Attachment C - Draft Planning Commission Minutes
1
Minutes of the
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 17, 2018
The special meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:08 by Chair Dang in the City Hall Council
Chambers located at 8838 E. Valley Boulevard.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Commissioner Herrera
INVOCATION – Commissioner Eng
ROLL CALL – Commissioners Eng, Herrera, Lopez, Vice-Chair Tang and Chair Dang
STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Thuyen, Community Development Director Kim, Public Works Director
Ramirez, City Engineer Fajardo, Lisa Brownfield, MIG Consultant, Brian Marchetti, KOA Traffic Consultant, City
Planner Valenzuela, Associate Planner Hanh, Assistant Planner Lao, Assistant Planner Wong, and
Commission Secretary Lockwood.
1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS
City Attorney Thuyen presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE )
Brian Lewin, resident wished everyone a good and peaceful “2018”. He thanked his fellow Ad Hoc Sub-Committee
member (Vice-Chair Tang) for all his hard work on the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and commented he hopes
everyone likes what they see this evening. He thanked the Planning Commission for all their work on the residential
home/temple located on Emerson Place and stated what the City Council did was very contrary to the interest of the
Rosemead residents. He thanked the Planning Commission for watching out so diligently for those interests.
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. SPECIFIC PLAN 14-01, ZONE CHANGE 14-01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-01, AND MUNICIPAL
CODE AMENDMENT 14-02 - The Garvey Avenue Specific Plan encompasses the 1.2-mile portion of
Garvey Avenue, between New Avenue and Charlotte Avenue. The area includes 88-acres (153 parcels)
that abut Garvey Avenue. The area is characterized by long established community institutions (Garvey
Intermediate School, Arlene Bitely Elementary School, and Jim’s Burgers), newer icons (Boca Dharma
Temple, the Square Shopping Center, and China Islamic Restaurant), which are interspersed among
largely auto-oriented land uses. Vacant parcels make up 30.4% (nearly 27-acres) of the total project land
area with no open space or parks. Approximately 55-acres of the project area may be redeveloped over
the life of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 18-01 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2015041067) AND ADOPT THE
FINDINGS OF FACT, STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION, AND A MITIGATION,
MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM; APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14-01 AND
ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 14-01, MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 14-02, AND
THE GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN 14-01).
2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony;
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 18-01 (attached as Exhibit “D”), a resolution recommending the
City Council adopt Resolution 2018-05 and Ordinance 978 (attached as Exhibits “E and F”, respectively),
approving Specific Plan 14-01, Zone Change 14-01, Municipal Code Amendment 14-02, and General Plan
Amendment 14-01; and
3. Recommend the City Council adopt Resolution 2018-06, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse No. 2015041067) with Reports, Findings of Fact, Statements of Overriding
Consideration, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Community Development Director Kim presented a brief introduction and stated the lead consultant from MIG, Lisa
Brownfield, will be presenting a power point presentation for the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
Lisa Brownfield, MIG Consultant stated she is happy to be here and introduced Brian Marchetti, KOA Traffic Consultant
and added if there are questions regarding traffic he can address them. She presented a power point presentation for
the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. Topics discussed during the power point presentation were: Chapter 1: Introduction
(Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and Objectives, Purpose, Contents and Organization of Garvey Avenue Specific Plan,
Public Engagement Process, and Relationship to City Plans and Programs); Chapter 2: Contest and Conditions
(Community History, Regional Context, Development Patterns, Land Use, Urban Design, Mobility, Infrastructure, and
Public Services and Facilities); Chapter 3: Land Use, Zoning, and Development Standards (Garvey Avenue Specific
Plan Zoning Districts, Development Potential, Allowed Use, Nonconforming Uses, and Special Use Restrictions,
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan Design and Development Standards); Chapter 4: Opportunity and Project Sites (Garvey
Avenue LA Auto Auction and Landwin Property Sites Mixed Use Destination, Garvey Avenue “West Gateway” Specialty
Retail Destination, Garvey Avenue “Prototypical Development” Opportunity Sites); Chapter 5: Infrastructure and
Streetscape (Mobility and Streetscape Infrastructure, Infrastructure, and Public Facilities/Services); and Chapter 6:
Implementation (Financing, Specific Plan Administration and General Provisions). She ended her presentation and
said she welcomes the Planning Commission’s questions, comments, and direction.
Chair Dang thanked Consultant Brownfield for her presentation. He addressed the Planning Commission and asked
if there were any questions, clarifications, or suggestions that they would like addressed.
Commissioner Eng thanked Consultant Brownfield and asked what type feedback was received from developers.
(Barely audible)
City Planner Valenzuela replied that developers are happy with the finished product.
Vice-Chair Tang added that at every Ad Hoc Committee meeting many of the developers were present at all those
meetings as well.
Consultant Brownfield added in the beginning, at the initial stage there were interviews with the development
community to ask them what their thoughts and direction. She added they did attend the meetings, challenged them,
offered suggestions, provided additional comments, and had questions. She said they listened to the developers during
the process.
Commissioner Eng asked if there had been any residents present at any of the meetings. (Barely audible)
3
Consultant Brownfield replied there was some and explained the community meetings were early in the morning, so
there was not a lot of attendance. She stated in the beginning of the process they had stakeholder interviews, as well
as, the surveys of the community, so they were talking to the community at the beginning of the process as well.
Community Development Director Kim stated that Mr. Brian Lewin is a resident and a member of the Ad Hoc
Committee, so he was a voice of the community.
Commissioner Lopez asked besides developers, were there any residents that have their business on Garvey Avenue
present at the meetings to voice their opinions on what they need to do.
Consultant Brownfield replied yes, the property owners were most of the attendees and they would bring their architects
and designers with them.
Vice-Chair Tang referred to the slide and asked if comments from the last joint City Council/Planning Commission
meeting are these comments to be considered to amend.
Consultant Brownfield replied that she would like to remind everyone what those comments were and in general this
is what people said, if you think yes, that is a really good idea, and I would like to make that change, then fine or if you
would like to say thank you very much and then they would move on. She added this was like reminders and this was
by the way this is what we heard. She added take what you like and request it to be included or leave things behind,
it is up to the Planning Commission.
Vice-Chair Tang stated he would like consider some of those points from the last meeting.
Chair Dang asked City Attorney Thuyen what options the Planning Commission has for this item.
City Attorney Thuyen replied the options recommended by staff is to approve the resolution recommending to the City
Council adoption of the resolution, which contains these recommendations, as well as recommending approval to
certify the final EIR. He added there are a lot of different options if they want to include some Planning Commissioner
comments or include some suggestions for the City Council to consider and with that he would suggest depending on
the length of the comments and the extensiveness of those comments they be reduced to findings to incorporate into
a resolution or provide direction to staff to integrate those comments into a staff report, which might be the most efficient
way to go.
Consultant Brownfield suggested to the City Attorney and Planning Commission that if they would like to make changes
to the Draft Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and what’s proposed in the Draft Errata to let them know and they will create
a matrix that would be included in the City Council staff report. She said it would state what the Planning Commission
has directed, what is proposed, and staff’s thoughts or recommendation. She added that her suggestion is just to have
a separate document that would be added to packet that will go to the City Council.
City Attorney Thuyen stated that is consistent and they can provide direction according to that recommendation.
Chair Dang asked for clarification if the Planning Commission may ask additional questions, provide a punch/wish list
with recommendations, and then the consultant will compile it and give it to the City Council. He also asked it this
evening the Planning Commission can definitely move this item onto the City Council Agenda.
City Attorney Thuyen replied that is correct if it is the will of the Planning Commission to go ahead and incorporate all
of the comments and work with the consultant to make sure it is all included as part of the staff report.
Chair Dang called on Commissioner Eng first to begin with her questions and comments.
4
Commissioner Eng asked what the distance is of the Garvey Specific Plan. (Barely Audible)
Consultant Brownfield asked if she means the corridor itself.
Commissioner Eng replied yes.
Consultant Brownfield and Vice-Chair Tang replied it is 1.8 or 1.2 miles.
Community Development Director Kim clarified it is 1.2 miles within the Specific Plan boundary area.
Commissioner Eng asked what the distance is of the entire length of Garvey Avenue.
Community Development Director Kim stated the City Engineer is indicating it is 2.7 miles within the City.
Commissioner Eng asked a question. (Not audible)
Consultant Brownfield replied the actual General Plan Amendment is in the back under the Land Use Chapter, but in
response to her question, it is only amending the General Plan component that is associated with Specific Plans Mixed
Use Zone.
Commissioner Eng asked another question regarding FAR benefits. (Not audible)
Consultant Brownfield replied it is correct.
