Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Good evening. I'd like to call the meeting to order at 7.35. This is the Planning Commission meeting for Wednesday, August 12, 2026. If you'll stand and follow Commissioner Janicek for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

Can I have a roll call, please? Yes. Commissioner Bashani is excused. Commissioner Austin? Here. Brown? Present. Janicek?

Here.

Scheffler?

Here.

Stahira?

Here.

Chair Rose? Here.

At this time, I'd like to ask commissioners if there are any corrections to last month's minutes. If not, I would for a motion and a second to approve the minutes of our last meeting I'll make that motion I'll second all in favor aye any opposed minutes are approved at this time Members of the public who wish to discuss items that are not on the agenda can speak to the Commission. Please state your name for the record, please, and understand that the commission cannot vote or take any action on this item.

I fully understand.

Thank you.

My name is Deborah Elliott Penzer. I live at 209 Novus Lane, and I'm representing 209 Novus Lane and 203 Novus Lane, as that's my parents' home. This is where you guys are putting this huge, monstrous warehouse at 2601 California. And I've said it before, two and a half years ago, we believe it's overbuilt for the area. Then I read my little homework that I've been doing, this thick reading everything, that it was only supposed to be 10,000 square feet. And there's a conditional use permit to make it 27,000 square feet. That's triple. I mean, that's just ridiculous. Then, like I said, we've lived on the street my entire life. There's a 1954 easement for out to Myrtle Avenue. Now that's when it was residential, when there were four homes on that property and there was no out to California until 1980 when they built the other buildings on that corner of California and Novus Lane. So now the fire department is asking for a turnaround onto my easement to get out to Myrtle. If this building cannot sustain itself with a turnaround for the fire department, then something is wrong. There's enough property there for them to make a turnaround. There's a turnaround across the street at the Dutson Complex. You go in one way, you can turn around, and you can come out. So I'm just giving you guys food for thought because I know it's coming up. My paper is coming in, believe me, but I don't know who reads those papers. So I am suggesting that the seven of you Make a field trip down to that area. It's south, I know it's south. But I want you to see how you turn onto California from Nova Sling. How the cars fly from Myrtle Avenue up California. It's ridiculous. I can't even get my Tahoe out. I have to sit at the approach for a few minutes before I can even get out safely. And then when I make my turn and I look in my rear view mirror, there's somebody right on my tail. How is a semi truck gonna get out of that driveway? Even if they widen the approach. It's a two lane highway out of California. And they're not supposed to be able to use my easement to get out to Myrtle. Or those trucks are not supposed to be able to come off of Myrtle. So I think somebody's not looking through their glasses clearly at this project. And it needs to be looked at hardly. Because I'm gonna tell you right now, there's gonna be an accident. There's going to be a young kid underneath the semi truck because these kids come flying from Myrtle up California. And that truck's going to be in the way and they're not going to be able to stop. And I'll tell you, I'll be the first one to side with that parent or whoever it is that the city put their stamp of approval on this. I mean, I think the building could be toned way down. There is no reason for it. I mean, it's in an awkward position in the city. Yes, I know it's a city of Monrovia, but on this side, it's the L.A. County. Plus, the noise ordinance doesn't match between this county and the city. So I'm just asking you guys to take a field trip down there and see what you're doing to us. Now, I've asked for an eight-foot block wall across Novus Lane, and I'm being denied because the fire department needs it for a turnaround. If that large building, like I said again, I'll say it again, cannot accommodate a turnaround for the fire truck, or I've talked to several engineers of fire trucks, they don't think they can get out of that driveway on California safely. They won't be able to make that turn. So how is a semi-truck going to make that turn safely? Either going north or going south. Either way. So all I'm asking is for you to come down, Take a field trip and sit there on my approach in Nova Slane in California. Watch the cars. That's all I'm asking. And I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that cares to speak to the commission? Seeing none, we'll move on to public hearings. We have one public hearing tonight. It is for ordinance number 2026-3, Planning Commission Resolution number 2026-0001. The request is an amendment to section 17.38.090 and chapter 17.42 of Title 17 of the Monrovia Municipal Code, to apply to the city's inclusionary housing requirements and procedures citywide to all new residential developments of five or more units subject to applicable exemptions and to make related clarifying and conforming amendments to maintain consistency with density bonus regulations. Long sentence. Determine that the proposed ordinance is exempt from further environmental analysis pursuant to state CEQA guidelines sections 152 183A, 15162A, 15061B3, and 15378B4. May I hear the staff report?

