PC - Minutes - 06-15-20 Minutes of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
June 15,2020
To adhere to the Los Angeles County Health Officer's March 21, 2020, Revised Safer at Home Order, this Planning
Commission Meeting will be held via teleconference and the public will have access to observe and address the
meeting telephonically and to watch online. Please note that, in accordance with Governor Newsom's Executive Order
N-29-20, there will not be a physical location from which the public may attend. If you have a request for an
accommodation under the ADA contact: Ericka Hernandez(626)569-2100.
Agenda: Planning Commission agenda materials may be viewed online at www.cityofrosemead.orq
Streaming:The meeting will be streamed live on the City's meeting web portal:
http://www.cityofrosemead.orq/government/city departments/city clerk/meeting agendas and minutes
Listen to the meeting only by phone by dialing:
1(267)866-0999, Code ID:624-607-9406
Remote Public Comments: Public comments will be received by calling (626) 569-2100 or via email at
publiccomment@cityofrosemead.org by 6:00 p.m. You also have the option to email your comment to the provided
email address. Please identify the topic you wish to comment in your email's subject line. All comments are public
record and will be recorded in the official record of the City.
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Eng at 7:00 pm in the City Hall Council
Chambers.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—Chair Eng
INVOCATION—Commissioner Berry
ROLL CALL—Commissioners Berry, Tang, Vuong,Vice-Chair Lopez, and Chair Eng
STAFF PRESENT—City Attorney Burrows, Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo, Planning &Economic
Development Manager Valenzuela, Associate Planner Lao, Assistant Planner Wong, and Commission Secretary
Lockwood.
1. EXPLANATION OF HEARING PROCEDURES AND APPEAL RIGHTS
City Attorney Burrows presented the procedure and appeal rights of the meeting.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE Public comments will be received by calling (626) 569-2100
or via email at publiccomment@cityofrosemead.org by 6:00 p.m.You also have the option to email your
comment to the provided email address. Please identify the topic you wish to comment in your email's
subject line.All comments are public record and will be recorded in the official record of the City.
None
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1
A. MODIFICATION 20-02—Emily Young has submitted a Modification Application to amend Design Review
18-04, which was approved by the Planning Commission on February 4, 2019, to construct two new
two-story single-family dwelling units, each with a three-car garage. The Modification includes
relocating the driveway, revising the floor plan layout, redesigning the exterior facades of both single-
family dwelling units, and amending Condition of Approval No. 20, by modifying the original design
incentives. The subject site is located at 3917 Muscatel Avenue (APN: 5930-010-051) in the Single-
Family Residential (R-1)zone.
The public hearing for Modification 20-02 (MOD 20-02) was originally scheduled on June 1, 2020,
however,the meeting was cancelled due to the County of Los Angeles'issued curfew. For this reason,
the public hearing was not held by the Planning Commission.
PC RESOLUTION 20-04 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD,COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,APPROVING MODIFICATION 20-02,
AMENDING DESIGN REVIEW 18-04, BY RELOCATING THE DRIVEWAY, REVISING THE FLOOR PLAN
LAYOUT,REDESIGNING THE EXTERIOR FACADES OF BOTH SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS,AND
AMENDING CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 20, BY MODIFYING THE ORIGINAL DESIGN INCENTIVES.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3917 MUSCATEL AVENUE (APN: 5390-010-051), IN THE SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(R-1)ZONE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION-It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No.
20-04 with findings and APPROVE Modification 20-02,subject to the 36 conditions.
Assistant Planner Wong presented the staff report.
Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff.
Vice-Chair Lopez asked if the single-family dwellings will be occupied by the owners or separated.
Assistant Planner Wong replied one of the homes will be owner-occupied, one may be a rental, but the applicant can
confirm that question.
Commissioner Tang asked if there was a change of ownership since the Planning Commission approved the original
plans on February 4, 2019.
Assistant Planner Wong replied yes.