Commissioner Eng stated there is a reference to the land use development and read, “There is a ten-foot street frontage
for a residential project and no minimum for nonresidential use”, and asked what does this mean.
Consultant Brownfield asked the location of the reference.
Commissioner Eng stated it is in the staff report on page 8 of 18.
Consultant Brownfield explained that the setbacks would vary with different types of zones. She said some of the
zones if it is a residential development, will be a ten feet setback, but in a nonresidential with commercial, you will bring
it all the way to the street frontage to the curb.
Commissioner Eng asked if there will still be a sidewalk space.
Consultant Brownfield replied yes, it is only bringing it up to the property line. She added you will still have the curb,
sidewalk, the property line, and a little bit of the setback on the stand alone residential development. She said if it is a
mixed use residential development it will come up to the property line.
Commissioner Eng referred to the Senior Affordable Housing on page 9 of the staff report and asked if they receive a
density bonus under Senate Bill No. 1818, are they unable to benefit from the Community Benefit Program.
Consultant Brownfield replied that is correct because they did not want to essentially double dip. She also explained
that if they want to apply for the State Bill No. 1818 and get the density bonuses/perks, you can get through that
program then it would be out of scale to allow additional density on top of that.
Commissioner Eng asked what the difference is between what is provided in the Community Benefit under the Garvey
Specific Plan and Senate Bill No. 1818.
5
Consultant Brownfield replied that the Senate Bill No. 1818 allows density bonuses and allows other benefits/perks
that you don’t have to do some of the requirements for a site development.
Community Development Director Kim stated that the state’s guideline for SB 1818 is applied to every city in the State
of California and the intent or goal is to create affordable housing. He added in doing so, cities are required to give
certain allowances, so it could be a variance for height, a variance for parking, to make the project a little more
affordable, and is an affordability element. He added the Specific Plan is for Rosemead, and it is for Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan area, is the city’s own document and only applies for the City of Rosemead. The goal of the Specific
Plan is to create a vibrant community, walkability, all those things that we want to create for this area, and it encourages
developers to do a better project, design a better project, bring in a better project, and construct a better project. He
stated by doing certain things that are included in the Specific Plan, developers will be given certain amenities and the
Specific Plan is catered towards the City of Rosemead.
Commissioner Eng stated she wanted to understand which of the two will provide more opportunities for affordable
housing, is it the SB 1818 or is it the incentives under the Specific Plan.
Community Development Director Kim stated it would be advantageous for the City of Rosemead if the developers
follow the cities guidelines. Then it can be assured that it is a quality project that is being constructed within the City.
Vice-Chair Tang stated that SB 1818 is geared for more advancement of affordable housing and that narrows the focus
of it, whereas the community benefits, it can be anything such as lot consolidation, parking, sustainable design, or
things like that where it is a little broader. He explained that affordable housing is addressed more in SB 1818 and the
exclusion of both of those programs are so developers cannot double dip.
Commissioner Eng stated she understands that and she just wanted to make sure the Specific Plan does have
affordability component to it and she supports that.
Consultant Brownfield stated that on the community benefits list, affordable housing is not one of the things listed. She
added public parks, a park over Alhambra wash, public parking, lot consolidation, putting taller buildings in the center
of the lot, sustainable design, family friendly design, where they are larger housing units where they have three
bedrooms or more, economic feasibility study, and the retail component of the mixed use development and that is what
is composed of the community benefits. She added right now, affordable housing is not on this list, but if the Planning
Commission would prefer affordable housing, it could be added to this list right now. She stated if they are currently
really interested in affordable housing, then she recommends the SB 1818.
Public Works Director Ramirez stated that depending on the development depends which way is better and it is the
actual outcome that the architect or property owner is looking for to determine which way they want to go. She said
most of the time, SB 1818 is used because these developers usually want to get additional incentives or they want to
increase the density. She said they can actually do that now with the regular Specific Plan without having to provide
the affordable housing, providing the affordable housing creates a 55 year period where affordable housing has to stay
affordable. So from a pro-profit developer, it’s better to stay with the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and from a non-
profit developer, they may be looking for the SB 1818.
Commissioner Eng stated that she sees now that this is not about affordable housing, it is more about density. She
referred to the Economic Feasibility Study topic and asked Consultant Brownfield if they were to do a study like that,
what is the projected time that they are looking at, or is that discussed, or is it open.
Consultant Brownfield replied that is generally open and when she checked the three market studies for three other
projects she has ongoing are essentially snap in time of now. She added one projects out for three to four years,
another projects out in seven years, and another projects ten years. She stated it really takes on what is happening
6
right now, what the market looks like now, and what does the feasibility look like right now, and some time into the
future.
Commissioner Eng asked from her experience of putting together Specific Plans, is there usually an Economic
Feasibility Projections.
Consultant Brownfield replied are they tied to certain developments, typically no. She stated a number of communities
do have it when they want to assure that buildings are not just built on or they may stay vacant over a period of time
just because they can get the financing, get the building, and do whatever. She stated one Specific Plan she is working
on right now, which is in Glendora, did have a market study, but they were doing a study to help them decide what the
land uses were going to be placed into their Specific Plan, and the development intensity, how high the building should
be, and the FARs. She said they were using it for that and will also require the development coming in just to make
sure that what the developer is suggesting or wanting to build actually has some feasibility of actually being occupied.
Commissioner Eng commented that is a note that the Planning Commission needs to consider because the projects
coming in are really intense and it is important to be mindful and be able to look into the feasibility of the project. She
stated we want the development to be successful, so she would like for the Planning Commission to think about the
importance of having the Feasibility Study as a requirement, so that they are able to gage the sustainability of the
project. She also referred to the Table of Community Benefits, and stated there are a lot of points for Public Open
Space and Park Space and she understands why because they have limited, but she also thinks, because of how
Rosemead is located and situated it is constraint by that. She asked Consultant Brownfield if they had gotten any
sense during the process of getting that option or getting that put into development is achievable.
Consultant Brownfield replied the total number of points is 74, if you add up everything that they do for the parks and
when you are looking at Table 3.5 on page 3 – 30, there are a couple of options to get these points. She said you get
30 points if you have 10% or more, if the site areas provided for open space or a park and is landscaped with drought
tolerant and other stuff. She explained or you can get 15 points if 15% or more of the site is provided for open space
and parks and you put in additional amenities like a stage or band shell, so you really get a lot more points for that and
really upping the game, because you are the developer will be providing a lot more amenities. She explained there is
also the option of getting 24 points if they are including inclusive playground equipment, so they will not get all of the
74 points right off and may only do 24 points or they may only do a certain amount because that may be all they may
be willing to do. She stated this is really just a series of optional things for the development community to consider and
this list was based on priorities the community kind of told them it was important as well of staff in their work in a day
to day basis of what is important to the community. She added to address the question if they think they will get a park
with all of these other things, because of limited space, she doubts if they are ever going to get a large park with all of
the amenities. She stated this just allows if someone wants to do this or willing to do this there are benefits. She added
if you are the Landwin or LA Auto Auction property with a large piece of land you can create a nice park there are
additional benefits and get an additional FAR and use the rest of it, so this just provides that option.
Commissioner Eng stated she would like to see more incentives given to the developer to do Economic Feasibility
Studies for projections because one of the main goals of the Specific Plan is to provide economic development and
there should be some type of gage to measure that. She expressed that is important for the longevity of the Specific
Plan.
Consultant Brownfield stated the Specific Plan requires hotels and mixed-use to do this automatically and that is a
straight out requirement, but where you get additional points is when you are doing a stand-alone residential
development or a stand-alone commercial development.
Commissioner Eng referred to streetscape and stated it has a five feet wide median on Garvey Avenue and asked if
that is just to the Specific Plan area or is that throughout the whole corridor.
7
Consultant Brownfield replied there is a median in some areas of the corridor, but not in all and the Specific Plan is
having this five feet median go pretty much throughout the corridor itself. She added there may be some changes as
it goes through some turn-out pockets or as necessitated by other traffic issues, but the median will be corridor wide
whereas currently it is hit or miss.
Commissioner Eng referred to page 12 of the staff report regarding sewer lines, infrastructure, and capacity studies
and questioned who will be taking up those studies and whose responsibility will it be to do that.
Consultant Brownfield replied in the “Implementation and Infrastructure” section this is where they talk about the
additional studies and in some cases it will be the developers having to do additional studies and in some cases it will
be the City.
Commissioner Eng stated she will be referring to the Garvey Specific Plan itself and on page 3 - 5, in the GSP-R/C
Zoning and modifications to the R-2 zoning parcels and asked if there are four R-2 areas impacted.
