CC - Item 4C - Public Hearing on Municipal Code Amendment 21-05ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY CO CIL
FROM: BEN KIM, ACTING CITY MANAGER
DATE: MARCH 22, 2022
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 21-05
SUMMARY
Municipal Code Amendment 21-05 (MCA 21-05) is a City initiated amendment to Title 17
("Zoning") of the Rosemead Municipal Code by amending Sections 17.28.030(C)(4) and
17.30.040(E) permitting sit-down restaurants with a minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet
to obtain an Administrative Use Permit ("AUP") for beer/wine sales in the Neighborhood
Commercial (C-1), Medium Commercial (C-3), Regional Commercial (C-4), Central Business
District (CBD), and Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay (RC-MUDO)
zones, in place of a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"). The amendment is intended to assist the
City's restaurant business community and provide relief to those that are facing economic
hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic. The AUP is an administrative review by the
Community Development Director, whereas the CUP is approved by the Planning Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
MCA 21-05 is not a project pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guideline 15378, because the activity undertaken involves general text amendments that would
not cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect
physical change in the environment and does not meet the definition of a "Project" under
CEQA. The proposed Code Amendment is also exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3)
of the CEQA Guidelines because CEQA only applies to projects which have the potential for
causing a significant effect on the environment. As a series of text amendments, it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the
environment.
DISCUSSION
In response to the City Council's request at the City Council Meeting on September 7, 2021, and
Goal H of the City's 2030 Strategic Plan Land Use and Zoning Goal to "Attract new business by
streamlining the alcohol licensing permit process," staff prepared an ordinance that would
AGENDA ITEM 4.0
City Council Meeting
March 22, 2022
Page 2 of 3
streamline the current permitting process and allow restaurants with a minimum requirement of
1,000 square feet to serve beer/wine incidental to sit-down dining. The AUP process is
administrative and approved by the Director of Community Development. However, the AUP
process would still be reviewed by both the Public Safety Department and Community
Development Department and require the typical conditions of approval that are applied to
alcohol-related CUPS. The amendment is intended to assist the City's restaurant business
community that are facing economic hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic.
On March 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing
to receive oral and written testimony relative to Municipal Code Amendment 21-05. Analysis of
the proposed project is provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report. The Planning
Commission Staff Report, Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, and Planning
Commission Resolution No. 22-03 are included in this report as Attachments `B", "C", and "D",
respectively.
As part of Planning Commission discussion, staff addressed questions and provided clarification
that the amendment is only for beer and/or wine requests. In addition, amending the permitting
requirements does not constitute a by -right approval and each request will reviewed in the same
manner as a CUP. Furthermore, staff clarified that a fast-food chain does not constitute as a sit-
down restaurant. The Planning Commission's concerns were addressed once these clarifications
were provided. At the end of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended the
City Council approve MCA 21-05.
PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
The Planning Commission received no oral testimony from the public during the public hearing.
The Planning Commission did not receive any written testimony relative to MCA 21-05.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and
2. Introduce the first reading, by title only, Ordinance No. 1009 (Attachment "A"),
approving Municipal Code 21-05.
FISCAL IMPACT — None
STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT — MCA 21-05 is consistent with the Land Use and Zoning Goal
of the City's 2030 Strategic Plan (Goal H) as one action is to "Attract new business by
streamlining the alcohol licensing permit process." The restaurant business community has
suffered significant sales and job losses since the COVID-19 outbreak began. Alcohol sales may
City Council Meeting
March 22, 2022
Page 3 of 3
assist existing restaurants stay afloat and draw new restaurant businesses to the City as they
contribute to restaurant revenue.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a
public hearing notice published in the newspaper and postings of the notice at the six (6) public
locations on March 10, 2022.
Prepared by:
*4L
Lily T. Valenzuela
Planning and Economic Development Manager
Submitted by:
Ben Kim
Acting C
Attachment A: Ordinance 1009
Attachment B: Planning Commission Staff Report, dated March 7, 2022
Attachment C: Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated March 7, 2022
Attachment D: Planning Commission Resolution 22-03
Attachment A
Ordinance No. 1009
ORDINANCE NO. 1009
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
FOR THE APPROVAL OF MCA 21-05, AMENDING SECTIONS
17.28.030(C)(4) AND 17.30.040(E) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE
ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE, PERMITTING SIT-DOWN
RESTAURANTS WITH A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 1,000
SQUARE FEET TO OBTAIN AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT
("AUP") FOR BEER/WINE SALES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL (C-1), MEDIUM COMMERCIAL (C-3), REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL (C-4), CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD), AND
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
OVERLAY (RC-MUDO) ZONES, IN PLACE OF A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT ("CUP")
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that
facts do exist to justify approving Municipal Code Amendment 21-05, in accordance with Section
17.152.060 of the Rosemead Municipal Code ("RMC") as follows:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan;
FINDING: The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives
of the General Plan. Policy 2.1 of Goal 2 of the Land Use Element is to establish a well-balanced
and carefully planned collection of signature retail anchors, general retail outlets, casual to upscale
restaurants, and upscale overnight accommodations which can take advantage of the High Intensity
Commercial designated sites' accessibility to major roadway corridors. The proposed code
amendments assist the City's restaurant business community and provide relief to those that are
facing economic hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic.