Commissioner Tang asked if the new owner wanted to modify the plans and that is why this Modification is being
presented.
Assistant Planner Wong replied that is correct.
Commissioner Tang referred to page 7 of 17 in the staff report, under Residential Design Incentives, there are two
struck out bullet points sentences in the design incentives and asked what that means in the overall condition for the
applicant,to take advantage of those incentives.
Assistant Planner Wong explained that some of the design incentives no longer apply to the project, so they were
crossed out. In addition,they were replaced with other design incentives.
Chair Eng asked if the applicant is still exercising the incentives for the extra square footage and if there is not a
reduction in square footage.
2
Assistant Planner Wong replied that is correct.
Chair Eng asked if the main modification is the garage relocation from the north side of the lot to the south side.
Assistant Planner Wong replied it is not only the garage,it is like a mirror,they have relocated the driveway,as a result
the placement of the homes and garage are on the opposite side.
Chair Eng stated the prior approved plans did not include a balcony on the second floor and she noticed the plans now
include balconies on the second floor for both units. She asked for clarification what size are the balconies, are they
L-shaped, and if they are accessible from the bedrooms and loft area.
Assistant Planner Wong replied it is only accessible through the loft area not the bedroom. He added there is only a
sliding window in the bedroom.
Chair Eng asked if it is a L-shape balcony,what is the size of the balcony, and does it go from the north to the west.
Assistant Planner Wong replied it goes northbound and to the east and clarified it is like an L-shape.
Chair Eng asked if it is an open balcony or will it have a covering.
Assistant Planner Wong replied it is open balcony.
Chair Eng asked if the homes to the north and west are single-story.
Assistant Planner Wong replied yes.
Chair Eng questioned if the privacy of neighbors was taken into consideration while designing the homes.
Assistant Planner Wong replied the adjoining neighbor had inquiries, but did not express any concerns in regard to the
balcony.
Chair Eng asked if staff had received any comments or concerns from neighbors in regard to the balcony's or privacy
issues.
Assistant Planner Wong replied no.
Chair Eng asked as part of this Modification, is the applicant contemplating on constructing an ADU in the future.
Assistant Planner Wong replied discussion/plans has not taken place for a future ADU.
Chair Eng commented that it appears that the design of the building was changed,it complements the other two-stories
in the area and asked if that was correct.
Assistant Planner Wong replied yes,and the designer can elaborate a little more on the reasoning of the new materials,
and architectural features of the single-family dwellings.
Chair Eng asked if this project is the same designer as the last approved project.
3
Assistant Planner Wong replied yes.
Vice-Chair Lopez asked if the balcony is overlooking the neighbor's backyard or to the side of their homes.
Assistant Planner Wong replied the front unit faces the north side and potentially the balcony would be in view to the
properties to the north. He added the rear unit there would be potential view into the properties to the west, but the
three-car garage would provide some blockage.
Chair Eng asked if there were any further questions for staff. With no further questions,she opened the Public Hearing
and welcomed the designer of the project.
Eric Tsang,Architect,via teleconference stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission
may have.
Chair Eng thanked Mr. Tsang for joining the meeting and asked what inspired his design changes.
Eric Tsang presented a brief summary of the design of the homes, including architectural elements, balcony details,
and landscaping details.
Chair Eng asked if both units are five-bedroom suites and have three-car garages.
Eric Tsang replied yes.
Chair Eng asked if there is extra space in case more parking is needed.
Eric Tsang replied yes,there is space between the garages. He explained currently it is considered as a walkway and
landscaping, but in the future, it can be paved if needed.
Chair Eng asked if the owner is intending for one of the units to be as owner-occupied.
Eric Tsang stated the owner is intending to use both units as owner-occupied because they have a large family with
three generations.
Commissioner Tang noted that the previous applicant was asked if the units would be owner-occupied, and they said
yes, however,then put the property on the market to sell.
Eric Tsang commented at that time the owner had been planning to live there.