Consultant Brownfield replied there are three areas impacted.
Commissioner Eng asked why those three areas were selected and is it just limited to those three areas.
Consultant Brownfield replied the new zoning would be limited to just those three and they are off of Garvey Avenue
and are not directly onto Garvey. That was one of the choices and second of all, there is a school on one of them, the
idea of this is transitional, and is stepping you back from Garvey Avenue to the neighborhood behind it. They were
looking at those parcels and groups of parcels to allow for both residential and commercial but not mixed use over the
course of time, they are not saying the school will never go away in the use table for this in the GSP-R/C zone, schools
and institution use will continue so the school can stay there forever. She stated what they are saying is over the course
of time these parcels may turn over and if they do, they still have to blend in with the rest of the community behind it
and that is how those parcels were prominently selected.
Commissioner Eng referred to “Figure 3.1 Zoning” and stated she had a hard time distinguishing the two colors and
recommended maybe changing that.
Consultant Brownfield stated she agrees and stated it is hard to distinguish between the brown and pink.
Commissioner Eng stated on page 3 - 5 of the Garvey Specific Plan, and referred to the third column to the right where
it says “glass windows”, and requested that the windows not be covered.
Consultant Brownfield stated that in their discussions, it was discussed that all the windows need to be open and cannot
be covered with posters, dark shading cannot be used, and the idea is to have transparency. She added they can
shade it a little bit and if there is a certain sign then that can be put up, but you cannot cover the entire window.
Commissioner Eng referred to the same third column and read, “The GSP zoning district also allows for flexible spaces
where start-up and locally-owned businesses can establish and maintain small businesses.” She asked if they are
referring to push-cart types of businesses.
Consultant Brownfield replied no, they are talking about like a start-up coffee shop and stuff like that. The Specific
Plan does not discuss anything like the pop-up carts, but actually does not discuss about prohibiting it also. She added
if the Planning Commission would like to think about that then it can be addressed because the Specific Plan is silent
on pop-up carts at this point.
Commissioner Eng referred to page 3 - 6, second paragraph, read the first sentence and asked if “feature designs” can
be made a requirement.
8
Consultant Brownfield replied the it’s not a requirement because in a sense, the development standards that they
include actually in here creates the pedestrian scale and orientation. So when the developments come through and
are actually built to those standards, it will be doing just that.
Commissioner Eng stated on that same page it talks about establishing new guidelines and standards for the GSP-MU
zone and asked when will that be anticipated to be done during the implementation process.
Consultant Brownfield replied this is Specific Plan fallback jargon and what it is basically saying is that where this plan
does not specifically speak about something an existing zoning or your existing zoning will step up and take place.
She stated in this case it’s specifically identifying where you don’t specifically don’t talk about GSP-MU then your R-
C/MUDO is the default. She added there is this type of language all the way through the Specific Plan just covering
something in case they miss something or didn’t think of something and says it’s the back-up.
Commissioner Eng referred to Table 3.3 Land Use Table on page 3 - 10, regarding Temporary Use and was interrupted
by Chair Dang.
Chair Dang apologized to Commissioner Eng and stated since she is at a section he had a question, he asked if he
could interrupt. He went back to Table 3.2 on page 3 - 7 and asked if you are residential in the GSP-R/C zone, in
which you would be an apartment.
Consultant Brownfield replied it does not have to be an apartment, but it can be apartments, townhouses, or residential
development.
Chair Dang stated you can do residential development or commercial.
Consultant Brownfield stated that is correct.
Chair Dang questioned but you can’t do both.
Consultant Brownfield stated that is correct.
Chair Dang stated that commercial alone is ok and residential alone is ok, but if you mix it, it is not. He questioned
why not.
Consultant Brownfield replied because that establishes mixed-use and the idea of this zone, which is located back
going into the community a little bit more, it is not necessarily in an area that is not appropriate for mixed use given the
density and intensity that is required for a mixed use.
Chair Dang stated he would like the Planning Commission to consider if residential and commercial are both allowed
then why can’t a combination of both be allowed. He added it doesn’t make sense to not allow it and suggested that if
it is allowed just do not give them the mixed use intensity and benefits. He added that this is something to give to the
City Council to consider and whatever they decide is alright with him.
Vice-Chair Tang asked what the restrictions on a commercial use in the R/C zone.
Consultant Brownfield asked if he is asking what the actual types of uses are in the commercial zone.
Vice-Chair Tang replied yes.
9
Public Work Director Ramirez stated while that is being looked up, she would like to explain that these three sites were
also designated this way because staff had the property owners involved in this. They were originally zoned as
commercial and these property owners knew their properties were surrounded by housing and they wanted the
opportunity to create housing to blend into the neighborhood if they so choose to do that. She added they did not want
to necessarily give up their commercial rights because they might sell their properties. She stated it was never the
intent for these properties to be considered as mixed use and to change the school district property that is attached to
the property in front, so the idea would be to actually separate the parcels and they would have to create a housing
component in the back and have a commercial in the front. She stated they did not want a mixed use necessarily, they
wanted the option to sell the housing option off. They did not have any intention of selling this property off but they
were looking at what they could do to maximize this property. She stated this goes for the same on the property located
on Del Mar Avenue, so with staff working with these property owners this is what they came up with that best fit with
this design and those property owners. She added, however, the Planning Commission can make a decision on what
they want, but typically if you want to have both commercial and housing, then it is mixed use, there is not another
designation for that and referred to the City Attorney for further explanation if needed.
Chair Dang thanked Ms. Ramirez for the clarification and stated he just sees that if it looks and behaves like a mixed-
use building and as long as they are not given the mixed-use district incentives, it would survive as a one-story
commercial building with an apartment above it.
Public Works Director Ramirez reiterated that she would defer this to the City Attorney, but then it could look like they
are giving incentives to certain property owners that we are not allowing others, but they have the same designation.
She added so if one property we are allowing commercial and mixed use, but we saying you can only go this high, and
this commercial can only go that high, and she guesses they can do what they do now for the low density and high
density mixed use commercial use, if they so choose to do it that way. She stated it is the will of the Planning
Commission and what they are looking at and trying to accomplish.
Chair Dang stated he would like to explain it from a different perspective and stated if he has a piece of land and it is
perfectly legal for him to build one apartment building, ten feet away, as long as the fire proof permits, he could build
another building that is commercial and it would be perfectly fine. He asked if his understanding if this code section to
be correct.
Consultant Brownfield asked if is asking if it will be on the same lot.
Chair Dang replied yes, on the same lot.
Consultant Brownfield replied it would not be allowed at this point. She added it would not be allowed because that
would be considered a mixed use and explained that if you built a commercial building and an all residential building it
would be permitted.
Chair Dang stated if there were two pieces of property and they were right adjacent to each other you can build one
apartment on one property and one commercial on the other and asked if that would be perfectly fine.
Consultant Brownfield replied that would be correct, if they are two different lots that could be done.
Chair Dang stated that it seems awkward to allow commercial or residential but to not allow it on the same lot.
Consultant Brownfield stated that it is unlikely that you would get a developer wanting to do a mini-market type store
and then have residential above it without having the additional benefits of having mixed use because typically it is not
enough of a development standard to allow them to do that, finance it, and build it. She added that it can never happen,
it’s just not likely to happen. She stated while talking to the property owners, they were thinking of compatibility with
what’s adjacent to them. She referred back to Vice-Chair Tang’s question of what different commercial uses are
10
allowed and said there are only a couple of differences and one difference is, if you allow that mixed-use for example,
eating and drinking establishments with On-Sale ABC licenses is allowed in mixed-use, but not in the
residential/commercial. She stated another one that is allowed is entertainment or spectator sports like arenas with
150 seats or more or 15,000 square feet, which probably would not occur because these sites are really small, but that
is another example of what could be allowed under a CUP and in a Mixed-Use zone, but would not be allowed in the
residential/commercial zone. She said the same thing with a hotel with a 50 or more person would be allowed in a
mixed use but it is not allowed in the straight commercial zone and medical offices as well. She stated this is a brief
listing in comparing the two columns of some of the uses that would be different, if you were allowed to be in that mixed
use format, even if you didn’t give that additional density, but even in that form, you would be pulling in those other
uses most likely as well.
Community Development Director Kim asked if the permitted use list is on Table 3.3.
Consultant Brownfield replied it is on Table 3.3 beginning on page 3 - 10.
Community Development Director Kim asked if that table has all the permitted uses, conditional use permitted uses,
as set by the four zoning districts.
Consultant Brownfield replied that is correct.