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience or welfare of the City; and
FINDING: Adopting this Ordinance will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the AUP process would still be reviewed by
both the Public Safety Department and Community Development Department and require the
typical conditions of approval that are applied to alcohol-related CUPS. The amendment is
intended to assist the City's restaurant business community that are facing economic hardship from
the COVID-19 pandemic.
C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions
of [the] Zoning Code.
FINDING: The City's Zoning Code currently allows alcohol sales in conjunction with a
sit-down restaurant in the C-1, C-3, C-4, CBD, and RC-MUDO zones. The amendment would
1
streamline the current permitting process and allow restaurants to serve beer/wine incidental to sit-
down dining. The AUP process is administrative and approved by the Director of Community
Development. In addition, it would still be reviewed by both the Public Safety Department and
Community Development Department and require the typical conditions of approval that are
applied to alcohol-related CUPS. The amendment is intended to assist the City's restaurant
business community that are facing economic hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic.
SECTION 2. Code Amendment. RMC § 17.28.030(C)(4) [Permitted Uses] is hereby
amended, as follows:
4. The following uses shall be the only uses for which a Conditional Use Permit or
Administrative Use Permit may be applied for and granted in a residential/commercial mixed-
use development:
a. Conditional Use Permit
1) Any commercial use that operates after midnight;
2) Any establishment having an off -sale license for alcoholic beverages;
3) Any establishment (other than sit-down restaurants with 1,000 square feet of floor
area or larger) having an on -sale license for alcoholic beverages.
4) Commercial recreation and entertainment;
5) Convenience markets subject to the requirements of Section 17.28.030.E.3; and
6) Libraries and museums.
b. Administrative Use Permit
1) Any outdoor dining area; and
2) On -sale beer/wine sales for sit-down restaurants with 1,000 square feet of floor
area or larger.
SECTION 3. Code Amendment. RMC § 17.30.040(E) is hereby amended, as follows:
E. Permit Requirements.
New Permits.
a. A conditional use permit, obtained pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.132
(Conditional Use Permits), shall be required for any business (other than sit-down
restaurants with 1,000 square feet of floor area or larger) that sells alcoholic
beverages for on-site or off-site consumption. This requirement shall apply to any
new business proposed to locate within the City, as well as to existing businesses
applying for a new State permit to sell alcoholic beverages. All required permits
and licenses shall be obtained prior to commencement of the use.
2
b. An Administrative Use Permit obtained pursuant to the provisions of Chapter
17.128 (Administrative Use Permits) shall be required for sit-down restaurants
with 1,000 square feet of floor area or larger that sells beer/wine for on-site
consumption. This requirement shall apply to any new business proposed to locate
within the City, as well as to existing businesses applying for a new State permit to
sell alcoholic beverages All required permits and licenses shall be obtained prior
to commencement of the use.
2. Required Findings. Prior to approval of a new or modified permit for an alcohol sales
establishment, the Plafli3ing Cemmissie Review Authority, as set forth under Table
17.120.020.1, shall find that the use is consistent with the purpose and intent of this
section. This finding shall be in addition to the findings required by Chapters 17.128
(Administrative Use Permits) or 17.132 (Conditional Use Permits). In making the
required finding, the Review Authority shall consider the
following:
a. The crime rate in the reporting district and adjacent reporting districts as compared
to other areas in the City.
b. The numbers of alcohol-related calls for service, crimes, or arrests in the reporting
district and in adjacent reporting districts.
c. The proximity of the establishment to residential zoning districts, day care centers,
hospitals, park and recreation facilities, places of worship, schools, other similar
uses, and any uses that attract minors.
d. Whether or not the proposed modification will resolve any current objectionable
conditions.
The burden of proving that the proposed use will not adversely affect the welfare of
nearby residents or detrimentally affect nearby residentially zoned communities, day
care centers, hospitals, park and recreation facilities, places of worship, schools, other
similar uses, and any uses that attract minors shall be the applicant's.