Chair Eng asked if there were any further questions or comments for this item. See none, Chair Eng closed the Public
Hearing. With no further questions Chair Eng asked for a motion.
Commissioner Tang made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lopez, to ADOPT Resolution No. 20-04 with
findings and APPROVE Modification 20-02,subject to the 36 conditions.
Vote resulted in:
Ayes: Berry, Eng, Lopez,Tang, and Vuong
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
4
Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. She
explained the 10-day appeal process and reminded the applicant to remove the on-site Public Hearing Notice.
B. DESIGN REVIEW 20-02 - Anna Chow has submitted a Design Review application, requesting to
construct a new 2,883 square-foot, two-story single-family dwelling unit with an attached two-car
garage.The granting of a Discretionary Site Plan and Design Review is required for any dwelling unit
to be constructed that equals or exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500)square feet of developed
living area.The subject site is located at 3139 Burton Avenue(APN:5289-004-061)in the Single-Family
Residential (R-1)zone.
PC RESOLUTION 20-05 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 20-
02, PERMITTING A NEW, TWO-STORY, 2,883 SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT,WITH
AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3139 BURTON AVENUE
(APN: 5289-004-061), IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(R-1)ZONE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION-It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No.
20-05 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 20-02,subject to the 34 conditions.
Associate Planner Lao presented the staff report.
Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission if there were any questions or comments for staff. None at this time.
Chair Eng asked if this flag lot was approved before the passing of the ordinance that prohibits flag lots and if this is
the front unit of the subdivided flag lot.
Associate Planner Lao replied yes,that is correct.
Chair Eng asked how long the current property owner has owned the lot.
Associate Planner Lao replied the owner has owned the property before the flag lot was subdivided.
Chair Eng asked if the property owner is contemplating an ADU in the future and how big it will be.
Associate Planner Lao replied currently the ADU is in the preliminary stage, once the plans are finalized, they will
submit them, and staff will review them.
Chair Eng stated during the Public Hearing she would like to know if the development will be owner-occupied. She
referred to the plans and confirmed that balconies are not being proposed on the second level.
Associate Planner Lao stated that is correct.
Chair Eng stated she drove by the site and there are several two-story flag lots and asked if the total height of this
development will complement the other two-story flag lot developments.
Associate Planner Lao replied yes, it is at 30 feet or just under it.
Commissioner Vuong asked in regard to the ADU, will the applicant be subject to the new ADU requirements being
discussed this evening or will they be subject to the existing requirements.
5
Associate Planner Lao explained that the applicant will not be subject to the new ADU requirements if their plans are
submitted to the Building and Planning Divisions, and if they are approved.
Chair Eng asked so basically if the proposed zoning amendment takes into effect after the applicant submits their
plans,then they would follow the existing ADU requirements.
Associate Planner Lao replied that is correct.
Chair Eng asked if there were any further questions or comments for staff. With no further questions she opened the
Public Hearing and welcomed the designer to the meeting.
City Attorney Burrows recommended the meeting be recessed for five minutes due to technical issues.
Chair Eng called the meeting back to order and welcome Dat Wong, Designer for this project.
Dat Wong stated he is the Designer for this project, thanked staff for all their help, and he is available to answer any
questions the Planning Commission may have. He gave a brief summary of the elements being proposed into the
home.
Chair Eng thanked Mr. Wong for joining the meeting and asked once the development is completed will it be owner-
occupied.
Dat Wong replied he believes so.
Chair Eng asked if the four bedrooms are suites.
Dat Wong replied yes.
Chair Eng stated the owner is contemplating adding an ADU in the future and asked if that was correct.
Dat Wong replied that is correct.
Chair Eng asked if there has been any discussion in regard to the size of the ADU the owner is contemplating.
Dat Wong replied the current maximum size is 1,200 square feet and they plan on meeting that requirement. He added
staff has let them know new requirements may go into effect, so they will meet all the requirements from the City and
State.
Chair Eng asked if there is any vacant space left on the lot for extra parking.
