tang asked besides the Community Benefits Program, were there other incentives for the pedestrian orientations for property owners. Also, asked if a building did not have the building frontage, but had the dining accessibility, could they still have outside dining. Mrs. Brownfield explained the plan did not allow for outside dining to be on the front of the line, they would still have to have a minimum of the 25 percent building Rosemead City Council, Planning Cornrnission. Traffic Commission. and Beautification Committee Special Join! Meeting .Alinntes of December 13. 2017 Page 2 of J frontage requirement. Incentives could be added to the Community Benefits Program at any time. Director of Community Development Kim asked if there was a line for outdoor dining in front with the second level cantilever to the property line. Mrs. Brownfield explained in the sense that if there is a building that has a second level that has some arcade, which qualified too. Beautification Committee Member Lewin expressed concerns with some communities that allow outside dining that intrude into the sidewalk area. He did support the idea of outdoor dining by limiting to the property line itself and not into the public right of way. Mrs. Brownfield replied that the current specific plan allows businesses to encroach to the public right of way. The City could review a project and put additional rules if necessary. There are rules in the specific plan which state specific space needs to be mobile. Mr. Lewin also suggested better safety measures for outside dining along the public right of way pedestrian corridor to be included in the specific plan or in a city policy in the future. Traffic Commissioner Berry stated that the width of the sidewalk and outside dining should be considered. He asked if there were going to be any requirements or benefits for larger developments using solar panels or tankless water heaters in new construction projects. Mrs. Brownfield stated things like solar panels and tankless water heaters were being considered under the sustainable design in the specific plan. Property owners could obtain additional points if they have accessible operating eco roofs. Planning Commissioner Tang spoke about outdoor dining encroaching onto the sidewalks and stated there arc cities like Los Angeles that incorporate pocket parks adjacent to outdoor dining. Director of Community Development Kim explained that each development requires different levels of open space and incorporating a pocket park to an outdoor dining area was a good example. Planning Commissioner Dang stated that in the City of Los Angeles, the Public Works Director has the discretion to grant certain amount of feet for an outdoor dining to encroach on public right of way. He suggested the city of Rosemead could do the same. He asked how far the public amenity space, in terms of depth a business, could have. Mrs. Brownfield explained that it would depend on the developer, the specific plan did not have a minimum depth which was something that the City should think about adding. Rosemead Citi Council, Planning Commission, li JJJic Commission. and Beautification Committee Special Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12. 201 i Page 3 of Planning Commissioner Dang referenced slide no. 19 of the presentation on incentives and how to obtain certain points. If a developer obtains 38 community benefit points in the Residential/Commercial Zone, would that be with a .85 floor • area ratio or would it be scaled. Mrs. Brownfield replied no, the floor area ratio becomes .85 once you hit the minimum 21 points. Anywhere between 21 to 40 points will he at a .85 floor area ratio. Planning Commissioner Dang stated a developer would not have an incentive to try to give more if all you need is 21 points to obtain a .85 floor area ratio. He suggested to allow for an extrapolation. a formula, to make it worth their while. Secondly, under the mixed-use zone, where a commercial building could be built and have the floor area ratio component. could a developer build an apartment building since it's not really a commercial building, does that mean it's prohibited in the mixed-use zone. Mrs. Brownfield explained a residential building is not permitted in the mixed use zone, if it's a residential only project. If it's a residential building in a larger mixed use setting. that residential building can stand alone. For example, if you have a site that is half an acre, the plan does not allow for a single residential structure by itself. But if you have a mixed-use that has a residential component, in this case a vertical mixed-use, then you would allowed a residential on top. If you have a larger site, like the auto auction site, as long as you have the mixed-use in the horizontal fashion, you are able to have a residential building by itself Council Member Armenta asked for clarification on the Community Benefit Program and Floor Area Ratio. She stated a developer was not willing to build a hotel, since they were not going to be able to increase their flood area ratio. If they fall within other specifics of the Community Benefits Program. would they be able to increase their floor area ratio. Mrs. Brownfield replied yes, there is a menu of things that they can do under the Community Benefit Program to increase their floor area ratio. Council Member Armenia asked for the record to show that a developer did have to build a specific project and did not have a chance to participate in the Community Benefit Program to increase their floor area ratio. She asked when the plan would come to fruition. Director of Community Development Kim replied staff would start the Planning Commission public hearings possibly in January of 2018: then followed by the approval of the City Council. Mayor Pro Tem 14 interjected and stated mid-March or April the plan could possibly be adopted by the City Council. Rosemead City Council, Planning Commission. Traffic Commivvion. and Beautification Commitee Special Joint dkenng Minutes of December 12, 201' Page 4 of a, 2. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:06 p.m. The next special City Council meeting is scheduled to take place on December 12, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. followed by the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber. 744.6. Marc Donohue,City Clerk APPROVED Polly LyiwyMayor Rosemead City Council,Planning Commission, Traffic Commission, and Beautification Committee Special Joint Meeting Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 5 of 4 M.Mlf