SECTION 4. Environmental Review. MCA 21-05 is not a project pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline 15378, because the activity undertaken involves
general text amendments that would not cause either a direct physical change in the environment
or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and does not meet the
definition of a "Project" under CEQA. The proposed Code Amendment is also exempt from
CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because CEQA only applies to projects
which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. As a series of text
amendments, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have
a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 5. Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly constructed in order to
achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council's intent that the provisions of
this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates
the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.
SECTION 6. Enforceability. Repeal of any provision of the RMC does not affect any
penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties
for any violation occurring before this Ordinance's effective date. Any such repealed part will
remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the
effective date of this Ordinance.
SECTION 7. Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not
affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions
of this Ordinance are severable.
SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its
adoption.
SECTION 9. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance
and shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and post a certified copy of the full Ordinance in
the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption and within 15 days after adoption
of the Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of the Ordinance with the names of the
Council Members voting for and against the Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty
(30) days after the date of its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
0
day of , 2022.
Polly Low, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF ROSEMEAD )
I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles, State of
California, hereby attest to the above signature and certify that Ordinance No.1009 was first
introduced at the regular meeting of , 2022 by first reading. Said Ordinance was
approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rosemead at a regular meeting held on
the day of , 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk
Attachment B
Planning Commission Staff Report
Dated March 7, 2022
ROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: MARCH 7, 2022
SUBJECT. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 21-05
SUMMARY
Municipal Code Amendment 21-05 (MCA 21-05) is a City initiated amendment to Title
17 ("Zoning") of the Rosemead Municipal Code by amending Sections 17.28.030(C)(4)
and 17.30.040(E) permitting sit-down restaurants with a minimum requirement of 1,000
square feet to obtain an Administrative Use Permit ("AUP") for beer/wine sales in the
Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), Medium Commercial (C-3), Regional Commercial (C-
4), Central Business District (CBD), and Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use
Development Overlay (RC-MUDO) zones, in place of a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP").
The amendment is intended to assist the City's restaurant business community and
provide relief to those that are facing economic hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The AUP is an administrative review by the Community Development Director, whereas
the CUP is approved by the Planning Commission.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
MCA 21-05 is not a project pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guideline 15378, because the activity undertaken involves general text amendments
that would not cause either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and does not meet the
definition of a "Project" under CEQA. The proposed Code Amendment is also exempt
from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because CEQA only
applies to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. As a series of text amendments, it can be seen with certainty that there
is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission:
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 2 of 13
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-03 with findings (Exhibit "A"), a
resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1009
(Exhibit "B") for the approval of MCA 21-05.
DISCUSSION
On September 7, 2021, the City Council adopted the Freeway Corridor Mixed -Use
(FCMU) Overlay, which permits a sit-down restaurant larger than 1,000 square feet to
serve beer/wine with an Administrative Use Permit ("AUP"), provided that a valid license
from Alcoholic Beverage Control ("ABC") is obtained. The Zoning Code defines a sit-
down restaurant as, "an establishment engaged in the business of selling food and
beverages, including alcoholic beverages, prepared on site for primarily on-site
consumption. Food and beverages are served to the customer at a fixed location (i.e.,
booth, counter, or table). Food and beverages are ordered from a menu. Customers
typically pay for food and beverages after service and/or consumption. The sale or
service of sandwiches, whether prepared in the kitchen or made elsewhere and heated
on the premises, or snack foods, shall not constitute a sit-down restaurant." During that
meeting, the City Council requested staff to review the permitting process for on-site
consumption of beer and wine incidental to a sit-down restaurant use in the other
commercial zones like the C-1, C-3, C-4, CBD, and RC-MUDO zones. The City
currently requires a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") for any business that
sells alcoholic beverages for on-site or off-site consumption. The CUP for alcoholic
beverages is a discretionary process, subject to a public hearing that can take
approximately three to six months and is approved by the Planning Commission.
In response to the City Council's request, staff prepared an ordinance that would
streamline the current permitting process and allow restaurants to serve beer/wine
incidental to sit-down dining. The AUP process is administrative and approved by the
Director of Community Development. In addition, the process could be completed at a
fraction of the time and cost of a CUP. The AUP process would still be reviewed by
both the Public Safety Department and Community Development Department and
require the typical conditions of approval that are applied to alcohol-related CUPs. The
amendment is intended to assist the City's restaurant business community that are
facing economic hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic. A comparison of the fees and
requirements for a CUP and an AUP are provided below:
• CUP:
o Application Fees: $1,985.00
■ Application Fee: $1,320.00
■ CEQA Exemption Fee: $90.00
■ Publication Fee: $500.00
■ LA County Recording Fee: $75.00
o Application Requirements: Application Form, Applicant and Property
Owner Affidavits, Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans (15 sets), Environmental
Information Application, and Affected Property Owner's Map and Labels
(300 -foot Radius)
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 3 of 13
o Approval Body: Planning Commission
• AU P:
o Application Fees: $1,165.00
■ Application Fee: $500.00
■ CEQA Exemption Fee: $90.00
■ Publication Fee: $500.00
■ LA County Recording Fee: $75.00
o Application Requirements: Application Form, Applicant and Property
Owner Affidavits, Site, Floor, and Elevation Plans (five sets), and Affected
Property Owner's Map and Labels (300 -foot Radius)
o Approval Body: Community Development Director.