Yes, thank you. Good evening, commissioners. As stated, this is item PH1, which is an ordinance, which is an amendment to the city's inclusionary housing ordinance. This is a focused amendment to the city's existing program. It doesn't redesign the program. It just expands where it applies. I'll walk you through the background, what the amendment does and doesn't change, and then staff's recommendation. So the city's inclusionary housing program grew out of program 1.7 of the sixth cycle housing element, which directed staff to evaluate an inclusionary housing program. That evaluation wasn't a quick exercise. It took three city council study sessions, a financial feasibility analysis, community input, developer feedback, and a review of programs in other San Gabriel Valley cities. Based on that work, the city went beyond simply studying the concept and adopted a complete program for qualifying projects in targeted areas. The council then adopted this ordinance on June 17, 2025. The affordability percentages and program mechanics were established at that time. And then council did direct staff to return with an amendment to expand the program's applicability, and that's the item before you today. So this table shows the city's progress against its RENA allocation for the current six cycle. Overall, housing production has been strong, but it's concentrated in the above moderate category, while the very low and moderate categories continue to fall behind their targets. That's not unique to Monrovia, though. Our recent annual progress report shows that this pattern is statewide. Cities are generally hitting above moderate numbers, but the lower income tiers remain a challenge across California. Monrovia's approach is to go as far as reasonably can to close that gap, and that's the backdrop for why we're looking at a broadening of the inclusionary housing program. So the original ordinance took a targeted approach. It applies today based on four triggers, the three originally targeted districts, housing element opportunity sites, projects involving a general plan or zoning amendment, and projects subject to certain state laws. Where it applies, it generally requires residential developments of five or more units to provide affordable housing onsite or satisfy the requirement through an authorized alternative means of compliance. Those areas weren't arbitrary. They aligned with the general plan's growth vision, were already planned for higher density housing, and sit near transit, jobs, services, and infrastructure. But from the start, this was envisioned as an initial step, not the final design. So ordinance number 2026, as I said, is a focused amendment. It changes where the requirements apply, not the rules themselves. Everything else stays exactly as adopted in 2025. The minimum project size threshold, the exempt project types, the affordability requirements and set-aside percentages, the alternative compliance options, and the affordable housing agreement. And I'll show you each of those items in more detail in a moment. So this is the one thing that actually changes. Today the ordinance applies to new residential developments of five or more units only within the targeted areas or specified project categories unless otherwise exempt. Those are shown in the blue in the map on the right. The proposed amendment would remove these geographic and category limitations and then apply the same five or more thresholds citywide unless exempt. This map shows the current targeted areas alongside where the amendment would extend that same requirement. I also want to be precise about what citywide means here. It means the ordinance would apply where qualifying residential development of five or more units may be proposed under current zoning rules and would apply to larger properties in the RM or RH zones as shown in this map. It does not change where housing is allowed, rezone any property, or increase density anywhere. So what isn't changing? As stated, the minimum project size is maintained. Projects with five or more units remain within the program. Those with fewer than five units continue to be excluded. The affordability percentages themselves aren't changing. For ownership projects, it remains at 10 percent moderate income. For rental projects, it's tiered by size, which is 6 percent low income for 20 units or fewer, 10 percent for 21 to 50 units, and 15 percent for 51 or more units. Income definitions also remain unchanged. Low income is 50 to 80 percent of AMI, whereas moderate is 80 to 120 percent of AMI. The current exemptions stay the same. That means accessory dwelling units, SB9 units, emergency shelters, assisted living facilities, and transitional or supportive housing facilities are still exempt. Projects still have the same three ways to satisfy the requirement beyond building onsite. Paying the in lieu fee to develop affordable housing elsewhere, providing units at an approved offsite location, or converting existing market rate units to affordable units. All three remain subject to the same approval process as today. The in lieu fee framework is also unchanged. Eligibility