Loading...
CC - Item 5B - Minutes of March 9, 2021 - SpecialMINUTES 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'$ 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 AGENDA ITEM 5.11 Special Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 1 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, 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 91. 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 — R14NA 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? MayorArmenta 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, 2021 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 am, 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 redevelopruent. Ms. Tam responded the RHNA isnot 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 RHNA 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 Commissioh-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. Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk APPROVED: Sean Dang, Mayor Rosemead City Council & Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2021 Page 6 of 6