Dat Wong replied yes, and explained his plan is to build the ADU in the rear and there will room for parking and a
driveway.
Chair Eng asked there were any further questions or comments for this item. With no further questions she announced
staff did receive an email, which included a letter from Sonja Trauss, Executive Director of YIMBY LAW in support of
Design Review 20-02. Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Commission if there were any
further questions or comments for staff. See None. Chair Eng commented her only concern in regard to this item is
that the street is narrow, and parking will be impacted.
6
City Attorney Burrows addressed Chair Eng and Planning Commission and recommended the letter sent in by Sonja
Trauss, Executive Director of YIMBY LAW must be read aloud and read the letter regarding "California Government
Code§65589.5 the Housing Accountability Act"for the record.
Chair Eng thanked City Attorney Burrows for reading the letter and requested a motion.
Commissioner Vuong made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lopez, to ADOPT Resolution No. 20-05 with
findings and APPROVE Design Review 20-02, subject to the 34 conditions.
Vote resulted in:
Ayes: Berry, Eng, Lopez,Tang,and Vuong
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. She
explained the 10-day appeal process and reminded the applicant to remove the on-site Public Hearing Notice.
C. DESIGN REVIEW 20-03 - Anna Chow has submitted a Design Review application, requesting to
construct a new 3,429 square-foot, two-story single-family dwelling unit with an attached three-car
garage.The granting of a Discretionary Site Plan and Design Review is required for any dwelling unit
to be constructed that equals or exceeds two thousand five hundred (2,500)square feet of developed
living area.The subject site is located at 3143 Burton Avenue(APN:5289-004-062)in the Single-Family
Residential (R-1)zone.
PC RESOLUTION 20-06 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 20-
03, PERMITTING A NEW, TWO-STORY, 3,429 SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT,WITH
AN ATTACHED THREE-CAR GARAGE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3143 BURTON AVENUE
(APN: 5289-004-062), IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(R-1)ZONE.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION-It is recommended that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution No.
20-06 with findings and APPROVE Design Review 20-03,subject to the 33 conditions.
Associate Planner Lao presented the staff report.
Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff. See None. Chair Eng asked
if this development is on the same flag lot, but is the back unit,which is owned by the applicant.
Associate Planner Lao replied yes.
Chair Eng asked if an ADU is being contemplated in the future.
Associate Planner Lao replied yes.
Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and welcomed Dat Wong, Designer of the project. She asked if the Planning
Commission had any questions or comments for Mr. Wong. With no further questions she asked if the unit will be
owner-occupied.
7
Dat Wong replied he believes so.
Chair Eng asked if an ADU is being contemplated and in the design has it been taken into consideration for extra
parking within the lot.
Dat Wong replied yes,the flag lot has plenty of space,and his intent is for the ADU to have its own garage,so parking
is not an issue for these two homes.
Chair Eng asked if there will be any open porches or balconies on the second floor.
Dat Wong replied no,that is correct.
Chair Eng asked if there is anyone else wishing to speak on this item. See None. Chair Eng closed the Public Hearing
and thanked Mr.Wong for joining the meeting. She asked the Planning Commission if they had any further questions
or comments for staff. With no further questions she requested a motion.
Vice-Chair Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tang, to ADOPT Resolution No. 20-06 with
findings and APPROVE Design Review 20-03,subject to the 33 conditions.
Vote resulted in:
Ayes: Berry, Eng, Lopez,Tang,and Vuong
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes. She
explained the 10-day appeal process and reminded the applicant to remove the on-site Public Hearing Notice.
D. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 20-01 -On October 9,2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed several bills
into law (Assembly Bill 68, Assembly Bill 881, and Senate Bill 13), which amended Government Code
Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 (attached as Exhibit "C") pertaining to the development of accessory
dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs). These regulations became effective
on January 1,2020 and pre-empt all local ordinances that do not comply with the new standards.