Vice-Chair Tang asked if someone were to build a commercial building like Chair Dang has alluded to, for example,
could it be an office space or a convenience store, or what type of use would be allowed.
Consultant Brownfield replied under the current commercial zoning it could be a whole series of uses; it could be an
eating and drinking establishment without alcohol, financial services, beverage retail, small health club, office use,
personal services, and things like that.
Chair Dang stated he was imagining like in San Francisco where they have small petite shops, coffee shops, and then
having residential on the second or third floor above it. He added this is what he was visualizing when he was thinking
of this and not to the grandeur of a mixed use project. He added it would be nice to have pedestrian traffic and having
them come down to have dinner or visit the coffee shop.
Commissioner Eng asked Consultant Brownfield if the rest of the parcels are small in size, with the exception of the
two large parcels.
Consultant Brownfield replied all of the rest are fairly small, for the most part.
Commissioner Eng stated that Vice-Chair Dang is alluding to, if someone owns a small parcel, and they want to stay
and develop that parcel, he would like to give them the flexibility to develop that small parcel as a mixed use.
Chair Dang stated maybe he does not want to use the term mixed use because it seems to be clouding what he is
trying to ask.
Consultant Brownfield stated there is a difference in height as well, between the two types of uses. She explained in
the R/C zone you only have 35 feet, so that is only a two or three-story building. She added where the other mixed
use project is located it is a 75 foot building, so this is going back to the likely hood of a mixed use project working
because it is so small. She stated that it does not mean that they can’t and if the Planning Commission is thinking of
considering this, she would not be so hesitant if the parcels in yellow along Del Mar Avenue weren’t facing Del Mar
Avenue, because Del Mar Avenue is a busy street. She stated she is concerned with the likelihood of allowing this in
the school zone areas or the other pieces of property that is back off of Strathmore Avenue because you are really in
a neighborhood at that point.
11
Chair Dang stated from his perspective, it seems softer to have a three-story office building verses having a one-story
office with an apartment above it seems softer and that is why he likes that concept. He stated he would like to see a
mixed-use building instead.
Consultant Brownfield stated it is up to the Planning Commission to give direction and if the Planning Commission
would like to see that, then they can add it to the list and it is up to their direction.
Vice-Chair Tang stated he likes that train of thought looking in terms of thinking for those creative ways, but he agrees
with staff that it seems awkward to have retail/office space on the first level, and then have residential on the second
level, especially on a street like Jackson Avenue, which is highly residential and in a specific neighborhood. He added
for example if Garvey Intermediate School was not in operation, then you would turn the back half of that Garvey
Intermediate School into kind of a commercial mixed/residential use, whereas, when you have single-story homes and
right across the street you have a two-story home with commercial on the first floor and residential on the second floor
and expressed that seems more awkward than just saying to only having only commercial or office space there. He
asked the Planning Commission for their input or thoughts.
Commissioner Eng stated that she sees both perspectives.
Chair Dang stated that is something for the Planning Commission to consider and moved on to the next topic. He
referred to page 3 - 7, R-C zoning, and stated there is a density unit of 7, and stated if he was able to maximize his
community development, then he could ramp that up to 30 dwelling units. He added that would be almost a fourfold
increase, however, when they look at the FAR the baseline is 0.75, and in the maximizing community benefit the FAR
does not move up very much.
Consultant Brownfield replied that is correct and the FAR 0.75 is a pretty large increase than what is allowed now. She
stated that was some of their thought when they chose the 0.75 because that was already a bump up and to bump it
up significantly to the 1.0 did not make sense to them. She asked if Chair Dang was questioning the bump up to 0.75,
to the 1.0 or the 0.75 to the 30.
Chair Dang stated that it is a good point and they are actually related. He said if they are able to bump up the dwelling
unit up to 30, basically a fourfold increase, but we are slightly bumping up the FAR, you are basically telling the
developer to go ahead and build more units but we want it a lot smaller. He commented that this 30 looks good but
maybe when they pencil it in then it doesn’t work. He added you will have smaller units and maybe have a lot of them,
but they will be harder to rent, and is maybe an item for the City Council to think about.
Consultant Brownfield asked what Chair Dang’s recommendation would be to change that if you would want to suggest
that to the City Council.
Chair Dang replied he recommends that it be consistent and if it is ramped up to 30, then it should be considered to
moving it to above 1.0 or the other way around if you want to lock it in at 1.0 then there really isn’t a reason to have a
30. He added that the sales should be moderately consistent and they should not multiply by fourfold and then you
are moving up a quarter point for the FAR.
Commissioner Eng addressed Chair Dang and stated she recalls seeing that there is a room size requirement as part
of a design standard. She added that Chair Dang’s point is that there is a need for consistency.
Chair Dang stated he does not have a set number for Consultant Brownfield to present to the City Council but this is a
question that can be presented to the Council and let them decide on the number for the FAR or reduce the density or
just keep it the way it is. He stated he just wanted to point out the inconsistency.
Vice-Chair Tang asked if the math adds up and let’s say you can have 30 dwelling units per gross acre, but you have
a 1.0 FAR, but you have a height limit of 35, so if you increase the FAR would the math even add up.
12
Chair Dang stated it would be very difficult to make a building work out.
Consultant Brownfield stated they will do the analysis and they will come back to see, if something is going to change,
to see what would be more reasonable to change.
Chair Dang stated on that same page 3 - 7 under the heading of “Maximum with Provision of Community Benefits” (see
3.4.2) he corrected a typo and stated it should say (see 3.4.3).
Consultant Brownfield thanked Chair Dang and stated she will look for that.
Commissioner Eng referred to page 3 - 11 under, “Table 3.3 Land Use Table” under Care Uses and asked why
“Transitional and Supportive Housing” is, not permitted in the MU Zone and the thought behind that.
Consultant Brownfield replied that the thought about that was in the MU Zone you are most likely to get a more intensive
development and transitional and supportive housing is typically not contusive to that. She added with that being said,
if there is a senior citizen living and care that is a little bit denser then that can be facilitated, and again that would be
a Planning Commission decision to be included.
Commissioner Eng commented that it’s a question for now.
Chair Dang stated he sees that it is allowed in the R-C Zone and added as Commissioner Eng noted it seems a little
awkward that it is not allowed in the mixed use where it is a little more intense use.
Consultant Brownfield asked if that is the direction of the Planning Commission to include “Transitional and Supportive
Housing” into the MU Zone.
Chair Dang stated that is a question that the Planning Commission would like the City Council to address and make a
decision on it.
Commissioner Eng stated that is something she would support.
City Attorney Thuyen suggested that since a list of questions is being compiled for City Council’s consideration that
maybe after this deliberation it would be helpful to list them out and get a sense of which ones are all shared by all the
members of the Planning Commission officially and which ones aren’t and that way they can properly address them.
Consultant Brownfield stated she has a list so far of three to four items.
Commissioner Eng referred to page 3 - 13, “Land Use, Zoning, and Development Standards”, under 2) Physical Design
Requirements and read, “(a) All furnishings of a sidewalk dining, including, but not limited to, tables, chairs and
decorative accessories, shall be readily movable”. She asked if there will be a requirement that if an establishment is
closed they will have to put all of their furnishings away.
Consultant Brownfield replied yes, and explained this is when it is occurring on the sidewalk.
Commissioner Eng referred to page 3 - 28 regarding the 75-foot height requirement and asked if a new development
goes up to 75 feet how does that impact the residential units behind it if they want to install solar panels on their roofs.
Consultant Brownfield replied the 75-foot height limit and when you read Table 3.4 Development Standards it actually
allows for a 5-foot height increase and unique features in the corners and things like that. She added there is the ability
to go a little taller than that, but on that 75-foot limit outside of that additional top it includes everything, so you can’t go
13
up to 75-foot height and then add elevators, solar panels, and everything on top of that. She stated all of that has to
occur at the 75-foot height.
Chair Dang interrupted Consultant Brownfield and clarified that Commissioner Eng meant if you build a 75-foot building
and it cast a shadow on the neighbor’s house, how it affects the solar panels.
City Planner Valenzuela replied in the standards they have variable height requirements, so that protects those
residential units.
Commissioner Eng stated that is the site line, but what she is curious about if a two-story residential property wants to
put solar panels on a roof and if there is a building that is 75-feet high, what impact would that have in terms of their
ability to use that source of that solar panel.
Consultant Brownfield stated that she understands the question and this is in regards to properties that are not within
the specific plan area.
Commissioner Eng replied yes.
Consultant Brownfield stated a shade and shadow analysis was not made, so that was not part of the Garvey Specific
Plan.
