CC - Minutes - 03-09-21 Special' MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
MARCH 9, 2021
The special meeting of the Rosemead City Council was called to order by Mayor Armenta at 6:06 p.m.,
in the Rosemead City Council Chamber located at 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
PRESENT: City Council: Mayor Armenta, Mayor Pro Tem Low, Council Members Clark, Dang,
and Ly (teleconferenced). Planning Commission (teleconferenced): Chair Lopez, Commissioners
Berry, Leung, and Tang
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Kim, City Attorney Richman, Director of
Community Development Frausto-Lupo, and City Clerk Hernandez
1. WORKSHOP
A. 2021-2029 Housing Element Update
The City is in the process of updating the Housing Element for the 2021-2029
' planning period. The City's Housing Consultant, RRM Design Group, will provide
the City Council and Planning Commission with a presentation on the City's
Housing Element Update.
Diane Bathgate, Principal, RRM Design Group, introduced Veronica Tam,
Veronica Tam & Associates, a housing element expert and Rachel Raynor,
Associate Planner, RRM Design Group, who will be taking notes to ensure we
capture Council and Planning Commission's input. An overview was provided of
the Housing Element, which is one of seven required elements of the General Plan,
an assessment of City's housing needs and how best to accommodate existing
and future housing needs; noted an update is required every eight (8) years, the
deadline is October 15, 2021 + 120 grace -period; it is reviewed for compliance
by Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Housing
Element purpose is to accommodate projected housing demand, as mandated by
the State with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RNHA). The requirements
include policies and programs to: preserve existing affordable housing; improve
the safety, quality, and existing housing condition; facilitate housing development
for all income levels and household types including special needs populations;
and promote fair housing for all. Ms. Bathgate stated the consequences of
noncompliance include risk of litigation and ineligibility for State grants such as
SB 2/Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Grants, and other infrastructure/
transportation funds being considered. Rosemead has 15,059 total housing units,
' compared to the larger SCAG region; noted income distribution categories are
defined by the State, based on varying percentages of Area Median Income (AMI)
and housing is considered "affordable" if occupants pay no more than 30% of their
income on housings costs. Rosemead must demonstrate in its Housing Element
Rosemead City Council & Planning Commission
Special Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2021
Page I of 6
that it can accommodate its total RHNA number of 4,612 and its allocations
by income level.
Ms. Bathgate shared that Rosemead has completed Stakeholder interviews,
LJ
launched and currently have open the Housing Needs Survey (translated in Spanish,
Chinese, and Vietnamese), the background assessment/data and sites analysis is
underway, and will hold the Housing Development Subcommittee Meeting on
February 23`d, as well as a Study Session with City Council and Planning
Commission on March 9`h. The general feedback received was for key development
standards/processes to incentivize housing development and provide design
flexibility; interest in housing on congregational/religious properties; in -lieu fee
desired over requiring inclusionary housing; positive collaboration working with
City staff, and that homelessness was a growing issue influenced by COVID-19.
The sites inventory criteria includes existing use — high vacancy/turnover rates,
declining/marginal operations, outdated model of business; age and condition of
structure; existing use of land — existing number of units on site or floor area
ratio; expressed interest of property owners or developers for redevelopment;
areas exhibiting active development activities; and strategic sources — RHNA 4th
and 5th Cycle sites, vacant parcels, Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Freeway
Corridor Mixed -Use Overlay, General Plan Mixed -Use Development Overlay,
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), Churches/places of worship, public lands
(State and local), and re -zoning. Ms. Bathgate specified the following as potential
housing opportunity areas: Rosemead Boulevard, Valley Boulevard, Temple City
Boulevard, Grand Avenue, Del Mar Avenue, San Gabriel Boulevard, Graves
Avenue, and Garvey Avenue. Provided a site opportunity example that is currently
vacant, adjacent to Garvey Avenue, which has received past inquiries/interest from
the development community and could be a potential candidate for GPA/rezone
from M-1 to Residential.
Ms. Bathgate asked the City Council and Planning Commission what are the
primary issues they should consider in thinking about the Housing Element
Update? What areas or sites should be considered for future housing opportunities
in the sites inventory analysis? Also, are there other issues we have not covered
that are important for us to consider?
Mayor Armenta opened the floor for any questions from the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Berry suggested looking at the school districts that might have land
as possible sites to consider; indicated we have had other projects in the past with
empty lots that did not end up being developed.
There being no other comments from the Planning Commission, Council provided
their input.
Council Member Dang referred to slide 20 "Congregational Sites" of the
PowerPoint, AB 1851 allows development of lower income housing units on a
congregational/religious institution property; asked if AB 1851 is a by -right that
a developer can exercise without getting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)?
Rosemead City Council & Planning Commission
Special Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 202!
Page 2 of 6
' Ms. Bathgate responded there was already a trend before AB 1851 was adopted;
opined it might not be a by -right — we would need to develop the regulations for
that; noted the City of Pasadena is providing an overlay where the city can regulate
how it is conducted; deferred to her associate, Veronica Tam, for more information.
Veronica Tam, Veronica Tam & Associates, explained that AB 1851 makes it more
feasible by reducing parking requirements if a nonprofit partners with a religious
institution in providing housing on their property and mandates that the City grants
the density bonus. Stated whether the sites would be by -right or not depends on its
zoning — for example, churches that are R-2 zoned on residential areas are allowed
for housing; indicated zoning of churches based in commercial areas does not
currently allow for housing and would be up to the city if they want to create a
different mechanism to allow those properties to do so. Ms. Tam noted the City
of Pasadena is considering an overlay that allows affordable housing partnering of
nonprofits on properties that are not currently zoned for housing.
Council Member Dang inquired if there is an Assembly Bill in the works or a
mechanism that can empower the architect to develop the public land.
Ms. Bathgate responded there is some new legislation that requires public agencies
to provide an inventory of available lands but not necessarily by -right that the
development can occur.
Ms. Tam stated when we are referring to public land in this case, there is not that
type of legislation or a mechanism that would allow a developer to cut through the
red tapes; however, there are some disposition procedures that jurisdictions would
need to follow to dispose of properties, including sites that must be made available
for affordable housing. We need to explore whether there are such opportunities.
Council Member Dang referenced page 23 "Site Opportunity Example" of the
PowerPoint, stating there is a desire from the development community to create
housing in the triangular area outlined in yellow. Reiterated his comment he made
during the Subcommittee meeting that he expressed support for using the M-1
zoning for residential, however it is awkward for a resident to have to drive down
the street and pass all the industrial factories including the smell before they can
reach their home. Suggested supplementing the idea to rezone that commercial/
industrial area above that triangular space like the Downtown Arts District where
people live on the upper floors and convert the lower floors from warehouses to
very nice restaurants. Opined if we have that type of game plan, it will complement
the outlined triangular space and people would be more willing to drive down
the area. Council Member Dang recalled that Ms. Tam made a memorable point
during the Subcommittee meeting that it would be unwise if developers choose to
only build commercial buildings on commercial land.
' Ms. Tam shared that in talking to developers and market economists, the trend of
building 100% commercial is declining — developers are looking for opportunities
for housing, which is why they come in and do commercial to be able to do housing.
Rosemead City Council & Planning Commission
Special Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2021
Page 3 of 6
We did another analysis in a community in San Diego — out of the mixed-use district
built in the last five years, only 28% of the land is being built with commercial,
the rest is primarily residential or mixed-use.
Council Member Dang pointed out that if you are in a commercial zone, you cannot
build apartments in Rosemead; requested that RRM Design Group look into
making the commercial zones where a developer can at least do mixed-use with
residential on the upper floor and commercial on the lower floor.
Council Member Clark echoed support for Council Member Dang's suggestion to
rezone from M-1 to residential; expressed she is against authorizing high-rise
buildings in the middle of a residential area because people buy the properties for
privacy and to be close to schools. Emphasized we need to look where we can do
overlays so people will not lose property value. Inquired if the congregational sites
is voluntary or can that be mandated by the city? Asked about the mention of the
700 units in the southern part of the city.