MCA 21-05 is consistent with the Land Use and Zoning Goal of the City's 2030
Strategic Plan (Goal H) as one action is to "Attract new business by streamlining the
alcohol licensing permit process." The restaurant business community has suffered
significant sales and job losses since the COVID-19 outbreak began. Alcohol sales
may assist existing restaurants stay afloat and draw new restaurant businesses to the
City as they contribute to restaurant revenue.
MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS
Per Rosemead Municipal Code Section 17.152.060, amendments to [the] Zoning Code
may be approved only if all of the following findings are first made:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
specific plan;
RECOMMENDED FINDING: The proposed amendment is consistent with the
goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan. Policy 2.1 of Goal 2 of the Land
Use Element is to establish a well-balanced and carefully planned collection of
signature retail anchors, general retail outlets, casual to upscale restaurants, and
upscale overnight accommodations which can take advantage of the High Intensity
Commercial designated sites' accessibility to major roadway corridors. The
proposed code amendments assist the City's restaurant business community and
provide relief to those that are facing economic hardship from the COVID-19
pandemic.
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience or welfare of the City; and
RECOMMENDED FINDING: Adopting this Ordinance will not be detrimental to the
public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the AUP
process would still be reviewed by both the Public Safety Department and
Community Development Department and require the typical conditions of
approval that are applied to alcohol-related CUPs. The amendment is intended to
Planning Commission Meeting
March 7, 2022
Page 4 of 13
assist the City's restaurant business community that are facing economic hardship
from the COVID-19 pandemic.
C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions
of [the] Zoning Code.
RECOMMENDED FINDING: The City's Zoning Code currently allows alcohol
sales in conjunction with a sit-down restaurant in the C-1, C-3, C-4, CBD, and RC-
MUDO zones. The amendment would streamline the current permitting process
and allow restaurants to serve beer/wine incidental to sit-down dining. The AUP
process is administrative and approved by the Director of Community
Development. In addition, it would still be reviewed by both the Public Safety
Department and Community Development Department and require the typical
conditions of approval that are applied to alcohol-related CUPs. The amendment is
intended to assist the City's restaurant business community that are facing
economic hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Prepared by:
4�
Lily Valenzuela
Planning & Economic Development Manager
Submi
Ben
Assistant City Manager/Director of Community Development
EXHIBITS:
A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-03
B. Draft Ordinance No. 1009
Attachment C
Planning Commission Minutes
Dated March 7, 2022
MAYOR:
POLLY LOW
MAYOR PRO TEM:
SEAN RANG
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
SANDRA ARMENTA
MARGARET CLARK
JOHN TANG
C a
ity of 9?9smead
8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD
ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770
TELEPHONE (626) 569-2100
FAX (626) 307-9218
SUMMARY EXCERPT
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
March 7, 2022
The following is a draft summary excerpt from the Planning Commission Meeting held on
March 7, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Rosemead City Hall Council Chamber located at 8838 East
Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California.
Present: Chair Berry, Vice -Chair Leung, Commissioners Lopez, and Ung
Absent: None
Staff Present: Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim, City Attorney
Thuyen, City Engineer Ackerman, Building Official Yuan, Associate Planner Lao,
and Commission Liaison Huang
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA) 21-01, ZONE CHANGE (ZC) 21-01— Del Mar
Property, LLC has submitted entitlement applications requesting to amend the Zoning Map
by changing the zone of the subject properties from Garvey Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) to
Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed -Use (GSP-MU) zone, for the development
of a new residential/commercial mixed-use development. The project is located on a 0.95
acre vacant site at the northeast corner of the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Garvey
Avenue (7539 & 7545 Garvey Avenue, APN Nos. 5286-022-009 and 5286-022-010). The
project proposes the construction of a seven -story, mixed-use development with 6,346 square
feet of nonresidential (commercial) use on the first floor and 75 residential units on the first
through seventh floors. Of the 75 residential units, 30 are live/work units and 45 are
residential apartments. The project also proposes 147 parking spaces, including 110 standard
spaces, 32 compact spaces, four handicap accessible spaces, and one loading space and
12,547 square feet of landscaping. The project also includes a text amendment to the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan permitting sit-down restaurants with a minimum requirement of 1,000
square feet to obtain an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) for beer/wine sales in the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan (GSP) and Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, Incentivized Mixed -Use
(GSP-MU) zones.
