Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Madam Chair, we're live.

Thank you so much. I'd like to call this meeting to order. This is a regular meeting of the Baldwin Park Commission. The date is June 10th, 2026, and the time is 7.01 p.m. Commissioner Arias, can you please lead us in the flag salute? Thank you. Thank you so much. Planning Secretary, can you please call roll?

Yes. Commissioner Rodriguez. Present. Commissioner Arias. Commissioner Pena. Present. Vice Chair Miranda DeZip.

Present.

And Chair Escobosa.

Present. Thank you, I will now declare oral communications open anyone wishing to address the Commission on anything other than items listed on the agenda may come to the podium at this time. Seeing no further interest i'm now going to declare oral communications closed. And we are going to move right along to the loan item on our consent calendar. This is the meetings from the previous planning commission meeting. Would any commissioner like to pull up any items or would like to pull up this item for discussion? And just for the record, I am referring to the meeting held on May 13th, 2026. Okay, if there is no one that wants to pull up this item for discussion, can I please get a motion to approve the minutes for the meeting on may 13 2026 on the consent calendar.

move that we approve the minutes, as stated on for may 13 meeting.

Second.

Thank you. Secretary.

Commissioner Rodriguez. Yes. Commissioner Arias.

Yes.

Commissioner Pena. Yes. Vice Chair Miranda DeZib.

Yes.

And Chair Escobar.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you so much. All right. We are going to move to the first case on the agenda. This is an amendment under the title. Chapter 153 of the Baldwin Park Municipal Code relating to residentially zoned lots in the city of Baldwin Park. And it looks like we have a presentation from staff.

Yes, we do. Good evening, Honorable Chair and members of the Planning Commission. Before you tonight is a proposed zoning text amendment to revise chapter 153 of the municipal code otherwise referred to as the city's zoning ordinance. As they relate to consistency of development standard is across all residential development types, as well as other updates to address inconsistencies in section 153.040 slash residential zones section of the municipal code and other related zoning code sections.

Next slide please.

To begin, staff would like to highlight to the Planning Commission and the general public that the city's zoning ordinance has remained relatively unchanged since its last comprehensive update back in 2012 with the adoption of Ordinance 1346. While there have been updates to reflect changes in state law since said time, such as the adoption of the city's first ADU ordinance in 2020 or the SB9 ordinance in 2023, Most of the language remains relatively unchanged and was intended to service the goals outlined in the Baldwin Park 2020 general plan. While updates to the general plan have been contemplated by city staff over the last few years, staff is still obligated to review the current ordinance and recommend any updates or changes to the governing language as outlined in Section 153020-070 of the Baldwin Park Municipal Code. One such example of city staff working on such an update can be referenced in the recent updates to the warehousing and wholesale businesses in the city's industrial and industrial commercial zones last year. In the case of recommended updates to the city's residentially zoned parcels, there are multiple sections of the code that staff noted would require either small tweaks or notable rewrites to provide increased clarity or higher quality developments, both of which are the intended goals of the zoning code per the city's general plan. Next slide, please. It is important to note that while not the primary catalyst for the recommended changes, staff would like to point out a few changes to state law that either directly or indirectly affect how certain residential standards must be implemented. So this is aside from legislation that was mentioned prior, such as ADUs or SB9. First, AB2221 was a sweep to the, at the time, certain residential standards, At the time, new ADU laws that required that all standards for ADUs be objective and applied fairly to said units. This meant that staff could not impose additional standards to ADUs that were not already in place on the main home or other structures on the property. This through line of consistency and applying standards is a common theme in the recommended changes to the city zoning code as highlighted in the staff report attached to this tonight's item. To highlight a specific change from state law that directly affects residential units, AB1304 exempt single family home additions from complying with additional parking standards should the addition meet all other standards such as lock coverage, open space, et cetera. This law requires changes to the city's non conforming section to be in line with the current state regulations as the current language only exempts areas for up to 600 square feet of additions proposed. So yeah, the through line with these changes is they're meant to be consistent with changes to state law that we either directly or don't directly affect residential unit construction.

Next slide please.