The proposed Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 20-01) is intended to bring Title 17 (Zoning) of the
Rosemead Municipal Code up to compliance with State legislation regarding the development and
conversion of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the City. The proposed amendment would adopt new
standards for ADUs,in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22.
The amendment would also provide clarity and consistency for the regulation of ADUs throughout Title 17
(Zoning)of the Rosemead Municipal Code.
The public hearing for MCA 20-01 was originally scheduled on June 1, 2020, however, the meeting was
cancelled due to the County of Los Angeles' issued curfew. For this reason, the public hearing was not
held by the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 20-03 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.995 FOR THE APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 20-
8
01 (MCA 20-01),AMENDING TITLE 17(ZONING)OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH
NEW STATE PROVISIONS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS(ADUs).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION-That the Planning Commission:
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.20-03 with findings, a resolution recommending that
the City Council adopt Ordinance No.995 for the approval of MCA 20-01.
Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela presented the staff report.
Chair Eng asked if the Planning Commission had any questions or comments for staff.
Commissioner Tang asked staff to explain the section regarding converted garages.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela provided an example that if someone has a single-family
home and a two-car garage, and they want to convert it into an ADU,they will not be required to replace those parking
spaces.
Commissioner Tang asked if the applicant already has a converted garage and if they want to certify that as an ADU,
can it be that same process.
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes.
Commissioner Tang asked staff to explain the owner-occupancy section.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela explained that the prior ADU ordinance required owner-
occupancy in either the main house or the ADU. She added the new state law states that is no longer required, and
they may both be rentals up to the year 2025.
Commissioner Tang asked what happens after that.
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied a new law will probably be issued.
Commissioner Vuong referred to converting garages and asked how a property owner becomes compliant with
ensuring parking spaces on a property or is it no longer a requirement.
Planning& Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied it is no longer a requirement.
Commissioner Vuong asked so, any single-family home would potentially not be required to have any parking spaces.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied if the garage is converted to an ADU, then yes, it
would not be required.
Commissioner Vuong asked how it would be differentiated or defined an attached ADU verses an extension to a home.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied the attached ADU would have its own cooking and
sanitation facilities and that would be the difference.
Commissioner Tang stated going back to that question and asked if a detached ADU would also have its own cooking
and sanitation facilities.
9
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes.
Commissioner Tang stated so an extension would an extra room,whereas, an attached ADU would require having its
own kitchen.
Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes,it would have to have its own living quarters. She
explained so, if you are doing an addition to a home,you do not necessarily want to add a kitchen as part of the single-
family home.
Commissioner Tang asked if in that scenario does that mean an ADU would have to have a separate entrance.
Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes.
Vice-Chair Lopez asked for an ADU to be used as a rental, it is required to have a kitchen and sanitation facility.
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes.
Vice-Chair Lopez asked if a carport will no longer be required in the substitution for a garage or will it just be a
driveway. He added in the past, it was required to make-up the difference if you wanted to convert your garage into a
den or something.
Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela explained with the old law, if you converted your garage,you
would still have to provide parking on the driveway.
Vice-Chair Lopez commented as long as it would just be for parking.
Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated with this new state law and you do not have to provide
parking. She added driveway parking is also not required.
Commissioner Tang stated it seems like the new law that we are amending to comply with is less restrictive on parking,
but more restrictive on the amount of square footage that can be constructed on an ADU. He adds in the old law it is
a maximum of fifty percent of the primary residence or 1,200 square feet but the new one breaks it down to 850-1,000
square feet.
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated the new law is more lenient because you can build at
least an 800 square foot ADU.
Commissioner Tang asked for clarification.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela explained that if fifty percent of the main house is at 500
square feet, you can build up to 800 square feet, so it is more lenient.
Commissioner Vuong asked what the minimum requirement for a regular single-family dwelling unit is, because the
way he reads this is an ADU could be potentially be more than 800-1,200 square feet,so how would you differentiate
this ADU from a regular dwelling unit.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela explained for example if the single-family home is 1,000
square feet and they are building an attached ADU,fifty percent of 1,000 square feet is 500 square feet,so technically
they can build up to 800 square feet for the ADU, and the single-family home would have to comply with the city
standards of R-1 and R-2.
10
Chair Eng referred to the Draft Ordinance No.995 and stated there are some corrections that are needed. She referred
to page 4 of the draft ordinance 17.30.190 and read the title"Accessory Dwelling Units(ADUs)and asked staff if Junior
ADU's should also be addressed in this section.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied no, because staff has added an additional section
towards the end that addresses it.
Chair Eng read the titles of sections A-F and asked if section "D"is JADUs and if section"E"was Revocations.
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied that is correct.
Chair Eng asked if item "F" is for existing ADUs.
Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes.
Chair Eng stated that will need to be added back into the section and is a mechanical correction needed.
Panning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela agreed.
Chair Eng asked if the difference between an ADU and a JADU is that a JADU is limited to a maximum of 500 square
feet and must be attached to an existing dwelling.
Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied that is correct.
Chair Eng asked if it is required to have a separate entrance.
Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied it does.
Chair Eng asked if the JADU would require a separate sanitation facility or can they share from the existing structure
and inquired about cooking facilities.
Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied that the JADU would require an efficiency kitchen and
the sanitation facility can be shared by the main home.
Chair Eng asked what an efficiency kitchen is.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied that Associate Planner Lao can read the State's
definition of an efficient kitchen and commented that the State has reviewed the city's draft ordinance, which is a
requirement, and is satisfied with it.
Associate Planner Lao read an efficiency kitchen would include cooking facilities with appliances, and a food
preparation counter with storage cabinets,that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU.
Chair Eng asked under this draft ordinance and new state law, is there a maximum total combined square footage for
an ADU plus a JADU.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied for a regular ADU the maximum if allowed is 800
square feet,which must be allowed. For the JADU it is 500 square feet and must be attached to the existing home. For
example, if they meet the standards,they can build bigger, and cities can allow up to 1,200 square feet.
11
Chair Eng asked if that is for the ADU plus the 500 square feet for the JADU.
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes.
Chair Eng asked if the ADU and JADUs under the existing state law are they subject FAR requirements or are they
outside.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied ADUs and JADUs cannot be restricted from being
constructed if they do not meet FAR.
Chair Eng asked if they are subject to the FAR of a property.
Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied they are not.
Commissioner Tang stated but a single-family home is.
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela gave an example, if a house is at forty percent FAR with the
design incentives,the city must still allow them to build an 800 square feet ADU.
Commissioner Tang asked what if they do not meet the setbacks.
Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied they will still have to meet the four feet setbacks.
Chair Eng commented that the setbacks are the guiding factor to see if it is feasible to build an 800 square feet ADU.
Commissioner Tang stated so it cannot be restricted because of FAR, but you cannot build a house that is abutting
against your neighbor's house.
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied that is correct and it must be four feet.
Commissioner Tang gave a scenario regarding the FAR on an 800 square foot home and asked if it meets the setbacks,
it does not really matter.
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela agreed.
Chair Eng asked if any feedback has been received from property owners or developers since the Public Notice has
been sent out regarding this proposed ordinance.
Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied that because more than 1,000 properties are impacted
a Public Notice was publicized in a newspaper and it is not required to be mailed out.
Commissioner Tang commented that it will be interesting and incumbent for staff to help design developments,so that
it flows with the community character.
Planning & Economic Development Manger Valenzuela stated that is something staff has been doing and luckily the
designers and property owners have been working with them.
Commissioner Tang asked if it would then be too restrictive if we say we need to add design requirements to it.
Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated that the state allows them to incorporate some design
12
criteria's and some of things are like making sure the ADU matches the single-family home. She added other
requirements like increasing the setback is not allowed.