for this in lieu fee remains the same. That is, all ownership projects and rental projects with 20 units or fewer are eligible. The fee is still calculated per square foot and by tenure per the independently adopted fee resolution. Larger rental projects still need to provide units onsite unless an alternative means of compliance is approved. This amendment doesn't touch the fee amounts or eligibility rules. Lastly the city did combine the density bonus and inclusionary housing affordable housing agreement requirements into a single document and that structure isn't changing and neither is the contents the duration for affordability remains the same at 45 years for for sale units in 55 years for rental unit or units the group continues to cover the same requirements that include the number type and location of the affordable units and income classifications and any requested density bonuses concessions or waivers and the same operational pieces Such as the parking requirements monitoring procedures and enforcement strategies also remain the same this agreement will continue to ensure long-term compliance with affordability goals and provides a legal protection for the city in the residents and So this map shows where the amendment would apply. Not everywhere, but specifically where it's already allowed under existing zoning, such as our larger properties in the RM and RH zoning districts. This amendment doesn't rezone anything or create new development capacity, applies only It applies the requirement only where a qualifying five or more unit project is already allowed today. And even within those zones, it depends on the lot size. Not every parcel in an RM or RH district is large enough to yield five units or more on its own. So this slide looks at the past three years of permitted housing, 2023 through 2025. It shows 172 projects were permitted, which included 462 units. And this slide is to show how much of our housing activity could actually be subject to the program moving forward. The story here is about the project count, not about the unit count. So for this, of the 172 projects, 149 of those projects were ADUs. Eight were single-family homes, both exempt from the inclusionary housing program regardless of location. Fourteen more were two-to-four-unit projects, which fall under the five-unit threshold and wouldn't trigger the requirement either. In fact, no permitted project in this entire three-year window, including the period since the ordinance took effect in June 2025, fell anywhere in the 5 to 50 unit range. The one project that would have triggered the ordinance, a single 51 or more unit development. That accounted for 256 of the 462 units permitted in that period. So while the amendment would reach a small share of projects based on this recent history, this is a preventative measure. It's about making sure Monrovia doesn't miss the next project like that one, not about anything we've missed so far. So why citywide now? Two points really drive this amendment. First, council direction. The council directed staff at the adoption to return with exactly this, a citywide expansion. Second, a broader opportunity. This isn't about anything we've missed so far. It's about not missing out going forward. As I mentioned, affordable housing production statewide continues to fall behind, and Monrovia wants to go as far as it reasonably can to capture opportunities wherever they arise in the city, not just within the original targeted areas. This also continues to advance Housing Element Goal 2 and Program 1.7. and it treats comparable residential projects consistently rather than have obligations depend solely on where a project happens to be located. Just as important is what this doesn't do. It doesn't rezone the property or increase permitted density. It doesn't approve any specific project or require any owner to build. It doesn't change development standards or entitlement review, and it doesn't reach projects below the five-unit threshold or otherwise exempt project types. The amendment also makes two related technical edits to keep the code internally consistent. First, it removes the targeted planning areas, associated maps, and project-specific applicability triggers. They simply no longer are needed once the program applies citywide. Second, it keeps cross-references and terminology consistent between the density bonus and inclusionary housing sections of the code. These are the technical conforming edits, not substantive policy changes. Staff recommends then that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 2026-0001, which finds that the proposed amendment is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA and recommends that the City Council adopt ordinance 2026-03. This item was noticed consistent with code with a 20-day public notice and staff is not aware of any public comment received. If the Commission concurs with this recommendation, This would then move to City Council, which is anticipated to go in September of this year. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Do commissioners have any questions of staff? Yes, go ahead.

Thank you very much, Jennifer, for the report. That was great. And thank you also for doing the extra research. I think it was extra research on the projects from the last three years. I think that helps us at least look back and see where it would have or could have applied. So just so I have it right, those, I get that the ADUs and the single family projects were all exempt from this. The ones that were one to four units, I know this is somewhat conjecture, but is it possible that some of those could have been five-unit projects but were discouraged or dissuaded from being so because they would have fallen under the ordinance as it stood. I don't know if they were within the targeted areas or if they were outside of it.

I don't have that information in front of me right now. I mean, the two to four unit project size is usually based off of the lot size, so they're smaller properties, so it's likely that they wouldn't be able to do the fiber more, but I don't have that concrete information.

Yeah. And I can chime in. The majority of those two to four projects occurred prior to the city's inclusionary housing ordinance.

It just went into effect.

Correct. These were all the calendar year was 2025. It doesn't include, you know, there was like six months of effective dates.

Okay. just to also clarify there haven't been any projects so far where the inclusionary housing ordinance has applied correct that we have approved or permitted correct okay we do have projects in the pipeline that that would be yeah but nothing that we has made it all the way to us or council okay I have one question Jennifer could you go back to the

slide that showed arena numbers and I may just be really off here but I've always wondered it's always been a question to me we have so much trouble and we're not the only cities that have trouble with the low income and the moderate income and you know providing that that those types of units are we by state law Can we not raise the percentage of low-income units that are required by a developer? I know we've had some really big projects, and I'm sure we have some more coming down that would help us meet some of those numbers. Instead of 10%, could we raise that and make it a requirement that you have to have 20%

just throwing a number out there I don't know if that's even yeah feasible well part of this whole inclusionary housing ordinance that was backed by a feasibility analysis that looked at the city's deed right and the city's market conditions created this just kind of And analyzed where would we get to the sweet spot to attain affordable units without making a development cost prohibitive. So when the ordinance was adopted, it was adopted with those initial thresholds of, and I don't know if you have them back up on the screen that we can see, Jennifer. For ownership, the 10%. Now, in the future, if these don't produce, right, or they're underproducing, the City Council Commission can always bring these back, look at another analysis to change these percentages.

But I guess that's what I'm asking. Yeah.

So these were the percentages that the council spent about nine months working through.

But just seems like it's just things do change. Correct. All the time. Yeah. Yeah. And, um, It's really easy to meet the moderate and the higher moderate numbers. I know it's really hard to meet those lower numbers, and yet those are the ones everybody needs, all the cities need, and people need. Correct. So just a food for thought. I just wondered if we were held accountable.

Just kind of maybe a related question is how do these percentages, and I may have asked this before, I apologize if I'm repeating myself from our previous discussion, but how do these compare to neighboring cities? Are they similar percentages? Or do you know that?

I know that we did look at the comparable cities, and I know we were in line with what other San Gabriel cities were requiring, but I don't know. I don't have the exact data in front of me right now.

I mean, because one consideration could be for a developer, oh, here I need 15%, and here I need 25%. I'm going to develop in the place that has a lower percentage, so it's important to find a sweet spot.

Yeah, which is hard to do. I know it's hard to do.

Yeah, I mean, I guess my only comment is every city is different. The cost of the market is different in every city. And I think the cities that we looked at, there was no apples to apples comparison. Some focused on areas, which Monrovia started with. Others set the threshold not at 5, but at 10. If there was an inclusionary percentage, all of them seem to fluctuate based on project size so larger projects can absorb a higher percentage than lower projects can which is why you know through our research and assistance with our our consultant kaiser marston we landed at this breakout especially on the residential piece requiring that higher percentage on the 51 or more units in comparison to the lower units, the 6% on the less than, or 20 or fewer.

There's probably a little bit off the topic, but thank you for that explanation. Because basically, I guess what I'm hearing here is we're just moving this to citywide. That's really the crux of it all. Is that correct?

Yeah, that's correct. The idea is we have an ordinance in place. Have we captured any units yet? No. Have we lost any opportunity to capture units? We don't think so, but this is a preventative measure. Why not cast a larger net so we don't say, oops, we missed out on something big? Any other questions?

Yes.

And just another neighboring city comparison question. Are most other cities with an inclusionary housing ordinance, does their ordinance apply to the whole city now? Or is it mostly targeted area?

I think you will definitely see some cities that do citywide. Again, there's a plethora of variations from city to city.

And then I have an SB9-related question. I did pick up on the one thing you said. Projects developed under SB9 would be exempt. So when you showed the map of where this would be applicable, that didn't consider the SB9 radii, did it?

Do you mean SB79? That's the radius around the metro stop.

Oh.

SB9 is the two-unit radius.

Thank you.

Or unit development.

That's the, yes.

I know. It's easy.

Thank you. I retract that question.

Any other comments or questions for staff regarding the staff report?

Just a comment, too. No, I appreciate staff's efforts in all of this. In relation to what you had said, I wish there was a way to have more, but also if we have these higher requirements, it might prevent development from occurring altogether. And so I definitely see the concerns there. And then just also comment on what Jennifer said was I read an article yesterday that was about the state's statistics of the last five years of APRs. And right now, just for everyone's information, there are only five jurisdictions in the whole state that are on target to meet their RHNA targets in all four categories. And four of those are in rural communities. So just a fun fact for your knowledge.