Ms. Bathgate replied it is a rough estimate of projects that have been entitled and
approved, but building permits were not yet issued, mainly along Garvey Avenue.
Council Member Clark stated she doesn't understand how the State can say you
have to zone for affordable housing — how do you make a unit affordable if
you don't have the money to subsidize the developers? Opined this is a huge
problem as we don't have the tools that we used to have, especially since they took
away redevelopment.
Ms. Tam responded the R14NA is not saying you must build the units but rather that
you facilitate and encourage the development of housing. Also, we are not
necessarily establishing that the units will be built as low-income housing, simply
that the zoning will be at least 30 units to the acre; this way, it is feasible to develop
low-income housing with a reasonable number of subsidies by nonprofit groups.
Council Member Clark emphasized we need to watch the bills in Sacramento
because they are trying to weaponize the R14NA if we don't build it.
Mayor Pro Tem Low asked if the RHNA number for this cycle of 4,612 is additional
units from our starting point?
Ms. Bathgate concurred that is correct. We are evaluating some vacant sites from
the last cycle that could potentially be counted towards the next cycle.
Mayor Pro Tem Low indicated support for Council Member Clark's sentiment that
it is important to keep the character and aesthetics in tac in units in R-1 single-
family houses; opined the opportunity areas identified to encourage development
to build more units on those corridors will help regenerate our city and increase
our housing demand.
Rosemead City Council & Planning Commission
Special Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2021
Page 4 of 6
' Mayor Armenta echoed the sentiments of Commissioner Berry; stated she has been
approached by the Garvey School District Board Members, noting a nice low-
income house could potentially be built on a huge parcel that is just grass owned
by Rice Elementary. Can we look into open space parcels that are owned by
other agencies such as school districts to partner with that will help us meet our
RHNA numbers.
Chair Lopez inquired when we are talking about the units being built, are they
intended for sale or renting? Emphasized we need more renting opportunities,
especially with people losing their jobs due to COVID, people are not going to be
able to afford to buy homes.
Mayor Armenta thanked Chair Lopez for his comment; opined we have more of
an opportunity to set the guidelines when working with agencies who own their
own land such as school districts.
Mayor Pro Tem Low stated it is my understanding that it does not matter whether
the 4,000 units are built as rental or for sale; asserted that if it is private property, it
is up to the developers and their needs, and the city cannot dictate whether a
property should be rented or for sale.
Mayor Armenta stated in the past, the city has issued variances that give us more
affordable housing.
Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo responded the city can provide
through the State density bonus to increase affordable housing in those projects.
Mayor Armenta asked what the next steps are.
Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo explained that RRM Design
Group is going to continue drafting the Plan and we will provide updates to the
City Council in their Weekly Update; stated once the Plan is drafted, it will return
to the Planning Commission and Council for final adoption in the Fall.
Mayor Pro Tem Low asked after that is completed, do we update the General Plan?
Director of Community Development Frausto-Lupo responded once the Housing
Element Update is completed, there is an implementation process that occurs.
Ms. Bathgate further explained once the Housing Element Update is adopted in
October, then the city has up to three years to implement programs that are
identified, for instance zoning the M-1 sites for residential use.
Mayor Pro Tem Low asked for clarification on the implementation process — do we
have to update the zoning for each of these areas?
Rosemead City Council & Planning Commission
Special Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2021
Page 5 of 6
Ms. Bathgate affirmed yes, that if we identify an area that needs to change the
zoning to accommodate the recommendation, then it would be a zoning change,
and in some cases, may require a General Plan amendment as well.
Council Member Dang asserted that the implementation period could also entail a
thorough California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) study for rezoning areas.
Ms. Bathgate replied that is correct, that whatever rezoning is proposed, it would
be a project under CEQA and will be reviewed for compliance.
Mayor Armenta thanked RRM Design Group for their presentation and the
Planning Commission for participating in the Joint Meeting.
2. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Armenta adjourned the special meeting at 7:10 p.m. Tonight's regular scheduled
meeting will reconvene after a short recess in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber.
Rosemead City Council & Planning Commission
Special Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2021
Page 6 of 6
Ericka WernLdez,City Clerk
0