Director of Public Works Ramirez stated that it should be noted that the current height limit on this street is already 75-
feet., so technically right now someone could build at 75-feet. She added the height limit is not being changed currently
it is just reinforcing that it will still be the height limit that will be under this Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. She stated in
regards to solar panels it will depend on how a single-family dwelling even sits because not everyone can do the
panels. She said depending on how the home sits you can only get the sun from the south or the west side, which is
unfortunate.
Commissioner Eng stated she is trying to see what can be done.
Director of Public Works Ramirez stated she hopes the Variable Height will help with that and that is the whole idea
with that. She added that a shadow study was not made.
Commissioner Eng referred to the frontage of multiple story buildings that are fronting Garvey Avenue and asked if the
upper units are allowed to have awnings or is it only allowed on the first level.
Consultant Brownfield replied she does not recall if they are and will look for an answer for that. She asked
Commissioner Eng if the Specific Plan is silent and does not address awnings on the upper units, does she have a
preference.
Commissioner Eng replied in trying to achieve a certain aesthetic they need to have a discussion or some guidance to
address this and there will be a maintenance issue.
Chair Dang stated he likes the awnings, it softens the façade, and if the building is facing the south it creates shading
and it cools the building, especially if it is over a store front window. He added he supports canopies and awnings.
Consultant Brownfield stated that Commissioner Eng was referring to the awnings on the upper floors and not on the
lower floors. She reiterated that she does not recall this being discussed, and believes the Garvey Specific Plan is
silent on this item.
Chair Dang stated he has not seen awnings on the upper floors and has only seen them on the ground floors.
14
Commissioner Eng stated on the ground floors she understands the placement of awnings, but it is on the upper floors
that when you have vertical mixed use she would like input and asked Community Development Director Kim for his
advice.
Chair Dang stated that Community Development Director Kim has a good point and if it is on the ground floor it is
easier to maintain, but if it is on the upper floors then a commercial truck with a ladder will be necessary to maintain
those awnings. He added it may not be a good idea to have them on the second or third floors.
Consultant Brownfield stated that she is hearing from the Planning Commission to prohibit awnings above the ground
floor.
Commissioner Lopez stated they are not talking about balconies or anything else, just the awning covering only.
Chair Dang stated they are only talking about fabric awnings. He said some of the modern buildings have a horizontal
fin that is more permanent and is made of an aluminum finish. He commented that those would be alright from his
perspective because there would be no maintenance involved.
Community Development Director Kim stated what is important is that on the upper floors a lot of the more modern
designs is that they will use some sort of trellis system or some type of permanent architectural feature and those are
100% appropriate to do. He added the maintenance items are usually the fabric awnings, they degrade over time, it’s
difficult to have them removed and replaced especially if there is framing around it. He stated those are the items
Commissioner Eng may be referring to.
Chair Dang addressed Consultant Brownfield description and stated the Planning Commission does not want to prohibit
the modern architecture and the horizontal fins.
Consultant Brownfield stated that the Planning Commission is referring to prohibiting the fabric awnings on the upper
floors only. She referred to Santa Barbara and stated she has seen fabric awnings on the second floor and stated they
are still reachable to maintain and suggested that awnings be allowed on the ground and second floor only, but not
above the second floor.
Commissioner Eng referred to Chapter 6, page 6 - 4 “Financing” and asked how the concept of the Reimbursement
District works, has it been successfully used, and how do you provide incentives for property owners and businesses
to participate.
Consultant Brownfield replied Reimbursement Districts are used but they are not used that frequently. She explained
the way it works is that a lot of times the City is actually fronting the money and she is not sure if the City of Rosemead
would be interested in fronting that money. She said some of the other Reimbursement Districts also look at the City,
forms the district, but then a major property owner does a certain amount, and as the other people come they reimburse
them for that cost. She explained it is difficult and there is this long process where the City Council has to have a public
hearing, the district gets all the other property owners approval, and it usually happens in a case when Developer “A”
knows Developers “B, C and D”, and they are coming in right after them. She said but in this case in Rosemead that
may not be true because things may take a longer period of time to occur. She added they wanted to talk about this as
a method, if appropriate it can be used, and it is an opportunity.
Community Development Director Kim stated that this is typically used on a larger scaled project where the project
itself along with the public sector, like the City, will form a Community Facilities District (CFD) and it would pay for
certain types of improvements to be built as a larger scale of a project. It is a mechanism and not used quite a lot but
it is a tool that may fit on a very specific project. He added there may be a Lighting CFD, Landscaping CFD, Utilities
CFD, and the most common one is usually Melaruse CFD, when you are doing a residential project, there is a Melaruse
15
that is floated for underground utilities, and that gets paid back over time through tax assessment. He added this is a
tool.
Commissioner Eng asked if this is different from a business economic source.
Community Development Director Kim replied yes, this would be different.
Commissioner Eng asked if this would fall under the Reimbursement Districts.
Community Development Director Kim replied no, and what she is referring to is a different type of facility.
Vice-Chair Tang stated he has a question about lot consolidation and referred to the staff report, page 10 of 18, “Table
2: Community Benefit Types and Points”. He stated if there are two property owners do they just consolidate their lots,
or does one buy the other one out, and asked how it works.
Consultant Brownfield replied yes, and read that for every one or more parcels or lots that are consolidated to form a
single parcel, or a lot and a lot consolidation, that are recorded with the City, 35 points will be awarded for each final
parcel or lot. She stated that means that if property “A” buys property “B and C” and create one final lot, then they get
35 points.
Chair Dang asked if you get 35 points times twp because you are buying properties “A and B”.
Consultant Brownfield replied no and explained that 35 points will be awarded for each final parcel or lot. She added if
you are creating multiple lots every lot does not get that additional density bonus only one of the lots would get the
density bonus.
Vice-Chair Tang asked so it is not that if two property owners, property “A” and property “B” owners can enter into an
agreement and say let’ redevelop both our lots and have it continuous. It has to be one final recorded lot.
Consultant Brownfield replied yes, it has to be one final recorded lot. She added that they can if they want to go through
the process of owning the property jointly but that is up to them.
Vice-Chair Tang referred to the staff report on page 11 of 18 under “Parking Management” and asked for the last
paragraph to be explained to him.
Consultant Brownfield referred back to Community Benefits in regards to parking, and said what this says is, for every
one standard size parking spot marked for public use and permanently available for public use over and above what is
required, so let’s say she has a parking lot and her use says she needs to supply 25 parking spaces but in her parking
lot she is going to have five extra parking spaces that are public and identified as public and available for public use,
given that, she would be given two points for every one of those five, so she would got ten points, all the way in, and
you can increase your points all the way to 50 points.
Vice-Chair Tang referred to the open space and the Alhambra Wash and asked what the imagined development for
that open space is. He asked if it will be a bridge.
Consultant Brownfield replied it could be a bridge and it will take some work with the Flood Control District and they
change their mind depending on whom you are and who you ask. She stated in one of her jurisdictions they allowed
property on one side to build a bridge and actually landscape it, park cars, on this bridge that is crossing this wash.
She said in another area in a project the Flood Control District just said no and it was the exact same scenario but it
was different people that were making the decisions. She added what this is saying is, if you are able to do this, then
the capping of the Alhambra Wash would be kind of capped, then a bridge would be put over it, and then used as park
16
space on top of it. She added there would have to be landscaping and there is different forms of landscaping that isn’t
necessarily so heavy so that you can still have a green amenity area over the wash. She said if you do that then you
would get 25 points and if you do that and turn it into a public park instead of a landscape space, and then you get
some additional points for that.
Chair Dang asked if a cap can be put over the channel and provide public parking and get the two points.
Consultant Brownfield replied no, because when you talk about capping here, then you are talking about capping it and
using it for an open space amenity and not for a parking amenity.
Vice-Chair Tang referred to the slide presentation and he knows there is a Community Incentive Program and asked if
there were any incentives for developers to build outdoor dining in the Garvey Avenue storefronts.
Consultant Brownfield replied right now it is being allowed to occur, but is not incentivized. She stated it can be added
and the Planning Commission can give them direction to add this but the difficulty with this is that you are then saying
it is a restaurant that is going to be there essentially forever and you have given them development rights. She said it
may be a restaurant now that works for 3 - 5 years and then the restaurant goes out and then that space is then being
used as a bookstore and would they like to give them additional density if they are a different type of use, rather than
an outdoor dining use.
Vice-Chair Tang stated that whole element of outdoor space regardless of its use helps achieve the goal of this
pedestrian friendly streetscape kind of environment and not only that but he thinks it also helps alleviate the size and
scope of the project when you are walking along a street like Garvey Avenue and you see a three or four story building
that outdoor element helps to mitigate the massiveness of building or project. He stated that is what he would like to
see.
Consultant Brownfield stated that Vice-Chair Tang would like to have a new line item added to allow for incentivizing
for outdoor dining and/or other outdoor use.
Public Works Director Ramirez stated this is something that needs to be discussed further with the City Attorney
because outdoor dining can actually go into the public-right-away and we don’t want to necessarily give up the public-
right-away. She said so by giving them this incentive then what is being said is that we are basically giving up our
public-right-away. She added the City may need that public-right-away to do some of the improvements the City may
want to do in the future. She recommended that this item be worked on a little more between now and the next meeting
to make sure the City is not giving up rights to their land.
Vice-Chair Tang agreed that recommendation makes sense.
Consultant Brownfield suggested that if it is just the concept if it is just outdoor dining occurring on the private property.
Vice-Chair Tang agreed and stated that he would not foresee doing outdoor dining into the public property because
number one, there is not enough space to do that.
Public Works Director Ramirez stated it is possible and it could be in places that you could do that, and that is why we
would have the City Engineer look at those places, but again, you would not want to give away any of the City’s rights.
Chair Dang asked staff if outdoor dining triggers parking and is it part of the parking tabulation in the Rosemead
Municipal Code. He stated if the answer is yes, then if it is made into an incentive that if you do outdoor dining under
this Specific Plan, then you do not have to provide parking. He added that once the outdoor dining leaves and retail
comes in the parking will not be affected. He stated in the case that if the outdoor dining is in the public-right-away then
17
the City can execute a revocable permit and then you can take it back at any time. He recommended the best way to
incentivize is to just tie it with parking and if you do it within this Specific Plan no parking is required.
Consultant Brownfield stated rather than a Community Benefit you just incentivize outdoor dining by not requiring
parking for just that 100 square foot area.
Chair Dang stated or for just that outdoor area that is needed.
City Planner Valenzuela stated currently the Rosemead Municipal Code states that when there is outdoor seating and
if it exceeds over 50% of the gross interior floor area of the restaurant, then there is a requirement and anything that
doesn’t exceed 50% is not counted.
Consultant Brownfield stated that makes sense if it is more than over the 50% because what if you had only a kitchen
that was enclosed.
Community Development Director Kim stated for clarification there was a project that allowed the public to congregate
and have outdoor dining in an open space element and that could be used also as an option to synergize dining area.
City Planner Valenzuela agreed that could be used.
Chair Dang referred to outdoor dining and if they have it outside and there is a breezeway or covered awning is that
considered outdoor dining.
Consultant Brownfield clarified if Chair Dang is asking if the building is a u-shape and if there is a breezeway in-
between.
Chair Dang replied yes, or a covered pedestrian walk-way, and if you put some tables and chairs outside is that
considered outdoor dining.
City Planner Valenzuela replied yes.
Vice-Chair Tang stated that is what he would like to recommend if the Planning Commission is in support of this idea.
Consultant Brownfield replied she has a comment on that concept when they go through the punch list.
Chair Dang referred to page 3 - 24 of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and read the restaurant parking requirement.
He asked if everything needs to be standard and compact is not allowed or is it parking in general.
Consultant Brownfield replied it is parking in general and the Specific Plan does discuss the allowing for compact
parking spaces.
Chair Dang asked staff if tandem parking is allowed in commercial.
Consultant Brownfield replied the Specific Plan says tandem parking is not allowed in nonresidential use but only in
residential, but she does not know what the city’s current code says.
City Planner Valenzuela stated the code does not make reference to tandem parking in commercial, but it has been
allowed in the past for example; a car dealership has been allowed because they move their own cars.
18
Chair Dang suggested to the Planning Commission that tandem parking should be allowed in the commercial and what
businesses have done is executed a parking attendant affidavit. He said they hire a person that is there all day and he
just moves the car for you. He stated he would like to make that an item available for the developers.
Commissioner Eng asked if the business has a valet service then tandem parking will be permitted.
Chair Dang replied yes.
Consultant Brownfield suggested that if there is tandem parking then it is required for the duration of 50 years to provide
valet service. She added she does not know if maybe this may become a code enforcement problem if it stops and
perhaps staff can address that.
City Planner Valenzuela stated since she has been with the City of Rosemead, valet parking has never been approved.
For this reason, she does not have any information on whether it would be an issue.
Public Works Director Ramirez stated that there probably wouldn’t be any complaints from the property owner; it would
be probably from the tenants or people actually using the valet service and they may have an issue. Staff would then
find out about it.
Chair Dang stated that sometimes lots are so small that it is difficult to park left and right side. He said if you park in
tandem you could save some very expensive real estate. He commented that this is an important tool for the developer
to have and requested it be added to the punch list.
Community Development Director Kim stated the current trend now is to find innovative solutions for parking because
Southern California parking is an issue. He referred to the City of West Hollywood and that they did an automated
parking structure.
Chair Dang stated he was part of that project and explained you get off and hit a button and it takes the car.
Community Development Director Kim stated if you go to a lot of the metropolitan cities all over the world they have
parking systems. He added that there are a lot of bad parking systems where the parking facilities are on a skeleton
type of equipment, where it is not sheltered, and it looks like racks. He added he would not recommend that if the
Planning Commission is going to pursue this, there are many ways it can be done if they would like to explore this.
Vice-Chair Tang commented that there is an example of a poor parking system located in Monterey Park.
Chair Dang referred to restaurants and if it is a small restaurant with floor area less than 2,500 square feet, it will be
parked at one per 400 square feet, and if it is a larger restaurant it will be parked at one per 200 square feet. He asked
staff if the current code for restaurant is 200 square feet.
City Planner Valenzuela replied the current code for restaurants is one per 100 square feet.
Chair Dang asked if either way they are getting an incentive.
City Planner Valenzuela replied yes.
Chair Dang asked staff what is the current code for retail parking.
City Planner Valenzuela replied it is one per 250 square feet.
Chair Dang asked if in the Specific Plan is there a break on that also.
19
Consultant Brownfield replied no and stated that all nonresidential is one per 400 square feet and explained the
breakdown.
Chair Dang referred to the table on page 3 - 25 in the Garvey Specific Plan regarding landscaping. He stated in the
third column under GSP it state 6% minimum and asked if that is for commercial use.
Consultant Brownfield replied yes.
Chair Dang asked if this is consistent with the City program of Tree City USA and if the tree ratio was higher.
Public Works Director Ramirez replied that the Tree City USA deals with the public-right-away and the Specific Plan
deals with private property.
Chair Dang asked if Tree USA has any component on private property at all.
Public Works Director Ramirez replied no, not for private it is strictly for public-right-away.
Chair Dang asked if currently the City is at 6% also.
City Planner Valenzuela replied the code requires 6%.
Chair Dang recommended that he would like to encourage more green landscaping, especially in these big parking
lots, where everyone is looking to park under shade from the trees. He stated that 6% is kind of slim and requested
this item be added to the punch list.
Consultant Brownfield asked Chair Dang what he would like to see and would he like to see this in only the GSP
because it is also listed in the GSP-MU and is required as 6%.
Chair Dang replied he would like to see it changed in both columns the GSP and GSP-MU.
Consultant Brownfield asked Chair Dang what he would to see it as.
Chair Dang asked why residential is required at 20%.
City Planner Valenzuela replied because the code currently requires 20%.
Chair Dang asked if there is a reason why it requires 20% or is it a number that has just been carried on.
City Planner Valenzuela replied a survey was conducted when the code was updated and that was the number that
most other cities required.
Chair Dang asked staff if they had a survey is available for commercial also.
City Planner Valenzuela replied that percentage use to be at 3% and when the code was updated in the year “2013” is
was changed to 6%.
Consultant Brownfield asked if it is currently 6%, what would Chair Dang like it to go up to.
20
Chair Dang stated he does not have a magic number but at a discussion point he would like to say 10% and requested
staff to check on what the City of El Monte and Monterey Park has. He would like it to be at least consistent with the
neighboring cities.
City Planner Valenzuela replied she would check.
Consultant Brownfield confirmed that Chair Dang would like it to state at least 6% or if they are higher then be higher
and not be lower than that 6%.
Chair Dang replied that would be good. He then referred to the same page under open space and this is from the
Errata on page 3, and stated it is 75 square feet per dwelling unit or 60 square feet minimum for private and the
remaining will be for common open space.
Consultant Brownfield replied yes.
Chair Dang commented that amount seems difficult to achieve because in saving fifteen square feet, it will give another
290 square feet somewhere.
Consultant Brownfield stated the way it works now is that in GSP-RC and in GSP-MU it is 75 square feet private so
like a balcony or patio would have to be 75 square feet, plus 290 square feet out in the common area. She added so
they are already requiring 290 square feet out there and maybe that is what is confusing on the Errata because both
are not listed. She added if you are allowed to do 60 square feet and are a little smaller, now the 290 square feet
increases to 350 square feet. She added the numbers were discussed and suggested by the Garvey Avenue Specific
Committee.
Chair Dang stated that if you are going to build a 10-unit apartment, asking someone to give you 60 square feet plus
350 square feet is 410 square feet, times ten is 4,100 square feet of area to give up, and stated that seems kind of
high. He stated he was looking at other cities and it was not even half of this, this is an item he was looking at, but
feels it is a little restrictive.
Consultant Brownfield stated that they can go the other way and they can do 75 square feet per unit.
Chair Dang stated plus 290 square feet and expressed it still is a pretty high number. He added the number he saw
was 175 square feet per unit.
Consultant Brownfield stated that she recalls the Garvey Specific Plan Committee wanting these numbers and having
the private units be really amenities, having large community areas and private space because they wanted to minimize
the impacts to the nearby parks that are already over-used. She stated their thinking was that the private development
sector will start to take on their own recreation responsibility. She added by having a little higher requirement for
common and a little higher requirement for personal space is minimizing the impact on parks.
Vice-Chair Tang stated that is how the committee came up with that too and it was initially 75 square feet. He added
there was a question from a developer and they asked if it could be lower or another option to it. He stated this is the
option the committee came up with in working with those developers to alleviate the demand on public parks in the
neighboring areas.
Commissioner Eng stated it also provides incentives for the residents or occupants who stay locally to enjoy the other
amenities.
Vice-Chair Tang stated that they also recognized that because these are high intensity developments these types of
spaces are suitable for that. He added if it was a smaller scale of development then it would probably not make sense.
21
Consultant Brownfield stated that another part of that is if the Specific Plan allows for useable common open space to
be things like community recreation rooms, it allows for it to say it not be a green open space. She added it allows you
to do libraries, community recreation rooms, and some other spaces that the community can truly use as a recreation
space.
Chair Dang stated regardless if you are doing a studio or a three-bedroom house, you will be taxed for the same
amount of open space. He added the formula he is used to seeing is based on habitable room, so if you are less than
two habitable rooms, kitchen, and a studio bedroom, then you are at a lower tier maybe at 125 square feet and if you
do a bigger unit three bedroom, kitchen, etc., then you are at a higher tier, maybe at 175 square feet per unit. He said
that at the end the developer has an option of combining a smaller unit with larger ones if his open space is not really
pan out for him. He stated with this particular formula it is hard at set rather if he does a studio, a big house, or big unit
you will get taxed the same way and it seems a little unfair. He stated some developers the way their business motto
is to build two bedroom housing, some like to build really luxury apartments, and some like to build three bedrooms,
so if you give them a little sliding scale they could manipulate or formulate into their business motto which will help
them.
Consultant Brownfield stated she has added this recommendation to the punch list.
Chair Dang referred to page 3 – 29 of the Specific Plan in regards to Public Parks and asked if a developer builds a
big apartment and wants to use his public park incentive, is it truly a public park. He asked will the City of Rosemead
go in and do maintenance if they need to or from this point forward will the developer do all the maintenance it will
need. He asked what will the perimeters of this public park.
Consultant Brownfield read the definitions on Table 3.5 on page 3 - 30 of the Garvey Specific Plan. She added that it
is the developer’s choice they can maintain it permanently on their own and keep it open to the public or they can deed
it to the City.
Chair Dang stated the only hiccup with that is if he is a developer and he is taxed to take care of it, at what point can
he lock it up, say it’s getting late, and I don’t want people walking around.
Consultant Brownfield replied that cannot be done because the reason you will be getting the community bonus,
benefits, and amenities is because you are providing a public space.
Chair Dang stated that even if a developer would like to do this, it is difficult for them.
Consultant Brownfield stated the developer does not have to apply for the bonuses.
Chair Dang stated that he likes the bonuses and expressed that the developer may have security issues and suggested
that maybe the Community Development Director impose limitations. He added no one should be walking around at
10:00 pm on private property.
Consultant Brownfield asked Chair Dang if he would rather see this required to be deeded automatically to the City.
Chair Dang replied no. He stated that it is alright for the residents to walk around at night because it is their property
but people that do not live there should not be there after 10:00 pm.
Commissioner Eng asked if in this type of development there is Management Company that would address this concern
or issue.
22
Chair Dang replied there would be but it is being said that even the managers cannot request them to leave the
premises.
Public Works Director Ramirez suggested that staff can look at the current regulations of our City Parks and base this
with the direction of the Planning Commission and use the same hours that our current City Parks are.
Chair Dang stated that is within reason.
Consultant Brownfield stated she agrees and confirmed that it should just say it will follow and be applicable to the
current rules of operation of a public park.
City Attorney Thuyen suggested this can also be resolve this as a set condition of approval for any proposed project
or development in addition to any of those other rules.
Chair Dang referred to page 3 - 28 of the Specific Plan and read the last paragraph in the right hand column. He stated
that LEED is a voluntary system verses a Green Code which is a California requirement and the Green Building Code
has a thing called Tier 1 and Tier 2, which is roughly equivalent to LEED Gold or LEED Platinum, so in lieu of developers
spending more money, getting their project qualified as LEED Gold, perhaps it can just be written as Green Building
Code Tier 1 or Tier 2, because they are going to pay that fee anyway, but let’s just keep that fee in house.
Consultant Brownfield agreed and confirmed Chair Dang’s recommendation.
Chair Dang referred to page 3 - 30, Density Bonus, third column and read it. He asked why it has to be immediately
adjacent to it (Alhambra Wash).
Consultant Brownfield stated she does not recall but it can be added as an item.
Chair Dang referred to page 3 - 33, left hand column, and bottom of the page. He read it and asked if the 24’ driveway
is coming from a Zoning Code item or is it a Fire Department access requirement.
Consultant Brownfield replied when the development standards were looked at, that is where there is a minimum and
maximum width for driveways. She added driveway access width for a one-way the minimum is 14’ and maximum was
20’ and the minimum for two-way was 24’ and the maximum was 30’. She added this was in this Table and this piece
says the review authority can change that number.
Chair Dang referred to page 3 - 37, and asked staff what are the current window sign requirements and if it conflicts
with the Specific Plan.
City Planner Valenzuela replied that the current code only allows 15% of the windows to be covered.
Consultant Brownfield asked if that is with a sign.
City Planner Valenzuela replied with any window coverage.
Chair Dang asked Consultant Brownfield if that would be a conflict or is that a line item that should be placed to be
specific, so there will not be any issues down the line, or does she think it is alright. He also noted that it states Section
5.5.1 and asked if it is the sign section.
Consultant Brownfield replied yes, and is probably talking about their rules. She added the Specific Plan at this time
is not allowing that to occur but the Specific Plan also says to create a signage program. She said one of the
implementations is talking a little bit more about signage, so it may be able to be addressed a little more at that point.
23
Chair Dang asked if it should be included or not included.
Consultant Brownfield replied let the implementation of the Specific Plan where they are considering signage take
precedent.
Chair Dang stated so not to allow it. He referred to page 3-39, and stated the diagram says maximum 60% times the
lot width and asked if that is correct.
Consultant Brownfield replied yes.
Chair Dang stated should it say, going to the page above this on 3-38 on the middle column, 60% building frontage or
lot width. He is asking about the formula and which one is it.
Consultant Brownfield replied it should say 60% of the building frontage.
Chair Dang stated so the diagram is a little off.
Consultant Brownfield replied yes and it will be changed.
Chair Dang referred to page 3 - 42, right-hand column, item number (e), and read “Courtyards internal to a project or
enclosed on at least three sides”, and stated he has encountered courtyards that are L-Shaped building and they are
enclosed two sides and recommended incorporating two sides. He referred to the same page 3-42, left-hand column,
where it talks about open space amenities for the public and to use shade trees. He stated so shade trees shall be
provided in all open spaces and some jurisdictions put a number of 15% or 20% and asked if that needs to be done for
the specific plan or who takes care of the number of shade trees.
Consultant Brownfield asked staff if there are existing standards.
City Planner Valenzuela replied there aren’t any existing standards, but it is reviewed in the landscaping plan.
Chair Dang stated so this is something that can be worked out. He referred to page 3 - 43, upper left-hand column,
number (b) and read it and asked if this is talking about the balcony guard rail.
Consultant Brownfield replied yes, a guard rail of some sort, and so you basically don’t say open space and then you
have all these walls around you.
Chair Dang asked if the guard rail is required to be rod iron and cannot be a stucco guard wall around the balcony
edge.
Consultant Brownfield replied that is correct and added it could be stucco but they are still trying to get some open air
and your balcony or patio is not completely closed. This doesn’t say you can’t have a short stucco wall it just says
must be open air. She recommended that it needs to have a definition of what type of wall is allowed with the
dimensions. She asked if it would be allowed to say it would be to the discretion of the Community Development
Director.
Chair Dang replied yes.
Commissioner Eng referred to page 3 - 12, regarding drive-through businesses and asked if they are permitted in open
space.
24
Consultant Brownfield replied no, they are permitted only in the GSP, which was in the hard to tell brown color, and is
only permitted with an Administrative Use Permit.
Commissioner Eng asked why it is permitted with an Administrative Use Permit and not a Conditional Use Permit and
she is asking because of the intensity of the project itself and there will be more impact. She said it will also give the
community to give more impact on it.
Consultant Brownfield stated that this is a City Code reference and may be a reflection of that.
City Planner Valenzuela stated the code currently permits this by right, so this is being more restrictive.
Commissioner Eng suggested that be re-evaluated because of all these developments coming in and the intensity.
She added this will impact circulation, parking, egress, and ingress.
Consultant Brownfield stated it has been put on the punch list to evaluate with the Planning Commission.
Public Works Director Ramirez stated one of the reasons this is an AUP instead of a CUP is because the City is trying
to make this business friendly as much as possible. She added when you start adding the CUP then it becomes a
more difficult level for them to go through. She said they did not want it to go by right but they did think the CUP was
a bit of an overkill for that and that she does understand Commissioner Eng’s point.
Commissioner Eng stated she appreciates that but she is also looking into long term development and a CUP in this
instance is reasonable because it is drive-through and you are going to acquire more circulation, more space, more
room, more traffic control, so it is a number of things.
Chair Dang stated he does not see any further comments from the Planning Commission and opened the Public
Hearing.
Resident Brian Lewin thanked Ms. Brownfield and staff for all their hard work on this project. He would like to speak
very strongly in support of changing the drive-thru to a Conditional Use Permit because all drive-thru are not created
equal. He compared “Taco Bell” and “In-N-Out” and stated “In-N-Out Burger” has massive impacts on circulation for
everything all around it. He said with all the other elements with this project you need to have a more direct public view
because where you place not all locations are created equal. He stated the community may have more insights with
all due respect, than the Community Development Director may not have. He added bringing something out that could
potentially impact neighborhoods and areas as strongly as drive-through can, it is important to bring that out to the
public through a Conditional Use Permit is very important.
Chair Dang asked if the Specific Plan has guidelines for streetscape.
Consultant Brownfield replied yes.
Chair Dang asked if there is anyone else wishing to make a public comment.
None
Chair Dang closed the Public Hearing. He requested that Consultant Brownfield read the punch list.
Consultant Brownfield suggested that as options the Planning Commission may say yes, no, or maybe with comments
as she reads the punch list off.
25
City Attorney Thuyen stated that is the most proficient way to go and suggested using a hand raise. He added if there
is a three out of five and agrees or there is a consensus to make the change, then they can add it to the list to ask the
City Council for consideration.
Consultant Brownfield read off the Punch List.
1. Allowing M-U in GSP-RC (Without M-U Bonuses)
Agree – Dang Disagree – Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang = No Consensus
2. FAR & Density/Intensity - Increasing from 7-Units to 30 Units to GSP-R/C
Recommendation to City Council to re-think and decide
Agree – Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang = Consensus
3. Awnings - Allowed on first and second story only and not on third or above floors.
Recommend trellis and other permanent structures
Agree – Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang = Consensus
4. Landscaping - Changing the required landscaping requirement in the GSP-MU and GSP zones from 6% - not
lower than 6% and to have staff survey adjacent cities.
Agree – Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang = Consensus
5. LEED - Changed to California Green Building Code with Tier 1 and Tier 2 requirement
Agree – Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang= Consensus
6. Errata – Changing the 75 square feet (Patio’s & Balconies) to 60 square feet, totaling 350 square feet
(Community Space) by creating a tiering system on unit size, (based on habitable rooms)
Agree – Dang, Lopez, and Eng Disagree- Herrera and Tang = Consensus
7. Public Parks – To get extra points they are allowed to operate them like a City Park
Agree – Dang, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Disagree – Eng = Consensus
8. Tandem Parking - Allowed in nonresidential use requiring valet service or other technique perpetuity
Agree – Eng, Herrera, and Lopez Disagree – Dang and Eng = Consensus
9. Require Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for drive-through as opposed to Administrative Use Permit (AUP)
Agree – Eng and Dang Disagree – Herrera, Lopez, and Tang = No Consensus
10. Density Bonus - The Alhambra Wash Building does not need to be immediately adjacent
Agree – Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Disagree – None = Consensus
11. Open Space Enclosure - (Change to 2-sides, instead of 3-sides)
Agree – Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Disagree – None = Consensus
12. Open Space Enclosures - Add definition and dimensions of enclosures of Patio’s and Balconies
Recommendation was made to let the Community Development Director Review and Approve
Agree – Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Disagree – None = Consensus
13. Window Signage – 15% Coverage Only on Windows included in the Specific Plan
Agree – Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Disagree – None = Consensus
26
14. Incentivize the Outdoor Dining Use on private property ( A. Incentive is to reduce parking requirement)
Agree – Dang, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Disagree - Eng
1. Transitional Housing – To allow this as a permitted use in the GSP-MU zone.
Agree – None Disagree – Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang = No Consensus
Supportive Housing – To allow this as a permitted use in the GSP-MU zone
Agree – Eng Disagree – Dang, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang = No Consensus
2. Residential Parking Capping – No more than 1.5 Maximum (Remove this sentence)
Agree – Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang Disagree – None = Consensus
City Attorney Thuyen stated that there are two Resolutions to be adopted and suggested that item 3.A Number (3) first,
which is the Final Environmental Impact Report.
Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Tang, to approve item 3.A number (3) the
recommendation to the City Council to adopt Resolution 2018-06.
Vote resulted in:
Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes.
Vice-Chair Tang made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez, to adopt 3.A number (2), a Resolution
recommending the City Council adopt Resolution 2018-05, and the adoption of the recommendations of staff,
and the direction to incorporate the comments agreed to by the Planning Commission for consideration by
City Council.
Vote resulted in:
Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Community Development Director Kim stated the motion passes with a 5 Ayes and 0 Noes vote.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. PC Minutes 11-20-17
Commissioner Eng asked that PC Minutes 11-20-17 be pulled and stated there are corrections that need to be made
on pages 13, 14, and 15.
Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Chair Dang, to approve (4.A) PC Minutes 11-20-17 with the
corrections.
27
Vote resulted in:
Ayes: Dang, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang
Noes: None
Abstain: Eng
Absent: None
Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Chair Dang, to approve (4.B) PC Minutes 11-27-17 as
presented.
Vote resulted in:
Ayes: Dang, Eng, Herrera, Lopez, and Tang
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
5. MATTERS FROM STAFF
None
6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Eng wished everyone a Happy New Year. She stated she has two concerns in regards to the conditional
use permit application for the religious assembly property on Emerson Place. Her first concern was that she was
disappointed that the history of code violations was not included in the staff report and that a City Council member had
to file a formal public records request to obtain the information. She added the application for the CUP was initiated
due to the code violation complaints and that code violation history was relevant to the application. She said she does
not know why that code violations were not included in the staff report but she does want to reiterate that it is important
for the Planning Commission to have reliable information to aide them in their task in making sound and fair decisions.
Her second concern is the potential negative impact to the integrity and quality of residential neighborhoods as a
consequence of persons or groups using religious assembly to convert existing single-family homes into social
gathering uses. She stated that she is concerned about that impact to the residential neighborhood.
Vice-Chair Tang wished everyone a Happy New Year and thanked Consultant Lisa Brownfield and City Staff for putting
together this EIR. He also thanked the Ad Hoc Committee members.
Chair Dang also thanked Consultant Lisa Brownfield, City Staff, and the Ad Hoc Committee members for all their hard
work.
Commissioner Eng also thanked Consultant Lisa Brownfield, City Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee members.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting Adjourned at 10:21 pm.
The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday, February 5, 2018, at 7:00 pm in
the Council Chambers.
28
ATTEST:
________________________________________
Rachel Lockwood,
Commission Secretary
____________________________________________
Sean Dang
Chair
3.