And then I was just going to add for Commissioner Stajura regarding SB9. There was an exemption for SB9 projects, but the maximum development you could get out of an SB9 project is four units, so it would be less than our five, so it wouldn't apply.

Yes, go ahead. I have a question. Hopefully it's an easy answer directed to staff. We have this finite area. When we broadened it, how much difference in, I don't know if it's square miles or size, does it look significantly bigger, that net's going to cast? Do we have an idea of how the ones that were shaded in blue, I don't know, we'll call that beige or gold look? Yeah, right back. I saw it. There. That opposed to the blue, it's significantly larger, is what I see, which is a net gain positive in my view. Am I seeing that right?

That's correct, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, if there are no other questions or comments from the commissioners, I'd like to open the public hearing to public testimony and ask if there's any persons that would like to speak in favor of this ordinance. Opposed or people with concerns Seeing none I will close the public hearing and ask for a discussion and motion from the commissioners move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution number 20 26-0 0 1 second Roll call, please.

Commissioner Austin?

Yes.

Brown? Yes. Janicek? Yes. Scheffler? Yes. Stahira? Yes. Chair Rose?

Yes. Okay, moving on. We have no administrative reports, but we do have community development director's report.

Yes, thank you very much, Chair Rose. Thank you very much. We have just two development updates, the first being is that the commission was notified At the last meeting about the release of the public review draft initial study and mitigated negative declaration for the project at 2601 South California Avenue, that public input period, public review period is still open, but it does close this coming Monday on August 17th. So that document is online. People are able to access it from our development spotlight page and submit comments. Once that public review period is closed, staff will be taking all the comments, responding to the comments, and then there will also be a follow up public hearing noticing that will go out to the development area and before it comes to the planning commission. So I just wanted to note that the public review process of the CEQA document is underway. We have not yet commenced the public hearing process. The second update I wanted to provide you was regarding the development of our SB 9 area design review, objective design standards, and I'm going to hand this over to our planning division manager, John Mayer, who's been taking the lead on that project to give the commission an update.

Thank you, Sherry, and good evening, chair and commissioners. Yeah, just to give an update on the urban design, the objective design standards, the city has hired an urban designer to create objective design standards. These are for the areas affected by SB 79, which is a new state housing law that allows certain housing projects near transit stations, certain housing projects that can be built with using states' established levels for things like density and building height and floor area, even when those standards are different than our local zoning standards. So these objective design standards that we're working on will be very clear design rules that can be measured. And so instead of saying that a building should simply fit into the neighborhood or have good architecture, the standards will address things like how a building is broken up, a large building and how it's broken up, or the length of a wall, how long the length of a wall can be before some variation needs to be added, how building entrances are designed and how parking is screened and materials are used and how buildings relate to the sidewalk and the surrounding properties. These standards are very important because SB 79 could allow buildings that are taller and bulkier than what we've been used to seeing under our zoning code. So the city still has the ability to establish design requirements for those projects, but those requirements need to be very clear. They need to be measurable and they need to be objective rather than subjective judgment. So our consultant is now reviewing the areas of the city affected by SB 79. They're reviewing our zoning and development standards and other objective design standards that have already been prepared for the San Gabriel Valley. And from there, they'll begin developing standards that are more tailored to Monrovia, specifically for Monrovia. So the goal isn't to make every building look the same. It's identifying those design qualities that are important to Monrovia and where we can translate them into clear standards that an architect can understand. So this work is just getting underway. Tonight is really just an introduction. We'll be coming back to the Planning Commission as the standards begin to take shape, so you can see the work as it develops and provides some input as we get going on a formal hearing. We also expect to make the information available to the public as the project moves forward, so there will be additional opportunities to learn about the project and follow its progress. Thank you.

Well, I, for one, think that's very exciting. And I think it'll give us a little teeth into what we're trying to keep here in Monrovia and not let it just go crazy. Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you, Sherry, and your department for that. Any other comments from the commissioners on John's report? Commissioners have any announcements or agenda items that they want to see in the future? No? Okay. If not, I will adjourn this month's meeting at 8.12 and see you all again next month. Thank you. Oh, I better gavel.