PC RESOLUTION 22-02 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 21-01 AND
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 21-01 TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP BY
CHANGING THE ZONE OF 7539 & 7545 GARVEY AVENUE (APN NOS. 5286-022-009
AND 5286-022-010) FROM GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (GSP) TO GARVEY
AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN, INCENTIVIZED MIXED-USE (GSP-MU) ZONE, FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT, APPROVE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE GARVEY AVENUE
SPECIFIC PLAN PERMITTING SIT-DOWN RESTAURANTS WITH A MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET TO OBTAIN AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE
PERMIT (AUP) FOR BEER/WINE SALES IN THE GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN
(GSP) AND GARVEY AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN, INCENTIVIZED MIXED-USE (GSP-
MU) ZONES, AND ADOPT THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-02 with findings, a resolution
recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2022-18 for the adoption and
approval of the associated Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Ordinance No. 1008 for the approval
of Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01.
Associate Planner Lao presented the staff report.
Chair Berry opened the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Lopez inquired if this is the City's first seven -story mixed-use and asked if there
are any others of this size in the City.
Associate Planner Lao answered that this would be the first seven -story along the Garvey
Avenue Specific Plan Corridor and is allowed.
Commissioner Lopez questioned if we are bringing in something this tall due to our sister cities
that also have high rise buildings.
Associate Planner Lao expressed that prior to the adoption of the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan,
the properties were zoned C-3 and the zone allowed a building height of 75 feet. She added, the
RC-MUDO mixed-use zones only allow three to four stories, which is kind of restrictive in
regard to development. She added the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan is more business friendly.
Chair Berry shared similar concerns. He noted that for a large building, the rear elevations being
stepped back, so it's not too close to the neighbors. He added, we have seen developments in
other cities of this size and they are lovely.
Commissioner Ung expressed her concern that the eastern side of the property has no setback.
She inquired if the drawings were distributed and reviewed by the Fire Department. She
2
questioned if there are no setbacks due to the previous use of the property when it was
commercial and not necessarily for residential.
Associate Planner Lao stated that the plans will be submitted to the Fire Department when it goes
through the building plan check process. She stated in the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan, this is
proposed to the GSP-MU. She added, they are proposing the project in terms of GSP-MU
standards, and if it is commercial to commercial, there is no required setback.
Commissioner Ung noted that this will have residential mixed-use components and questioned if
there are imposed setbacks on the upper floors of the eastern portion. She added if there is an
emergency, units facing that side of the property would be difficult to get through and noted
some of the windows are within ten feet from the property line which may be an issue for fire
safety.
Associate Planner Lao stated that it does not have a zero -property line and when it goes towards
the other stories, there are a few setbacks. She deferred this question to the architect on the line
to further address this question.
Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim provided a quick background of
the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan. He said the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan was initiated by the
City several years ago and it took about four to five years to have it adopted. He also said the
City had a subcommittee at that time, which consisted of a few Council Members, one or two
Planning Commissioners, and City stakeholders, and noted the plan itself went through a long
vetting process. He also addressed the height concerns and said height of the Garvey Avenue
Specific Plan is really controlled by the total height of the building, rather than the number of
stories. He added, the Garvey Avenue Specific Plan was also brought to the Planning
Commission and City Council, and at the time when the development centers were proposed and
adopted, this specific plan went through several vetting processes, and it was decided that this is
a type of project that the City wanted to see and encourage and that's why the guidelines are in
place as such. He also added, the City wanted certain design elements to be incorporated and
referenced the staff report and there is a list of community benefits that are incorporated to this
specific plan, and when those community benefits are incorporated, there are additional benefits
that are given, and this project does meet all those specific filing requirements. Assistant City
Manager/Community Development Director Kim then stated that the applicant is requesting to
rezone the property so they can do a mixed-use project on the site because it is commercial
designation only. He said staff supports the project because RHNA requires the City to come up
with over 4,000 housing units which is a hard number to accomplish and this project will help
the City in accomplishing that. He also said he believes the conceptual set has been submitted
and routed through various departments during the planning stages and will go to LA County in
terms of coming up with the code compliance, which the architect can further discuss.
Commissioner Ung thanked Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim for
that background. She stated to avoid any misinterpretation, she believes this project looks
beautiful and stated it would be a great addition to the city. She added, her only concern was the
eastern residential side of the property, which is close to the property line. She noted that they
have accommodated with the terracing of the back elevation to the single-family property to the
north and staff has done a great job working with the applicant to develop this design.