And again, while the main purpose of the ordinance update is to comply with changes to state law, city staff also took the opportunity to improve upon the existing ADU ordinance in three specific instances. The proposed changes of major importance that city staff would like to point out are shown in the current slide. Listing them from top to bottom, they include the following. The removal of percentage based second floor step backs for two story structures to a flat seven foot six inch requirement. This is consistent across other jurisdictions on how they implement a step back. Usually it's not a prevailing percentage so much as just a flat number. Going second in the list, the allowance of SB 9 units to match the height of the R1 zone, which in this case is 27 feet, and minimum front yard setback of 15 as allowed for flag lot parcels in the R1 zone. This was required to be updated from the current 16 foot height maximum for consistency purposes mentioned in the previous slide. So we cannot treat the SB 9 units differently from the primary homes. Per state law, they have to all be consistent. Next on the list would be the allowance of two driveway approaches, one per street frontage in R1 zones. This is when you have a property that has two street-facing property lines. It would allow for more convenience and access to the property. And a reduction of minimum frontage width for RG and R3 zones. These are multifamily zones in the city, if approved by the community development director and LA County fire prevention staff. And this is for, again, more flexibility on lots that might be more constrained just due to changes of zones over time. And lastly, the reduction of minimum width and length of private open space for developments in the RG and R3 zones. So again, multifamily from 10 feet in width to five feet. So when we're talking about private open space, think of balconies, patios that could be tied to like condos, townhomes, apartments, etc. This change would accommodate for industry standard balconies for apartments and condos and is also consistent with what other jurisdictions like Glendale and Burbank have. The complete list of changes is noted in this item staff report for the Commission's reference again included in tonight's agenda packet. Next slide please. Notices of public hearing for this item were published in the local newspaper on May 14th, 2026. Please be advised that due to lack of quorum for the May 27th, 2026 planning commission meeting, this item was continued to a date certain of tonight's planning commission meeting. To date, no comments have been received from the public regarding this item. And additionally, staff would like to point out that pursuant to California Public Resources Code 15061B3, otherwise referred to as the common sense exemption, the adoption of the proposed ordinance is exempt from the provisions of CEQA, as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, either directly or indirectly, and no additional environmental review is required under CEQA.

Next slide.

In conclusion, staff does recommend that the Planning Commission approve Resolution PC 26-04, recommending that the City Council approve AZC 25-04. City staff are available for any questions or comments. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I want to give my fellow commissioners an opportunity to ask staff any questions they may have about this presentation.

I have one question. So my question is, dropping the parking requirement I would assume would have a severe impact on the neighborhood. And so when we talked about the code waiving the one space parking requirement, I'm just wondering how much of that would affect Baldwin Park? In other words, what percentage of the city would we fall under?

OK, and then you're referring to the provision in the nonconforming clause 153 200 170. Yes. So that's not entirely accurate as far as it waiving the parking so much as that clause, as it's written now, says that any addition up to 600 square feet on a property that already doesn't have conforming parking. parking can continue without needing to essentially provide a compliant parking garage. So in that, that's how the ordinance is written now. But like I mentioned, there's a state law that got passed around a year, two years ago that eliminates that requirement. So if somebody has a non-compliant property and they want to propose an addition to their home, and the only thing that's barring them from being compliant is the parking requirement, per state law, we cannot prohibit them from continuing. So that's what's being updated, not necessarily, oh, you don't have to provide a parking space if let's say I'm doing a new development. No, you still have to comply with everything underneath the parking section now. This is just for that instance where, again, state law already supersedes and requires us to not look at that standard when it relates to non-compliant properties.

Understood. Thank you.

Jesus, when it comes to the reduction of the open space, we went from 10 to 5. There a reason why we may not have looked at to the reduction of the percentage

So as it relates to the reduction of the dimensions, that's more to facilitate, again, industry standard kinds of balconies when let's say you have an apartment complex. If you were to continue with 10 feet, that really eats a lot into what you could say pro formas for these kinds of projects. And they're more used to a five foot projection, albeit it could be a lot wider and that could be the substitute for having it project further out. But for the reduction standpoint, that wasn't looked at under this cleanup because that has more ramifications that we would rather bring back to the commission in a study section kind of format. And I don't know if our study planner would like to chime in as well.

Yes, just to add on to what Jesus has mentioned is it's going to allow more flexibility. We're not we're not reducing the amount of open space that's required, but but in the manner that which is provided and and what we have on the books now is quite restrictive in terms of you need a ten by ten box by allowing a five foot five foot dimension that's going to be a lot more flexible in terms of how, I mean, because not every development is going to look the same way. So if it's wider and narrower, it allows for that flexibility. And it's just going to make it easier for developments to meet this requirement.

One more point on that, just to clarify, is when we've looked at changes that, let's say, are proposed as a numerical change, uh we surveyed adjacent cities um and that's also included in the staff report as far as analysis so in this case uh just because it's referenced in the staff report burbank and glendale have a similar five foot projection um and they you know have larger multi-family developments that can stack up uh so that's what we're seeing more in the industry and also consistent with whether other cities are regulated understood

All right. And so just so that I'm understanding this correctly, the request today is to basically update all of our regulations to meet the state law.

Yes, that's part of the request. The other part is where there's cleanup as far as like amended language or consistency with other jurisdictions, like in the case of the balconies, that's the purpose of these updates. Larger, broader changes, like for example, looking with the close lens on parking in single family, as far as the rates, that's not what's being proposed here. It's more just cleanup language, comparisons across jurisdictions where ours are maybe too restrictive. and also again, compliance with state law.

Thank you. Want to do a last check to see if there's any other questions of...

I just have one question. In the driveway standards, the minimum driveway within the RG and R3 zones, where the director of community development should have the authority to require a wider or narrower driveway, have there been examples where it's kind of been an obstacle to get something approved?

Yeah, so there are quite a few examples. It would be difficult to illustrate It would be great to have a visual, would be the correct way to phrase it. But imagine you have a property that was 50 feet in width at one point in time, and then zone change, and now it's more dense. You can build more units on it, but the width is still 50. The zone, the way the standards are written now is they require a 26-foot wide driveway aisle. And that really, that standard is meant to... facilitate for lot consolidation as far as combining smaller parcels into one bigger parcel and make a bigger development. But that makes it a burden for these parcels where let's say they don't have that luxury of lot consolidation. Well, then they're stuck with a 26 foot wide driveway aisle that basically halves the development potential on the property. So in fairness, that's why that standard is being rewritten to 26 feet wider or narrower, depending on if both our community development division or department and if LA County Fire are comfortable with that as it relates to each site-specific project. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Anything else you wanted to add to that, Nick?

I thought that was a good explanation. Right. So as just kind of to recap, we have certain properties that are in the RG zone that are only 50 feet wide. So to have our current standard to have more than half of the total width of the lot to... would be the minimum required minimum driveway width is overbearing. So we're looking for more flexibility and a better fit for the actual lot sizes we have out in the city.

Right. And that's also where, again, comparison with other jurisdictions was also key in looking at these consistency changes because most jurisdictions, they don't have as wide of a multifamily driveway aisle width. We do in this case, and that's why we're wanting to make it more flexible.

uh circling back into the not necessarily what this has been approved which is the rewritten of the text certain aspects like lot coverage for a driveway with when would that get addressed do we have any questions about

Yes, so I kind of touched on this topic as it relates to Vice Chair Miranda Zip's question on parking. So that's more of a broader overall question that does have some kind of impact to development. And that would be more appropriate to bring to the commission as like a study session or as an update with... more substance and more review. This is more of, again, of a cleanup with consistency being the main focus. But standards such as lock coverage, open space, parking, height, things like that, that would be more of a question of development intensity for each zone. And that's really where it would require more thorough analysis to bring before you.

Got it. Thank you.

All right. If there's no further questions of staff, I will now declare public hearing open. Is there anyone in our audience wishing to speak on this matter? All right. Seeing no further interest, I will now move forward and close out public hearing. My fellow commissioners, can I get a motion on this project?

I have a motion to approve.

I will second. I am secretary.

The roll call. Commissioner Rodriguez?

Yes.

Commissioner Arias?

Yes.

Commissioner Pena? Yes. Vice Chair Miranda de Zib? Yes. And Chair Escobosa.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you so much. All right. The Planning Commission has voted to adopt Resolution PC-2604, approving ACC-2504, a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Baldwin Park recommending that the City Council amend the City's Municipal Code, Title 15, Land Usage, Chapter 153, Zoning Codes. And this is relating to consistency of development standards on all residentially zoned parcels. And so now we're going to move on to non public hearing items. Any reports of officers.

I'll just report some of our summer schedule. The next meeting that I know that we will have is July 22nd. That's an important one. I encourage you all to attend. And then June 24th, we will also have a meeting. Please attend for that one as well. But if you can only make one, please, July 22nd.

Okay, so meeting June 24. And then we won't see each other again until July 22. No, July 8. Okay, that's when you all take your vacations. Okay. All right. Um, any communications from staff, the commission? Hey, well, then I Okay, so we're going to backtrack a little bit because school doesn't start until mid-late August, so people might have vacations planned. Do you know if we're going to have any meetings in August?

It's a little far to tell.

Okay.

Sorry. As soon as I know, I'll project that far and let you all know.

Thank you. As a reminder, these meetings are the second and fourth week of the month, so you have that first and third to play around with. All right. If there are no further comments by the commission, I will accept a motion to adjourn. I've been told I can just adjourn. So I'm going to adjourn the meeting. The time is 725 p.m. And thank you, everyone, for attending and participating. Have a good night.