Chair Tang asked what the process is if staff would ever run into a situation where there is a nonconforming property
and they wanted to construct an ADU.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied that the first step is compliance, however, this new
law has helped with Code Enforcement cases,such as garage conversions.
Chair Eng asked if a property can have both an ADU and a JADU.
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes, if it is a single-family home.
Chair Eng asked if only the JADU has an owner-occupied requirement.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes, and a covenant needs to be recorded as an
added requirement. She explained that is to ensure that the owner will occupy the home.
Vice-Chair Lopez asked how the city will monitor this.
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied we will just do our best.
Chair Eng referred to the Impact Fee and under the current state law if an ADU is less than 750 square feet an Impact
Fee may not be imposed, however if it exceeds that staff has come up with a formula. She stated the square footage
is subject to the Impact Fee and asked if the 750 is subtracted from the proposed ADU and if the portion that exceeds
the 750 is when the Impact Fee is calculated. She referred to page four, in the staff report under Development Impact
Fees.
Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela explained that if it is less than 750 square feet, Development
Impact Fees may not be collected.
Chair Eng asked staff how that fee is calculated if it exceeds 750 square feet.
Commissioner Tang asked if credit will be given for the 750 square feet.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied they do not get credit. She referred to page five of
the staff report and read the fee calculations.
Chair Eng asked if someone is building an ADU for 900 square feet, because it exceeds 750 square feet the whole
900 square feet would be subject to a Development Impact Fee.
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied yes.
Chair Eng referred to the chart regarding bedrooms and asked if the number of bedrooms will no longer be indicated
for ADUs and JADUs.
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied that is correct.
Chair Eng read under the Proposed Ordinance it states, "Bedrooms shall conform to standard Building Code
requirements"and asked under the Building Code what qualifies as a bedroom.
13
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied Building Code requires a bedroom size to be a
minimum of 70 square feet.
Chair Eng asked if the new state law combined the square footage of an ADU (800 sq. ft.) and JADU (500 sq. ft.) to
add up to 1,300 square feet.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied they can technically. She added staff would like to
clarify although the state allows 1,200 square feet, they are limiting 850 square feet for a one bedroom and anything
more than a one bedroom is limited to 1,000 square feet. She explained the state does allow the city to have a
maximum size.
Chair Eng asked staff the reason for that proposal.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela explained this would allow for more open space, more
distance between buildings,and more setbacks.
Commissioner Tang asked if it is fifty percent,850, or 1,000,or whichever is lower.
Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied whichever is lower, if it is attached.
Commissioner Tang asked which is it if it is detached.
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied it is 850 or 1,000 square feet.
Associate Planner Lao added that it can be 800 square feet also.
Chair Eng added it is 500 square feet if they are adding a JADU.
Vice-Chair Lopez stated that is based on what is available on their lot size.
Commissioner Tang commented that is not what is stated in the definition, the definition in the staff report on page
three, states whichever is less following the 1,200 square feet.
Planning&Economic Development Manager Valenzuela stated the Ordinance has specific requirements.
Chair Eng asked the Planning Commission if there were any other questions or comments for staff.
Commissioner Berry commented that this will allow staff to make sure ADUs and JADUs are in compliance and address
illegal units.
Vice-Chair Lopez commented his concern is that setbacks and abutting walls may be problematic.
Commissioner Tang asked Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo if it would be possible to have an informal
update in six to eight months,so that the Planning Commission may be better informed on what these impacts may be
in the future.
Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo replied yes.
Chair Eng opened the Public Hearing and asked if there is anyone on-line wishing to speak on this item. See None
and Public Hearing was closed. She asked if the Planning Commission had any further questions or comments for
staff.
14
Commissioner Tang asked where the Development Impact Fees go, is there is a special fund it goes to, or how does
it work.
Planning & Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied the Development Impact Fees go towards open
space, parks, and a little is allocated to traffic. She added QUIMBY is also calculated into the DIF Fees now.
Commissioner Tang asked if it is then designated into a special fund or is it part of a general fund and gets allocated
in that way.
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied it goes into a fund in case the city would like to build
a park or something.
Chair Eng asked if there are any other follow-up questions or comments. With none she asked for a motion for
Municipal Code Amendment 20-01.
Vice-Chair Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tang, to Adopt Resolution No. 20-03 with
findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 995 for the Approval of
Municipal Code Amendment 20-01.
Vote resulted in:
Yes: Berry, Eng, Lopez,Tang, and Vuong
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Community Development Director Frausto-Lupo stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes and
explained the 10-day appeal process.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. PC MINUTES 3-2-20
Commissioner Berry made a motion,seconded by Vice-Chair Lopez,to approve PC Minutes 3-2-20 as
presented.
Vote resulted in:
Ayes: Berry, Eng, Lopez,Tang, and Vuong
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Community Development Director stated the motion passes with a vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Noes
5. MATTERS FROM STAFF
A. PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT LIST
15
Chair Eng thanked staff for the Planning Division Project List and commented COVID-19 has not stopped staff from
working hard. She referred to the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan and there are a couple of projects looking at six-stories
and 70 feet in height,she asked if that is the maximum height permitted under the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan.
Planning &Economic Development Manager Valenzuela replied the maximum height is 75 feet and it allows for a five
feet architectural feature.
Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo announced this is Chair Eng's last Planning Commission meeting,
thanked her commitment for serving as a Planning Commissioner,and presented her with a Certificate of Appreciation
for her service.
6. MATTERS FROM THE CHAIR&COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Berry thanked staff for working during the Covid-19 pandemic and wished everyone well.
Vice-Chair Lopez congratulated Chair Eng and wished her well.
Commissioner Tang asked staff what the city can do to aggressively attract and improve more development. He asked
if it would be possible to get some one-on-one meetings in regard to CDBG Funds and Block Grants, how they are
obtained, and what they are used for, to get a better understanding. He asked since Redevelopment Funds are not
available, how can the city get more creative and aggressive to encourage more development, and suggested
brainstorming to come up with ideas/incentives to see what will work. He addressed Chair Eng and told her it has been
quite a journey working with her for the past two years, hates to see her go, and thanked her for her service.
Chair Eng thanked Commissioner Tang. She commented that she has served the Planning Commission for eleven
years and it is time to allow someone else to have the opportunity to serve and have an impact.
Commissioner Vuong asked staff if any small businesses have requested to participate in the CDBG Funds Programs
during this pandemic, are there efforts to make it more readily available, and changing the requirements to make it a
little bit more attractive because a lot of small businesses are struggling right now. He also asked if the city also uses
CDBG Funds for First-Time Homebuyers Program, is there anyone that has used that program, and it is really been
maximizing the use of CDBG Funds. He thanked Chair Eng for serving the community,wished her luck, and stated it
has been a pleasure working with her.
Chair Eng thanked Commissioner Vuong, staff, and her fellow Planning Commissioners for their support. She
expressed it has been an honor to serve as the Chair for the past year, acknowledged and stated she appreciates
staffs hard work, and for making their job as a Planning Commissioner rewarding. She stated most importantly,thank
you staff for helping property and business owners realize their dreams and goals in Rosemead. She added without
staff, their hard work, and constantly being there for them, their dreams and visions would not have been able to be
realized. She shared that this is her last Planning Commission meeting and stated it has been great privilege to work
with all past and present Planning Commissioners. She has learned a lot from staff in the last eleven years and
cherishes the opportunity to have been a small part of the progress in making Rosemead better and prettier. She
wished the new prospective Planning Commissioner applicants' good luck and thanked them for taking the time to
serve. Chair Eng stated best wishes to everyone, stay safe,stay healthy, and take care of each other.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:21 pm.
16
The next regular Planning Commission meeting will be onday,Ju 6,202 , t 7:00 pm in the
Council Chamber.
Nancy Eng
Chair
ATT ST:
Rachel Lockwood,
Commission Secretary
17