City Attorney Thuyen stated that a lot of the project details are for context and background. The
item before the Commission is the request of the Specific Plan Amendment and Zone Change, so
it could be characterized as a different zone compared to what it is right now. He added, a lot of
this information provides a background on how it fits within the new standards, as well as
provides the sense of the entire concept for the purpose of considering this Zone Change and
Specific Plan Amendment.
Chair Berry thanked everyone for their comments and clarification and asked if there are any
applicants who wish to speak.
Speaker Roland Lo, Architect of Scale(s) Lab Architects, stated he designed and is representing
on behalf of the applicant. He thanked staff for working closely on this project to generate this
design and how it stays in compliance with the Garvey Specific Plan which has very detailed
plans and believes this project is a very good addition. Mr. Lo addressed Commissioner Ung's
question regarding fire and setback on the east building and property line. He stated that as you
step up on the east property line, there are some setbacks, and it is within the building code. He
said even though this is a zero -lot line setback situation, it's adjacent to commercial. He added,
they considered that there should be some setback which is a variable setback from anywhere of
eight feet to six feet setback which is allowed by the building code. He then said, in terms of Fire
Department, they have discussed the project early on with Los Angeles County Department of
Fire Department and this project is kind of exempt from their access and fire review because of
adjacency to major streets such as Garvey Avenue to the south and Prospect Avenue to the west.
He added, the construction type will be a higher fire rating construction type and the Fire
Department in the land development unit, allow them to process the application without review.
He further added, once this is somewhat approved in terms of the entitlements, they would
submit to life safety review to county which would then look at exiting and fire rating situation.
Mr. Lo expressed that he does not see an issue with this building type because it is a Type 3 and
Type 1 Building, which has very high standard of fire rating than your normal mixed-use project.
Seeing no additional questions, Chair Berry thanked the applicant and opened the public
testimony portion of the public hearing. He asked the audience if there was anyone who would
like to speak on this matter.
Public Comment:
Aaron Contreras, member of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, who lives in the
local area, work and recreate the vicinity of the project at 1200 Corporate Center Drive,
Monterey Park, believes the City should require the project be built utilizing local and trained
workforce. He expressed that this is a beautiful project, but it does not do anything for the
community if it is not built from the people within the community. He stated, local hire and
skilled trained workforce requirements reduces construction related environmental impacts,
while benefiting the local economy. He then shared a recent 2020 report, "Putting California on
the High Road - A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030," the California Workforce
Development Board concluded that investments in growing diversifying and upscaling
2
California's workforce can positively affect the returns on climate mitigation efforts. He said, this
year, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that used of local state certified
apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component can result
in air pollution reductions. He added, other cities have not hesitated to apply skilled work force
requirements for private development projects in their City. He then said the City of Hayward
recently adopted skilled and trained workforce requirements into its General Plan and Municipal
Code and local trained workforce requirements can boost economic development and mitigate
transportation and greenhouse gas impacts by minimizing vehicle miles traveled. Mr. Contreras
emphasized how the City would benefit for having its constituents that live and reside within the
city to start a career through a State approved apprenticeship program, He added, it is something
that you take pride in not only in your community, in your city, but it's something that generates
wealth within the community you come from. In conclusion, he said there's nothing better than
moving or buying a house in the City you grew up in and knowing that you had something to do
with that project and offers a sense of pride especially when you come from the community.
Seeing no additional speakers from the audience, Chair Berry inquired if we received any written
comments and if there is anyone online who would like to speak.
Commissioner Liaison Huang responded that no written comment was received for this item, and
there were no callers online who wished to speak.
There being no further public comment, Chair Berry closed the public comment period.
City Attorney Thuyen expressed that this is going to be a Zone Change and Specific Plan
Amendment, which is not for product specific. He added, we are not reviewing it for how it's
built, but rather focusing on what zone it sits in right now and allow the zone change.
Chair Berry inquired if the building part of the project will be brought back to the Commission
later on.
City Attorney Thuyen defers that to City staff and states it depends on where the project is at.
Chair Berry questioned if this is simply changing the zone for the applicant to move forward.
Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim stated yes, the Planning
Commission's recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Ung noticed that some of these units are four-bedroom units and questioned if
there are only one spot per unit for the parking requirement.
Associate Planner Lao stated that is correct.
Commissioner Ung inquired if there are assigned guest parking spaces.
Associate Planner Lao replied that the guest parking spaces will be managed by the Association
within the project, and they will be secured for the residential portion. She added, it would be up
to the Association to decide, but they do require guest parking.
Commissioner Ung expressed that there may be a shortage of parking for the residents.
Associate Planner Lao responded yes, however; the project does comply with all parking
standards which is one space per unit regardless of bedrooms.
Seeing no additional comment or questions from the Commission, Chair Berry requested for
motion and a second.
ACTION: Chair Berry made a motion, seconded by Vice -Chair Leung, to conduct a public
hearing and receive public testimony; and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-02
with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Resolution 2022-18 for the
adoption and approval of the associated Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Ordinance No. 1008 for the approval of
Specific Plan Amendment 21-01 and Zone Change 21-01.
Vote resulted in:
Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, and Ung
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Roll call vote resulted in 4 Ayes and 0 Noes.
B. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT (MCA) 21-05 — Municipal Code Amendment 21-05
(MCA 21-05) is a City initiated amendment to Title 17 ("Zoning") of the Rosemead
Municipal Code by amending Sections 17.28.030(C)(4) and 17.30.040(E) permitting sit-
down restaurants with a minimum requirement of 1,000 square feet to obtain an
Administrative Use Permit ("AUP") for beer/wine sales in the Neighborhood Commercial
(C-1), Medium Commercial (C-3), Regional Commercial (C-4), Central Business District
(CBD), and Residential/Commercial Mixed -Use Development Overlay (RC-MUDO) zones,
in place of a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP"). The amendment is intended to assist the
City's restaurant business community and provide relief to those that are facing economic
hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic. The AUP is an administrative review by the
Community Development Director, whereas the CUP is approved by the Planning
Commission.
PC RESOLUTION 22-03 - 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. 1009 FOR
THE APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 21-05, AMENDING
SECTIONS 17.28.030(C)(4) AND 17.30.040(E) OF TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE
ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE, PERMITTING SIT-DOWN RESTAURANTS WITH A
0
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET TO OBTAIN AN
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT ("AUP") FOR BEER/WINE SALES IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-1), MEDIUM COMMERCIAL (C-3), REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL (C-4), CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD), AND
RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (RC-
MUDO) ZONES, IN PLACE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ("CUP")
STAFF RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission:
1. Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony; and
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-03 with findings, a resolution
recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1009 for the approval of MCA
21-05.
Associate Planner Lao presented the staff report.
Chair Berry opened the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Lopez expressed that there would be a lot of permits allowed in the City. He said
beer and wine does not sound like much; however, we are trying to keep a tight lid on any kind
of alcohol throughout the City. He added, he understands the pandemic has caused hardship on
businesses, but questions if this would be a good route because a 1,000 square feet minimum
requirement would mean almost anyone could apply and there would be a lot of beer and wine
licenses permits.
Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim clarified that there are two
distinctions of alcohol sales. He said there is the full alcohol, which allows for spirits and then
the second tier is the beer and wine, which is what we're looking at. He added, this request is
only to allow beer and wine with a sit-down restaurant, not like fast food type of service. He then
made reference to fast food restaurants, like Chipotle that can sell beer and wine. He also added,
we are looking at only the legitimate bona fide sit-down restaurants, and it would not be
permitted by right, and there is a review process. He said currently, the review process is the
Conditional Use Permit which comes before the Planning Commission. He then said the
recommendation is to change the process to an AUP process where the Community
Development Director will review the application and determine whether alcohol sales or the
online sales would be permitted or not. He stated the process is pretty much the same and it
would be a discretionary action and just because somebody applies for it, it does not mean they
are going to get it. He said it's not a guarantee and there is still a review process to enter and
adding conditions will still be in place and the proposal just streamlines the process, by making it
instead of a CUP to an AUP application.
Chair Berry questioned if applicants would go through the administrative process only, and no
longer appear before the Planning Commission.
7
Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim stated that there is an appeal
process, so anytime there is an objection to the application, anybody can file for an appeal. If an
appeal is filed, then that appeal will come before the Planning Commission for consideration.
Commissioner Lopez questioned if this would apply to fast food restaurants. He added, chains
such as McDonalds and Burger King have large seating areas.
Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Kim answered no, it would not apply
to fast food restaurants. He added, he looks at this as an amenity for a sit-down restaurant. Some
of the best restaurants are the hole in the wall spots, while you sit down and enjoy your meal, this
would be an amenity they can enjoy as well. He reiterated that this would not apply to fast food
chains where you're grabbing a quick meal and stated that we do not want people to walk out
with alcohol.
Commissioner Lopez noted that was his question. He said he has been to hole in the wall
restaurants with very few tables that sell beer and wine, but now understands because it is a sit-
down restaurant.
Seeing no additional questions, Chair Berry opened the public testimony portion of the public
hearing. He asked the audience if there was anyone who would like to speak on this matter.
Seeing none, Chair Berry inquired if we received any written comments and if there is anyone
online who would like to speak.
Commissioner Liaison Huang responded that no written comment was received for this item, and
there were no callers online who wished to speak.
There being no public comment, Chair Berry closed the public comment period.
Seeing no additional questions from the Commission, Chair Berry requested for motion and a
second.
ACTION: Commissioner Lopez made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ung, to conduct a
public hearing and receive public testimony; and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-
03 with findings, a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1009 for
the approval of MCA 21-05.
Vote resulted in:
Ayes: Berry, Leung, Lopez, and Ung
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Roll call vote resulted in 4 Ayes and 0 Noes.
End of minute excerpt
I, Ben Kim, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director for the City of
Rosemead, California, do hereby certify the following Draft Minute Excerpt is a summary of the
discussion, approval, and action taken during the Public Hearing of the Specific Plan
Amendment (SPA) 21-01, Zone Change (ZC) 21-01 and Municipal Code Amendment (MCA)
21-05 presented before the Rosemead Planning Commission on March 7, 2022.
Ben Kim,
Assistant City Manager/Community
Development Director
W
Attachment D
Planning Commission Resolution 22-03
PC RESOLUTION 22-03
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. 1009 FOR THE APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT
21-05, AMENDING SECTIONS 17.28.030(C)(4) AND 17.30.040(E) OF
TITLE 17 (ZONING) OF THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE,
PERMITTING SIT-DOWN RESTAURANTS WITH A MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET TO OBTAIN AN
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT ("AUP") FOR BEER/WINE SALES IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-1), MEDIUM COMMERCIAL
(C-3), REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (C-4), CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT (CBD), AND RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (RC-MUDO) ZONES, IN PLACE OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ("CUP")
WHEREAS, Section 17.152.060 of the Rosemead Municipal Code provides the
criteria for a Zoning Code Amendment;
WHEREAS, Sections 65854 and 65855 of the California Government Code and
Section 17.152.040 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the Planning
Commission to review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding
amendments to the City's Zoning Code;
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2022, a notice was published in the newspaper and
notices were posted at six public locations, specifying the availability of the proposal,
and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Municipal Code Amendment
21-05;
WHEREAS, on March 7, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and
advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Municipal
Code Amendment 21-05; and
WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all
testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Rosemead as follows:
SECTION 1. The Ordinance is not a project pursuant to California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline 15378, because the activity undertaken involves general
text amendments that would not cause either a direct physical change in the
environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment
and does not meet the definition of a "Project" under CEQA. The proposed Code
Amendment is also exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines because CEQA only applies to projects which have the potential for causing
a significant effect on the environment. As a series of text amendments, it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect
on the environment.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS the following
findings of fact do exist to justify approving Municipal Code Amendment 21-05, in
accordance with Section 17.152.060 of the Rosemead Municipal Code, as follows:
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any
applicable specific plan;
FINDING: The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and
objectives of the General Plan. Policy 2.1 of Goal 2 of the Land Use Element is to
establish a well-balanced and carefully planned collection of signature retail anchors,
general retail outlets, casual to upscale restaurants, and upscale overnight
accommodations which can take advantage of the High Intensity Commercial
designated sites' accessibility to major roadway corridors. The proposed code
amendments assist the City's restaurant business community and provide relief to those
that are facing economic hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic.
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City; and
FINDING: Adopting this Ordinance will not be detrimental to the public interest,
health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City because the AUP process would still
be reviewed by both the Public Safety Department and Community Development
Department and require the typical conditions of approval that are applied to alcohol-
related CUPs. The amendment is intended to assist the City's restaurant business
community that are facing economic hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic.
C. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable
provisions of this Zoning Code.
FINDING: The City's Zoning Code currently allows alcohol sales in conjunction
with a sit-down restaurant in the C-1, C-3, CA CBD, and RC-MUDO zones. The
amendment would streamline the current permitting process and allow restaurants to
serve beer/wine incidental to sit-down dining. The AUP process is administrative and
approved by the Director of Community Development. In addition, it would still be
reviewed by both the Public Safety Department and Community Development
Department and require the typical conditions of approval that are applied to alcohol-
related CUPs. The amendment is intended to assist the City's restaurant business
community that are facing economic hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic.
SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY RECOMMENDS the City
Council adopt Ordinance No. 1009 for the approval of MCA 21-05.
SECTION 4. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning
Commission on March 7, 2022, by the following vote:
2
AYES:
BERRY, LEUNG, LOPEZ, AND UNG
NOES:
NONE
ABSTAIN:
NONE
ABSENT:
NONE
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and
shall transmit copies of same to the Rosemead City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 2022.
Cha
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 7th day of
March, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
BERRY, LEUNG, LOPEZ, AND UNG
NOES:
NONE
ABSTAIN:
NONE
ABSENT:
NONE
-44�f
Ben , Secretary __.
APPROVED AS TO ORM:
Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP