Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

um going to call to order the meeting of  the Monrovia Planning Commission. Um so   please stand and follow Commissioner Stura  in the pledge of allegiance. Thank you,   Chair Brown. If you could please follow me  in the pledge. I aliance to the flag of the   United States of America and to the republic  for which it stands. One nation under God,   indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  Uh, roll call, please. Yes. Commissioner Austin,   here. Janice, here. Rose, here. Sheffller here.  Stira here. Here. Chair Brown here. Okay. So, does anyone have any corrections or would someone  like to make a motion um to approve the minutes?   I'll move approval of minutes as presented. I'll  second that. Roll call. Commissioner Austin? Yes.   Janisk? Yes. Rose? Yes. Sheffller. Yes. Stira.  Yes. Vashani. I abstain. I wasn't here at the   meeting. Chair Brown. Uh, I will abstain as  well because I wasn't at the last meeting. Should I call out if it motion carries with um  I forgot how many there are of us altogether and   I two of us abstain. So what are we at? Seven.  Seven. Okay. So five. So it passed with five.

Okay. So please give me grace. This is my  first day as chair. I missed the last meeting   and so Commissioner Stures created like a  really high standard. So I'm really going   to try to live up to to what you did, Erin. So  please give me grace today. Uh so at this time   um members of the public who wish to discuss  items that are not on the agenda can speak   to the commission. Do we have any public  speakers not attached to an agenda item? Okay, it doesn't look like we have any. So now  we are going to move on to our public hearings.   So the first one is public hearing uh item one  which is a conditional use permit CUP 2025-00007 and I'm going to pass it to staff to handle this  one. Uh thank you chair and good evening and good   evening commissioners. Uh this is a request for  a conditional use permit. Um, the applicant is   requesting a state alcohol beverage control type  47 license uh to allow the incidental sale of uh   on-site service of beer, wine, and distilled  spirits at a new sitdown restaurant in the   neighborhood commercial zone. On August 7th,  2025, staff received a written request from the   applicant to continue this item to the September  10th, 2025 meeting. The applicant would like some   additional time to revise the um floor plan and to  address some concerns raised by some neighboring   properties. So staff recommends that you open the  public hearing, take any testimony from members   of the public and continue this item to the uh  September 10th, 2025 meeting. Thank you. So just   to be clear, because we don't have a formal staff  report, I'm going to skip asking commissioners if   they have any questions and just move straight to  the public hearing. Yes. Okay. So I'd like to open   up the public uh testimony portion of the hearing.  This is the time and place for public input  

regarding this item. Um so opening the public  hearing. Um, let's see. So, the testimony is   going to be received in this order. The applicant,  not sure if they're here or not, persons in favor,   persons with concerns, and uh applicants with And  that's it. We're not going to have a response or   rebuttal. So, do we have any public speakers for  this public hearing? Oh, please come forward. Um, and if you're available to come back on  September 10th, we will be hearing this item   presumably again then. Um, if not, you can go  ahead and provide your testimony at this time.   Well, the only reason I'm here is because I got  a postal card saying that they were going to be   discussing that this evening. So, this is the  second meeting that I've come to for this. The   concern that some of us have, we have apartments  and condominiums across the street from this   property. I've lived across the street for 45  years and there's always been a business there,   but the business has not caused any problem  for us. We've caused no problem for them. But   the concern now is that there's going to be uh uh  outdoor dining with alcohol, and we're concerned   about the outdoor dining with the alcohol. If  it was inside, it wouldn't have any impact on   us. We're concerned about the noise, if there's  going to be a a situation with noise, with music,   and how late they're going to be uh serving the  alcohol. So, at one of the previous meetings,   we were told that they would be serving alcohol  indoors until 10:00 and then they would stop and   alcohol outside until 9:00. We don't know  if that's been finalized yet. And also,   they do have provision within the city to go all  the way till midnight. So, there are people living   right across the street from them that have small  children. They're concerned about any noise or   problem that would occur in the evening. We're not  concerned about things happening in the middle of   the daytime, but when it's time for us to go to  sleep, we'd like to be able to enjoy our space as  

well. And there have been other events adjacent to  them using their parking lots where tents were put   up and they had they had music. I called to to  the uh to the police without complaining to say   that there was a noise problem. my neighbors were  calling and the police did come and they did turn   the noise down, but every time the police left  the noise went back up again. So, we're we're   concerned about how this is going to be handled.  Um there's an apartment building adjacent to them.   We're across the street. Um the people in my area,  there are seven units across the street. There are   50 in my development. So, we're concerned about  what's going to be happening there. And if they   do this indoors, I don't think we have any  concern. And if they're doing it outdoors and   there's no music and there's there's an attempt  to keep it quiet for the residents who live there,   we don't have an issue. And we brought this  up before. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank   you for your comment, sir. Can you provide  your name for the record, please? I'm sorry.   My name is Michael Kaplan and I I live across the  street at 105 South Mayflower, Unit A. Thank you. Thank you. So, question. Since this is being  continued, should we pause res? Sure. Yes,   you should see if there is a motion to  continue the public hearing to September   10th and if there's a second and if so, you  should take a vote to continue the public   hearing to September 10th. Okay, I'll move to um  continue this for the our September 10th meeting,   the public hearing. I'll second it. Okay,  quick question. I don't need to close the   public hearing before they Correct. You  should keep it open because it's being   continued to September 10th. Got it. Okay.  So, we have a we have a a motion. Okay. We   have a second. All right. Roll call, please.  Commissioner Austin, yes. Jennif, yes. Rose,  

yes. Sheffller, yes. Mr. Hera, yes. Bashani,  yes. Chair Brown, yes. Okay, so motion passed. Okay. So now we are moving  on to uh agenda item PH2. And this item is a request to approve a  conditional use permit to install a new rooftop   wireless telecommunications facility on a new 88x  6 foot tall mixed use building at 127 West Pomona   Avenue and a wireless facility exception pursuant  to Monrovia Municipal Code section 17-46-040B to locate the facility. in a discouraged  location, a specific plan area with a mix   of residential and non-residential uses, and the  property is located in the 127 Pomona specific   plan zone. Um staff, take it away. Thank you,  chair, and good evening, commissioners. Um,   tonight we do have a cup for install new rooftop  telecommunication facility at 127 West Pomona. Uh,   Mr. Damian Pardo is here on behalf of  Coastal Business Group for T-Mobile. Now, the subject location is located in  Station Square. This is just north of the   metro station. It's in the PD12 zone. As you can  see, it's just north, highlighted in yellow. Um,   and some of the more recent uh developments,  including Alex and Moda and Station Square South,   are some of the residential developments that  are under construction or have been completed. This is just a close-up aerial view.  Again, it's in the PD12 zone. Specifically,   this site is the 127 Pomona specific plan. Um,  which is again just south of the I210 freeway off  

of the exit of West Evergreen Avenue. And you can  see directly south is Hamby Park and Caddy Corner   is the Moda apartment complex. And to provide  you some background uh context on this site,   the city council approved the redevelopment  of what was originally an industrial site   into a transit oriented mixeduse development  on January 1st, 2020. The planning commission   approved modifications to that design on August  11th of 2021. And overall, the mixeduse project   is a seven-story building. It'll provide 232  apartment units, 25 of which will be affordable   and will be dispersed throughout the design  of the project. It includes over 8,500 ft of   commercials parking space, a parking garage, and  a public plaza as you can see shown in the image. Now, unfortunately, uh in order to maintain  wireless service, a temporary cell tower is   currently located in that public plaza. Um and  this was taken before uh planning commission on   June 16th, 2022. It required its own cup um for  and it required three exceptions. Placement in   a discouraged location, which again is typically  a location that has residential uses associated   with it. It also increased exceeded the maximum  height limitations for wireless poles as well   as a reduction in setbacks and obviously  in ter to maintain that wireless service   u the original site uh the industrial site before  this project started construction had a wireless   facility on top of it for T-Mobile. So because  that came down they put this temporary one up   in its place and now they want to replace that  temporary facility the temporary pool with a new   permanent one. This would be a its own cup  which is before you tonight. Um it'll be a   rooftop mounted facility. It'll be located above  the elevator shafts on the top of the building.  

So it will be a stealth facility. It won't be  visible from public view. And it also does require   an exception. As I stated, this isn't a specific  plan. And this is a mixeduse development with 232   apartment units and as such requires an exception  um because it's located next to residential. Uh it should be noted that that  temporary wireless facility   um did have specific conditions of approval.  Uh specifically that it needed to be removed   within 30 months of the facility's permit  approval date or prior to the issuance of   certificate of occupancy for 127 Pomona mixuse  development. uh whichever occurs first. Um we   have been notified that the development  is anticipating temporary certificate of   occupancy within the next couple of months. So  they're getting pretty close to being finished. And so the construction of the new wireless  facility um is designed to set like I said as   a stealth facility. It'll be located on the roof  of the new sevenstory mixeduse building. Covers   about 1,200 square ft in total. Um out of that  1,200 it's going to be split into two separate   sections. It'll be a northern section on the roof  for one elevator and a southern section of roof   for the other elevator as shown in the image.  Also, you can see the public plaza that will   be constructed once the temporary pole is removed  um will become a nice amenity for both the public   and the residents as a as an amenity. Now, those  rooftop facilities uh will be accessible via an   exterior ladder. So once you gain restricted if  you got restrict restricted access to the roof   it would have a separate ladder on the outside of  that which would lead to a door that would also be   locked to actually access those facilities.  The facility would provide 12 antennas,   12 remote units, four equipment cabinets and  one GPS antenna with related electrical parts.   The equipment would be mounted um on a steel frame  and then it would be with specific neoprene or  

rubber mounts that it would be mounted onto uh  along with flexible connectors and this would   help reduce the equipment noise that it generates.  Here we can see that proposed floor plan. So again   this is split up uh across the building on the  north and south section. On the lefth hand side   you have the equipment area again accessed via  a ladder to the enclosure with a locked door.   The equipment area would typically holds all  the mechanical equipment. And then you have   section A and B which faces northeast and  northwest. Um that would hold the antennas   and the remote radio units. The southern  section is at the southern portion of the   building and that is the final set  of antennas and remote radio units. Now each enclosure will be screened with a  fiberglass reinforced panels. This allows the   wireless equipment to function properly. And as  shown in the image, each enclosure will be built   at top the existing elevator with a parapit  wall. Now, a small portion of that parapit,   approximately 30 in, will be replaced with the  standard stucco and building material with this   fiberglass reinforced panels. Um, and we'll  extend the structure an additional 4 1/2 ft.   And this would create a total of a seven foot  screen wall which would perfectly encapsulas   completely screening it from public view again.  So it would be a completely stealth facility   um and would look as a seamless transition from  the elevator to the top as one as part of the   building. Uh the exterior of these fiberglass  reinforced panels will utilize the same color   and material used on the elevator facads. Um,  we have confirmed with the developer that that   is a La Habra Stuckco. It's going to be a trowel  finished and it is in a rustic taupe color. Um,   and again using that same material just provides a  seamless transition. So even if you could view it,   which we'll see here in a couple of slides,  it'll just look like part of the building. Um,  

the total height again is increasing from  four an additional 4 and 1/2 ft to 93 feet.   Um, now it should be noted that the increased  height is allowed under the specific plan.   The specific plan allows an additional 18  feet from the rooftop. This would put it   at 106 ft total and the total um proposed is  only 93 feet. So well below the requirement as I said uh the whole um facility will  not be visible from public view. So,   uh, the applicant has provided line of sight,  uh, drawings showing the public view. So,   just kind of moving around the building, this  is the west location. So, you see Evergreen,   um, to the north here and Pomona Avenue to the  south. You will not be able to see um, even the   top of the enclosure um, from the ground. And  and that continues as we move all the way around   the building. On the east elevation is the same  thing. Um, the north elevation, same thing. and   as well as the south elevation. Even if you were  on the outside of the Chevron station along Myrtle   Avenue, you still wouldn't be able to see it. So,  um the stealth facility is is going to work great. Now to show compliance with RF emissions, um  the applicant has provided a radio frequency   and electromagnetic energy compliance report and  eventually it summarizes that the design will   ensure that no one would be walking in front  of this. Um so they would not be affected by   any sort of RF emissions that would be above what  the FCC allows for the general public. And again,   there's no there's no public access up there  um to even to get to the roof and and even if   you could or or break in there, there would be  a locked door. Um it should also be noted that   there's no public amenities on the roof. There's  no rooftop decks or pools or anything of the sort.  

Um and proper signage will be placed on the roof  um in accordance with the FCC and the FAA as well.   In addition, um the applicant is provided the  justification report for the location as well as   a noise study. The noise story was submitted by  the applicant was prepared by MD Acoustics LLC.   It also confirms that the design will limit the  amount of noise produced from the equipment levels   uh that would meet or exceed the required noise  standards um from the city. Um there's certain   decel levels that has to be under. Um, this is  partly the design as well as like I said, the   neoprene mounts or rubber mounts to help reduce  vibration and noise caused um by the equipment. And again, as I stated, although it's  placed in a discouraged location,   uh discouraged locations often include residential  uses and this includes the specific plan uh for   the subject site. However, an exception can  be requested if the proposed location fills a   significant gap in coverage. um for wireless  and as you can see in the proposed image   um on the left hand side you have uh coverage  without that wireless facility. You can see   the dark green areas show lack of coverage in  that area and uh on the right hand side with   the facility um in place you can see the amount of  coverage that it would provide. So it is needed. Um additionally this location is best suited  um it is higher than most buildings. So again   at at the new uh height at 93 ft. um it won't be  even with that height that won't be visible from   public view especially with its enclosure stealth  design um so this is the best suited location and   although alternative sites in the area do  exist each would present its own challenges   u most of the other buildings are  much lower which would provide more   RF emissions to nearby residential of all  the development that's occurring down there   um and it would also clearly be more visible  because the buildings are much lower and it   also would provide issues with line of sight  for the emissions and how the cell towers

The DRC did conduct an advisory review on June  18th, 2025. Uh courtesy notice was sent out prior   to the DRC meeting. There was no written testimony  provided, but verbal testimony testimony was   provided by one resident. Um he was in support,  but he questioned if there would be a permanent   backup generator. Um, one is not proposed as a  permanent backup generator, but there is a hookup   um near the mechanical equipment for the uh  development to one that could be uh plugged   into. Um, in addition, the DRC discussed the  project and asked the applicant questions   uh if the facility was proposed for more than  one provider. Um, the applicant indicated that   uh one is not currently proposed. It's just for  T-Mobile currently. Um it could be modified in   the future but uh structural modification  would be required because this design is   very specific. Um additional uh questions  were asked by the DRC specifically regards   to equipment installation. Specifically, there  was some concerns with penetrations into the   building. Um it was noted that all the mechanical  equipment or the wiring that's provided to it   um would run through the elevator shafts or along  conduits on the roof. Um but they did recommend   approval with an added condition that any and all  penetrations made into the building needed to be   firecocked and accessible for inspection  to maintain safety and fire protection. Now apart from standard conditions  of approval for wireless facilities,   uh staff has highlighted some of the pertinent  and specific conditions. Uh specifically um the   wireless facility is limited to the equipment  as it's proposed um with the 12 antennas uh   the 12 remote units, equipment cabinets and  the GPS antenna. Um specifically again the   design all the antenna components and wireless  accessory equipment shall be concealed within   the rooftop enclosure and treated with exterior  coatings of a color and texture to visually blend   with the building. Noise um at all times it h  it can shall not exceed the noise limitations  

um per the Monrovia municipal code. It does have  to comply with all regulatory and operational   standards of the FCC. In addition, all required  notices and signs shall be posted on site as   required by the FCSC and the California Public  Utilities Commission. And if a noise complaint   um does arise um and is verified by the police,  code enforcement, other city department,   the city may hire a consultant to study, examine,  and evaluate that noise complaint and have the   permittee pay for that consultant. and that  would be reviewed and approved by DRC and they   could make modifications to or additional  conditions to reduce the noise impact. So that does conclude my presentation. Um  staff and the development review committee   recommend approval of both the CUP and the  exception with conditions. Um I myself as   well as the applicant are here if you  have any questions. Thank you. Thank   you. Any questions from the board? I have  questions. You have questions. Go ahead. Number one, I think I take a little exception  with it being stealth at 93 feet. I don't think   that that's stealth and that building is already  so tall. But beyond that, just a reminder that   now's the time for questions and we should I'm  asking I'm going to ask staff. Um, did did any   of this come in with the propo when the when the  whole project was proposed? Like is this the only   place this could have gone? It couldn't be put  anywhere else. It it's chosen as the best suited   location again. Did you know about this ahead of  time when it was being when when the project came   to us as in development stage? This was an after  the fact application. It is an after the fact. It  

is. Yes. Okay. Um, number two, did the people in  the MOA, did you get any comments from any of were   they notified? Yes, we sent out a 300 foot mailing  radius and a newspaper notice. And again, same   uh courtesy notice and a postcard during DRC.  Uh, for planning commission, we've received no   verbal written testimony up to this point  that I'm aware of. And does the MODA have   how are they getting their telecommunications?  All these projects that are being built there,   this is as far as I can remember the first time  we've had this come to us. Are they do they not   have telecommunication service? Well, again,  the the temporary pole that's currently in the   public plaza of 127 Pomona is providing wireless  service to everybody to everyone in the area. Okay. Okay. And so when they built, they knew  that this was going to suffice for them as   well. I'm just trying to understand. Yeah,  the temporary pool is temporary as the name   I understand that and this facility will replace  that as a permanent. No, I understand that. But   it was always to accommodate every all the other  um projects that are being developed down there.   It will provide service to all the  other residences in station square   and and beyond as far as the the maps show  on how far the signal range would provide. If I might add, the the coverage maps that are  in one of the um attachments Yeah. are over a   significant portion of Monroia. No, I I saw I  saw that. I've been just but just up until I'm   just trying to understand that this was this  was what was going to take care of everybody  

down there. We're not going to have this on all  of the uh buildings. No. No pay. It should be   this is just a T-Mobile provider that you know  other providers have other wireless towers and   services such as Verizon. Now, will they be  able to plug onto the T-Mobile like others   have done when they kind of cooperate and and  share? Currently, this is only for T-Mobile,   but again, it could be modified in the  future, but as the applicant has indicated,   structural modification would have to be applied  to this design to accommodate another provider. Okay, I have to think about that. over whoever wants to go next. Sure, I'll go. Um,  so a couple questions uh about one about the RF   exposure and one about the noise study. For the RF  exposure, um, I just want to make sure I have this   right. Um, it sounds like there is no place that  you can stand on the roof that has any measurable   exposure because all of the energy is radiated  outward and you can't stand anywhere on the   roof and uh be above any of the FCC ARF exposure  limits. Is that correct? Yes. If you were on some   sort of 93 foot tall lift standing right in front  of the antenna, that's where you would encounter   this 400%. Uh depending on how far away if you  are standing right next to it, okay. Uh thanks.   I just wanted to make sure I had that understood.  Um as far as the noise is concerned um if I read   this correctly I think um anywhere interior of  the of the building the highest noise after the  

mitigation measures would be like 20some dB. Yeah.  A small a small contribution. Is that correct? 21.   21. Um but how about like at the nearest residence  um exterior what is the highest level of noise?   So the closest uh would be the seventh floor  balconies um at about 45 which would be under the   50 threshold for the city's noise ordinance. Okay.  I wanted to make sure that that was at the those   uh top level uh balcony residences. Okay. Um,  oh, and then one question. You mentioned access   ladders there. There aren't ladders that are  visible like on the outside of the building,   right? You're talking about something that is  interior. It's an exterior ladder on the outside   of the top of the elevator shaft that would lead  to the enclosure itself that has a door. I see.   Okay. So, um, similar visibility to what you were  showing. We basically can't see that from the   ground. Not unless you were standing on the roof.  Okay, great. That's all my questions. Thanks,   Commissioner Austin. Thank you. Thank you, Austin.  Good report. A couple questions. I'll try to   um dovetail on that. This is probably more  to the consultant. So, when he comes up,   it's regarding the the radio uh frequency waves  at the roof, which there seems to be some concern,   but I'll ask that a question. Why two? Do they  both go in different directions? Is that is   that the the the premise on that? Section A  and B, which is the northern section on the   north side facing Evergreen Avenue and facing the  freeway, has two that face northeast, northwest,   and the southern portion uh would be section C,  which faces they go in distinct. Yeah. To get   ample coverage. Sure. And regarding access to  the roof, because you wouldn't probably access  

it through the elevator shaft, does it go through  an exit stairwell? I would have to the roof. Then   the followup to this would be those cannot  be locked because if those are fire exits,   you can't lock those. And thirdly to this,  are there mechanical units for the individual   apartments on the roof? If the the air conditioner  repair person or the HVAC person, could they be   exposed to what's stating on the executive summary  400% greater RA RF factors without that being   deenergized? So that they would be notified prior  to especially with the signage and FCC compliance   standards that would be in place. Um so they  should be notified per the recommendations in   the report. Um should so yeah and that would  be part of the occupational exposure. Okay. As   as indicated in the report. Okay. Got got it.  Well, this is actually what I was getting at.   Is it even is it possible to stand in a place  and get 400% of the RF exposure limit? Please,   please repeat that. I'm sorry. Is it possible to  stand in a place and get that 400% RF exposure?   I would still probably defer to the applicant, but  I would I would say no. that because the equipment   is above the elevator shaft, even if you were  got to the roof and you were standing there, it's   still going to be above you because the enclosure  is above the elevator shaft by 9 to 10 feet. Okay. Austin, there's no public access other than  maintenance if I'm understanding through   your report. Is that correct? Yes. So, anybody  that's up there is up there for a maintenance   purpose and they're well aware of what's up  there. Correct. No public is going to be up   there for any purpose. Thank you. Prior to the  temp, sorry loud. Prior to the temporary tower,  

did we have another tower there before the  construction? Yeah. So, the initial industrial   site before 127 Pomodo started construction had  this permanent rooftop on top of the building.   because of the development of 127 that was removed  and they put in a temporary tower to replace it   until this meeting tonight to propose a new per  and that was the T-Mobile one. Yes. Okay. So,   this is basically a replacement of what was  there before at a higher level away kind away   from the the areas around it. Okay. Thank you so  much. I one last question if I may. Regarding the   residence below, has there been a floor plan  or a thought process? Because by if it's 400%   at the roof and it's saying 23% at the ground,  what's it between there and most specifically the   um right below the units below and do we know if  those are affordable units being placed there?   So the affordable units to work our way backwards  the affordable affordable units are be dispersed   randomly throughout the entire development. So it  wouldn't be any one particular unit type directly   below. Um again directly below would be the  elevator shafts. Um but my understanding is   that the the waves would go straight out from the  antennas rather than in some sort of downward cone   shape. But again I would defer on the specifics  of that to the applicant. I'll ask again. Thanks. Any other questions before we uh Thank you. Um  question. So before we go into the public hearing,   there were questions for the consultants  to answer. Will we do that after the public   hearing just so I'm clear? Or are the questions  answered now by consultant? You can ask the uh  

applicant any questions. Um, and then after the  uh public hearing closed, you can deliberate and   ask staff some further questions. Okay. So,  I know there were some questions that folks   asked and said the consultant would be able to  answer them. So, can the consultant come up and   respond? You'll want to open the public  hearing and invite the applicant up and   um he can answer any questions that you have.  Okay, perfect. So, let's open the public hearing   um right now. Um so, this is the time and  place for public input regarding this item.   Um when you come up to speak, please state uh  your name for the record. And so the testimony   is in the following order. The applicant, then  persons in favor, then persons with concerns,   and then we'll do applicant response and  rebuttal. So is the applicant present. Thank you. Please state your name for Good  evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Damen   Pardo with Coastal Business Group representing  T-Mobile. Thank you staff for the report and   answering majority of those questions. Um I'll  start with answering some of the radio frequency   emission questions that I've written down and we  can add on to that if I happen to miss anything.   Um so one of the questions was is it possible to  get 400% uh of exposure by standing on the roof?   Um, unless you had authorized access to T-Mobile's  equipment and somehow got under the antennas and   under the mounts and to the front side, I don't  see a way that it' be possible for anybody,   maintenance or public, to gain access directly  in front of those antennas. Um, so if if somebody   somehow did, it would be unauthorized. We'd have  locks as he mentioned. Um, so as far as T-Mobile   could prevent that access, we're going to do that.  Um, as part of our FCC standards and guidelines   that T-Mobile has to meet, there will be signage  throughout the area once you're up into that  

uh door on top of the elevator shaft. There'll be  signage on the outside of that door saying access   restricted or have different notices depending  on the proximity you are to those antennas. Um,   typically behind the antennas you're relatively  safe, maybe unless you're an inch in the back   of it. Um, but again, signage will be there.  Potential striping barriers as needed. Um,   at the roof level, as Mr. Arnold had mentioned,  these antennas are propagating outwards away from   the building. Um, everything's pointing away from  the building. Each of those, uh, antenna locations   are on the outer edge of the building. Um, that's  both just from a propagation standpoint. Um,   we like to be on the edge of the building so that  it's not interfering or bouncing off the building,   but from an RF uh, perspective as well, it helps  limit that potential um, exposure to to the RF.   Um, the uh, residential units below that does  get considered in the the EM report that is   provided as well. Um, it came back as passing.  There's no concern with those balconies uh,   below. um they'd be all operatable uh within FCC  guidelines. Um to answer another question here   um about the telecommunication service um  just to kind of elaborate on that. Yes,   this is a T-Mobile facility only. It'll  help T-Mobile customers and some E91 E911   uh coverage as needed. Um it's a it's a huge gap  to be filled both across the highway there and on   the other side for the residential units. Um, and  we would not, T-Mobile would have no opposition to   other carriers being on that rooftop. That would  of course be up to the developer and establishing   that relationship and agreement with them. But  in T-Mobile's uh perspective, we colllocate, as   we would call it, with carriers all the time. It's  not an issue for us. We work with them often. Um,  

we have no concern with that from our end. Um,  otherwise, appreciate staff's report on this.   I'm here for any other questions that might  come up or follow-up questions to my answers. Any questions? Any follow-up questions? Well,  well, thank you for for answering those some   of those questions. Concern on the questions  regarding the executive summary on on table one.   It says access restrictions. It says uncontrolled.  Do I make the assumption that there's no controls?   on this document that's in front of  us. It would be in the table one if   Austin could share that with you. Um likewise  all the reference in the in the consultants   report says to occupational does that  mean it's for like like a business or   the occupational of repair because this is a  residential structure and to follow that are   the limits for residential use or areas  higher or lower than occupational use. It's uh page page 57 in our staff report. Yeah, I I will say while he's looking  for that specific section, uh generally,   yes, there are higher restrictions on  residential or general public access   uh than there are occupational um but because  this rooftop is not intended for general public,   we ran it on the occupational level, but it does  consider the uh residential locations below. I'm   sorry. This section again you were referring to  was I was referring to the executive summary. Um   in our report it's page 57, but it's table one um  where it kind of outline some of the RF exposures  

when it talks about 400% on the roof and 23% but  it says access restrictions uncontrolled. And I'm   I'm confused because you're saying to us and then  the consultant said that those are controlled. Um,   I would honestly have to get back. Yeah, I would  honestly have to get back on that. I don't want   to say anything that is that is incorrect. Um,  this could be a typo. I'm not sure. From our   perspective, T-Mobile will be operating in within  FCC guidelines. Um, the access to that part of   the building, uh, to our knowledge would not be  open to the public. Our access to our antenna   facility would be access for T-Mobile only or  if the building requested access to that, we   could provide that access to them. Um, within our  agreement with Adept, the developer, uh, we could   also work with them through those. If they had  maintenance on that area of the building, we could   work with them to either shut down or turn down  specific sections or the the full site entirely.   One last question, why have you um if further  development in the area takes place and it's   potentially taller than the 93 ft and it's  near the 116 I think it was cited by Austin,   but does that affect your capability to run the  system and how does it affect the new neighbors   of the RF going out? Yeah. Um, so in short,  anything in front of the antennas that is not   FRP, so metal, steel, wood, whatever it may be,  trees, buildings, yes, it can block RF emissions,   our signal or service. Uh, to the north of  the site, I believe it's just the roadway,  

highway. So, we're good. Don't imagine that. to  the south. Uh yeah, if there was a building built   directly to the south, it could potentially block  some of the propagation going south, it wouldn't   completely block it because again, you have a  road, so you have some distance to create. Um, and   that's all typical. It happens and it it might be  a slight degradation of the service, but I don't   think it'd be too impacting based on this design.  Is there any safety concerns the people would   like potential living that way south of it? Pretty  close. Yeah. Yeah. that that street is pretty wide   from what I call it. It wouldn't need to be close.  Okay. Thank you. And uh just a followup for me um   if that's okay. The uh I think Commissioner Austin  kind of maybe partially rephrased my question   better than I originally did. Um, I was asking  about the 400%, but I think a better question   would be what is the exposure level at the closest  area that would be accessible by someone on the   roof, like say another maintenance person or  something, not getting into your locked enclosure,   but just someone on the roof. What would that  level be? I would have to take a look at the   report again to get some idea. Yeah, let me see.  take a quick look. And the other thing that I I   didn't see clearly and I might have just missed it  is what would the RF exposure be if you were on,   you know, say one of those seven floor balconies.  Uh cuz you give numbers for being on the roof or   being in front of the antenna at roof level and  then you also give numbers for the ground. But   I didn't see anything clearly about um the top  floor residences. Um, so question number one,   if there's any areas, I'm looking at the map here.  This is page 13 of the report. Um, so typically if  

there was um, so how do I explain this? So I'm  looking at the top of the elevator shaft. Uh,   the antennas are above. Typically, if there  was concern with what I would say is on the   lower level roof next to the elevator shaft, there  would be a call for either striping or barriers,   which is not shown on this exhibit. So, from  what I'm seeing here on initial review right now,   uh I don't see that there's a space somebody can  go to without accessing the top of that penthouse,   um that they'd be exposed above FCC guidelines.  Um, so, so what you're saying is I if the RF   exposure uh percentage was above a certain level,  then there would be a call for something like   striping to be explicitly on the roof so that  someone walking around up there would know, oh,   I should be paying attention while I'm putting my  feet here. Correct. Is that what you're saying?   It' be a combination of striping or a barrier,  which is usually kind of like a cone with the   plastic chain, uh, and signage. Okay. It usually  comes with both signage and some sort of barrier.   Correct. Okay. So, we can infer that those limits  were not violated. Correct. Because those were   not here. Okay. And any other information about  those top level residences? Balcony. I probably   have to get further into this and probably  consult with the people who did this report.   But what I do know is this report passed and  the balconies passed within that under within   FCC regulations. Okay. You know, I think  that would just be nice information to have   uh for the residents who are the future residents  of those residences. Yeah, that that's something   I can I can provide as well. Um I'm not the RF  engineer and it's a little bit out of my typical   wheelhouse. I try to know enough. Um but we can  definitely get back with more information on that.

I have a quick question while you're still  there. anybody that's that's up on that rooftop,   any type of maintenance, they're 100%  aware of the concerns with that tower.   Uh does that make sense what I'm saying? Yes.  I don't want to speak for anybody's awareness,   but there will be sign. Yeah, there will be  signages uh that are bright, yellow, red,   green. Right. But they touched on signs.  I guess my point being anybody that's up   there for a specific reason related to  those antennas, they're well aware. Oh,   yes. They're 100% aware GC's working on T-Mobile  equipment. Yeah, they're well aware of safety.   They have safety protocols. They shut down the  antennas. They do all of that. Correct. Thank you. Any more questions for the applicant?  No. Thank you. Thank you. So, now we're   going to move to persons in favor. Do we have  anyone in favor? No. Persons with concerns? No. Okay. And I think we covered the applicant  response rebuttal piece of it. There's no response   or rebuttal. Okay. Perfect. Uh so the public  hearing is now closed. Okay. Uh so commissioners,   you're now able to discuss and debate  this item. So whoever wants to go first,   can I just I'm sorry. Can I make a point  of clarification regarding this item? Um,   this particular property has provided uh, cellular  service since 2002 or 2003. And a very similar   um, antenna facility was on the rooftop of  the um, industrial building that was here,  

which was much lower than than this one. Um and we  had the same concerns about these radio frequency   signals when the temporary power pull temporary  um pole was placed in the in the plaza. We were   concerned about our inspectors walking through  the fifth level of that building being exposed   to those radio frequency signals. So we had about  a two-hour training uh with Dr. Jonathan Kramer.   who's an expert on on radio frequency signals  and wireless facilities and he explained to   us that these radio frequency signals beam out  into a straight line. Uh they do not go up or   down or you know they they just go out into  a straight line and the further you are away   from those radio frequency signals the the less  the risk to your health is. Um so these these   uh this facility that's proposed um tonight  is very similar to what we had in 2002 2003   when it was installed on that that warehouse  building except it's up much much higher uh   much taller um than the um than the previous one  and they also beam out into a straight line across   um and uh the risk as I said as you get further  away I mean you have to cross the freeway And then   there's residential areas north of the freeway  that um we're not going to see a 92 tall foot   tall building um across the freeway. So um given  that um given that um this um location has is uh   filling in a significant gap and this operation  has been um in place since 2002. uh staff staff   felt very comfortable that this um would have very  low risk um and including uh anybody working on   the rooftop there in that area in the white there  if they're working uh to repair some mechanical  

equipment on the roof. They're still well below  that actual antenna which is up much taller on   top of that on top of that elevator shaft. So they  will not they won't be in that straight line that   beam that that radiates out. So, I just thought  I'd just clarify that uh for the commission. I I have a I don't know. I have a question  that I probably should have asked earlier,   but traditionally or typically when you  have these types of uh cell towers going up,   what are some noticing or protections or right  of inquiries you can give residents? It's like   is there something we can build into this to where  it's like you know what if folks living there have   questions? This is kind of this is your obligation  applicant to provide this this type of education   for people. Yes, absolutely chair that we do  have a condition of approval that requires those   types of signs that you're talking about. It's  actually required by federal law to have those   up. Okay. Can you like what do the signs like if  I have a Oh, that's all that stuff there. Okay. Okay. You know, listening to everyone's concerns  here, I'm thinking like if I lived there,   I may have questions. Um, am I  safe? Let me go to 10. Hold on. I don't know where it says if you  have questions on information.   the signage plaquearding which would be  page 64 on that. Okay. 64. It's page 10   of the but those those are all up on the roof.  Oh okay. This is an access point or is there   education for the Yes. cuz you were talking  about your as a city staff person staff was  

concerned and someone came like can we say you  know absolutely after lease up you'll have a   training for the people or I I mean I don't if  I could um ask the city attorney maybe if it's   um uh appropriate to place a condition  of approval that any lease agreements   with those tenants have a warning in there that  there is wireless equipment on the rooftop And   what they're what if if any risks there are  and a number to call. And a number to call. Yeah. I think the potential issue with that  is that these conditions would be not with not   applicable to the developer. um but to coastal  business group. So I can look into whether we   can include this condition but I would have  to research it further. Chair chair just as   a discussion point um I think we've approved a  handful of these wireless things over the past   several years. There was um one uh wireless tower  that we approved uh down the street in Huntington.   um by where the overpass with the mural is.  There's we approved one of those. Yes. Uh and   then there was one up on Norbega. Yes. Um in like  a plot of city land that was just a tower. Those   were both just towers mounted on the ground uh  that were going up. Um so they weren't on top   of a residential building like this. That's  right. But we didn't impose anything like   that. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't.  just reminding folks cuz I looked back at our   history to see what uh wireless facilities  we've approved in the recent past and then  

and then of course we had the one where  we approved the temporary poll for this. I think what you were thinking of probably  would have to go back to the developer of   the property that leases these units or  rents these units. they're just renting   space from those folks to put their cell tower  on. My concern was that um sometimes people go   to the roof. Um don't know why. There might  be mechanical reasons, but um it's going to   be the roof's going to be accessed through a  stairwell that the public should have access   to going up and down and the roof shouldn't  be locked. That's against the fire code. Um,   you know, so I don't know if the fire department  had any thought in this or we're getting into   the weeds on that. That was my concern if they  would get up there. And um, as far as my other   concern was is to have that corrected on on the  executive summary in that table saying the area   is uncontrollable that maybe staff could work with  them and to figure that out if that's an issue. So I'd like to make a few points of  clarification. The first the report   is designed as the maximum possible exposure  limit. So the report when it says unrestricted   or uncontrolled access is providing a guide  of this is the worst case scenario possible   not that that's what is being proposed. So the  report is showing the worst possible case. Um,   I also would like to direct you to both uh page  12 and 13 of that report. Um, specifically there   are no barrier or chains that are required to  section off specific areas of the roof. Um,   it requires zero feet. There are different levels  if you look in there that have different levels  

of signs all colorcoded indicating you have  no exposure, some exposure, lethal exposure,   right? They have different levels. Um, even  at the door after you climb the ladder on the   exterior of the elevator, it indicates a blue  sign indicating if you go beyond this point,   you may have some risk of exposure at lower  levels. It is, and as John pointed out,   it's not until if you crawled under and  actually stood directly in front, you know,   a couple of inches away from these would you have  lethal amounts. according to this report. Again,   I would defer some of the specifics to the  designer of the report or or the applicant,   but that is what the report shows as a worst case  scenario possible. So, to quell any concerns,   if you were on the roof or gained access to the  roof, you wouldn't have any sort of lethal amounts   of exposures according to this report. And and  I think it's pretty clear that if it's on top of   the uh elevator shaft and it's line line of  sight for the for exposure, I don't see how   you can have exposure in there. I think you guys  have mentioned that again and again. I think the   idea of education for the thing and putting part  of the lease is a good idea. And I would imagine   that's pretty easy to do because the developer  signing a lease for them to use the space and   they're the ones that are going to have given  them the permission and sign the lease. So that   could be part of their lease to make that happen  and that could be a condition that easily we can   put on there. Of course, you know, just look at  that. But I'm just saying from my experience.   I've seen some of these things in the past on  some of our leases on commercial buildings. Any other discussion? So here's my Oh, go  ahead. I'm sorry. But at this point, any kind  

of notification would be from the person that  leases that building. Is that is that accurate   from the developer? In other words, developer,  whoever's doing the leasing, whoever um end result   is going to be leasing the units, any education,  that's going to be up to those folks to do that.   Yeah, I believe city attorney is saying that um  we can't imposeing a condition like this on the   developer because the developer is the landlord.  That's what Okay. So, it' be up to him to do any   take any action on it. And what I've seen in  the past, and this is we're going to find out,   is that usually the landlords that have  these kind of towers on on their buildings,   which I've managed some and have handled some in  the past, they want those in their leases because   it helps protect them for potential losses in  the future. So, they probably would want that   in there because it's it's every every tenant's  going to ask about that. So, I don't know if we   can make that as a condition or not, but it seems  pretty straightforward because the lease has been   signed with that developer or the whoever owns  the building. Yeah. And one suggestion if like   to save us time is so this is from the applicant,  right? So we it could be and tell me if I'm wrong,   we can say that the applicant shall cause landlord  to include in leases whatever it is we're looking   for. So then you bypass. So then the onus is on  the applicant to do it. That would be a mandate   by the city though at that point, right? I  I don't know. However, we can build it into   this to where it's an applicant's duty, right? So,  an applicant shall cause and then we tell. Yeah,  

I don't think we can here. I think this cup  is with T-Mobile and not with the landlord   and therefore we can't have a requirement that  applies to the landlord through the cup. So,   we can't say T-Mobile shall cause landlord to  do X as part of this conditional use permit.   Well, then you could, but the landlord has no  obligation, right? Like there's the landlord's   not a party to the cup. And therefore, even if you  have that language, there's no binding requirement   that applies to the landlord. Yeah. But then what  it does is it requires the applicant then to make   it happen or they can't do whatever it is they're  asking to do because then they'll be in violation   of the conditions. So it's just a backdoor way.  And again, I don't see a landlord saying no to   this, right? They I I think this is a pretty  easy fix. Yeah. I don't think we can include   that condition in the C. Okay. So then how does  that work if that's something we want to include   and you need to look into it? So we can't do  we approve a motion subject to because No,   I'm saying that I have thought more about it and  we cannot include this condition that would apply   to the landlord. The conditions need to apply to  T-Mobile who is the applicant in this situation.   Okay. And I think actually thinking about it now,  um I don't think we need that condition. And the   reason being is that this is more of the tenant  knowing of what's up there so they feel better   about the situation. Correct. And any landlord is  going to have to address it anyways. If tenants   keep bringing that as an issue, they're going to  be aware of the towers because there's signs all   over the place. But if they have questions, it's  become more of an issue. They're going to create  

their own plans in place anyways outside of the  cup. Okay. So, I'm looking back at it now. I   think that's I don't think that's something  that we need to even address as part of the   cup given the fact that it's it's two different  two different entities we're dealing with. Um,   okay. That's my personal feeling now thinking  about that everything we just mentioned even after   what she said, the comment she made. Okay. Cuz  we're not it's not about the safety and security.   It doesn't affect the safety and security of the  tenant. It's more making them feel better if they   have questions. That that was my concern was like  also when you guys were all raising it too was so   the L you know how do we make sure tenants have  a right to ask questions right I know we're li   we're limited on what you can and can't do for  cell phone towers like I you know it's there's   things you can and can't consider but how do we  how do we then how do we put the how do we build   the education piece in there? So maybe that's my  question for you. How can we word it then? If we   can't say landlord has to do it, how do you  word it? at least uh personally understanding   more about uh the analysis and the assumptions  and the signage that resulted um has assuaged my   concerns and you know I don't know that it's  really necessary or any different than other   locations around other cell towers. Well, maybe  at another time I would love to see when you have   a situation like this, how do you back into it?  I'm just curious. I know when you have a contract,   that's how you would do it. You would make someone  else do it. So, I'm just curious for cups. But,   yeah, if everybody's fine with it, we can I'm  fine with it, too. I'm just curious how you   back into it. If this hadn't been an after the  fact, part of the development, you would have   had that as part of the development. Okay. Okay.  But this is an after the fact. So, and that's why  

it's the the difficulty. Okay. And Chair Brown,  at this point, can we get a motion? Go ahead.   Move to move to approve conditional use permit at  CU 2025-00006 and wireless facility exception WT,   excuse me, WTF 2025-001 with conditions as  presented in the staff report. I second. [Music] Commissioner Austin, yes.  Janisk, yes. Rose, yes. Shepler,   yes. Stira, yes. Vashani, yes. Chair Brown, yes. Okay. So, now we're moving on to agenda  item. Oh, thank you everybody, by the way.   lively discussion. Yes, there might be the  disclaimer. I don't know if this goes to city   council the the the appeal. Let me I saw that  part of the motion. I saw that above that where   it says says that but as far as you drop down  the um script motion that's what that's written. I think I'm sorry if I could normal disclaimer,  right? The the normal disclaimer. Just for the   record, sorry, chair and commissioners. Any  um I'm also if you can have grace for me,   too. So, yeah. Yeah. And I'm looking not on  the script. I'm only I'm literally reading   off of the script. I'm sorry. Let me let me  handle that for you. Um uh any action taken   by the planning commission tonight may be  appealed to the city council. Appeals must   be submitted in writing to the city  clerk within uh 10 calendar days. Thank you.

Uh, okay. I'll put a note to add that on here. Okay. Am I Thank you. I'm trying. Really am. Um,  okay. So, now we're moving on to agenda item PH3,   which is an amendment to the Monrovia Municipal  Code to establish local density bonus regulations   and affordable housing agreement requirements in  Title 17 in compliance with state law. Um, pass it   to staff for the report. Uh, good evening, chair  and commissioners. Uh, today we're presenting   draft ordinance number 2025-09, uh, the city's  density bonus ordinance. In this presentation,   um, I'll walk you through why we need this update,  what it does, and how it ensures Monrovia stays   fully aligned with state law while supporting  the development of more affordable housing. So,   as you're aware, uh, the six cycle housing  element, which covers the period of 2021 to 2029,   um, outlines a plan, uh, for or yeah, it outlines  a plan of how Monrovia is going to fulfill the   RENA numbers, which is the regional housing needs  assessment. um which is uh which out outlines the   total number and the number of affordable units  that the city would need to provide by 2029. Um   in this in the housing element there are a series  of programs and one program uh program home um   outlines a series of actions that the city um  intends to intends to uh follow to assist in   uh developing this affordable housing. And  one of the the actions of this program is   updating the city's density bonus ordinance. So  just to walk you through a little bit of what   uh the city has accomplished um in light of this  program um in 2022 we started with the reduction   of the minimum unit size for uh multifamily  units. Then in 2024 we both removed the cup  

requirement for multi multifamily housing as  well as established multifamily objective design   standards. Um and then this year we adopted  an ADU ordinance. Um and then most recently   in June we adopted an inclusionary housing um  ordinance which requires affordable units in   certain developments. So we are well on our way  uh to fulfilling that program and one of the last   pieces is the density bonus uh ordinance update.  So uh the proposed ordinance uh aims to codify   uh state law and also formalizes standards that  already are applied um in practice and then would   also promote uh the development of affordable  housing. The ordinance consolidates all density   bonus regulations into one uh chapter of the  municipal code. It compiles uh key definitions,   eligibility thresholds, uh application procedures  and review timelines. And then it integrates   uh other requirements that provide for affordable  housing such as inclusionary housing um and com   and and condenses any repetitive uh instances  into one one location within our municipal code.   So, just to give you or just to kind of backtrack  and say what is density bonus? Um, it is a state   program that incentivizes on-site affordable  and special needs housing by granting additional   uh units uh concessions or incentives or waiverss  or reductions of development standards in   exchange for dedicating a percentage of units as  affordable either in the very low, low or moderate   uh income level. You can see here a generalized  diagram of what density bonus looks like. Um you   can see the fully market rate uh development at  the top and then the the density bonus with the   additional units um and the additional height  with the the concession that would be allowed.  

Uh the affordable units are kind of sprinkled  throughout the entire development. Um so this is   what density bonus could look like. Um, as we move  through this presentation, um, I want to identify   some key terms that you'll hear over and over.  Um, the first one is base density. Uh, this is   the maximum number of dwelling units that would  be allowed under the current zoning ordinance,   specific plan or land use designation. Uh, density  bonus ordinance or units are uh the density   increase over the maximum allowed base density  uh based off of the number of uh affordable   units provided. Uh affordable units are the units  subject to affordability restrictions established   in state law as well as in the inclusionary  housing chapter. Uh you'll sometimes see this   referred to as income restricted units in this uh  presentation. And lastly, gross total units is the   total sum of all units in the project. That would  be the base density plus the density bonus units.   Uh one thing to keep in mind as we move forward is  that the state requires that we round up when you   have a calculation that results in a fractional  uh unit. So this would apply to when you calculate   the number of base uh units base density units uh  density bonus units and the affordable units. You   would always round up. So density bonus applies to  projects that have a minimum of five uh dwelling   units. They could be either for sale or for  rental. um they the the applicant would re would   receive additional dent or units uh after setting  aside a certain percentage as affordable. This   table here identifies the minimum requirements  and the maximum requirements and the associated   uh density bonus that you would get um with  each income category. Uh you can see that each   income category very low, low and moderate  allows for a maximum density bonus of 50%.

The ordinance also codifies other  um opportunities for bonus bonuses   um that the state offers. Uh these are  outlined here. Um and they establish the   minimum thresholds as well as the bonus  that you would receive um after providing   those minimums. Um while the city hasn't uh had  many opportunities to effectuate any of these   um we wanted to make sure that they were in our  code so we could uh provide or accommodate for   the of these proposals in the future. So just to  be clear that's saying could you go back to that?   That's saying like for the disabled veterans  line, if you have 10% very low income units   that are dedicated to disabled veterans,  then you could get a 20%. Okay. Thank you. So in exchange for providing uh the affordable  units um and and to offset the developers   um cost to or to provide for these units uh  the state offers concessions or incentives,   waiverss and parking reductions. Uh concessions or  incentives are reductions in development standards   such as height setbacks, F and open space.  Uh these requests must result in identifi   identifiable cost reductions uh to produce the  affordable housing. Uh the number of concessions   allowed does depend on the percentage and income  level of the affordable units. For waiverss,   uh the waiver includes either a full full  or partial um reduction in a development   standard. The request would have to show  that the the standard physically prevents   the project from being built at the permitted  density. Uh there is no limit to the number of   uh waiverss that can be requested. Uh and the  last um in allowance or assistance is parking   reductions. This applies to all uh density  bonus projects. Um they would be able to  

utilize a lower parking ratio based off of the  number of bedrooms. Um, this is lower than the   city's current requirement of two space  or a minimum of two spaces per unit. So,   allows them to spend or develop more or less  of the building on parking um to kind of offset   the development of these additional units. Um,  one other thing I want to mention is that when   a project is within a half mile of a major  transit stop such as the station square, uh,   no parking is actually required. They can provide  it, but it's not required. Um and then in addition   to these uh statemandated uh reductions, uh the  applicant can apply for additional reductions um   through either a concession or a waiver. So sorry,  I just have a one more clarification question on   that last one. And number one there with the  concessions you say there it must result in   identifiable cost reductions. Isn't it also of  identifiable and necessary cost reduction? Don't   they have to prove that they're necessary to make  the project economically feasible? Correct. They   do need to uh submit supportive documentation to  show that the reduction of that standard um would   result in like financial benefits to make that  project affordable and built. Okay. Thank you. So after reviewing that evidence that the  applicant supports, uh the city can um it   well the city is required by the state to approve  the uh the request for the concession incentive   or waiver unless they can make one of these  findings for denial. Um it is on the city to   substantiate any reason why they would uh deny  one of these requests. Um and the state outlines   uh three or four different uh findings that are  applicable to concessions or waiverss. Um first  

for concessions and incentives. Uh the city  would have to show that it does not result in   identifiable and actual cost reductions to  provide for the affordable housing costs.   um we would have to find that it has a spec  specific adverse impact on public health and   safety or on a registered historical resource  or the request would be contrary to state or   federal law. Um waiverss are similar to those of  the last two findings which are the the specific   adverse impact on public health and safety and  the historical resource or if it's contrary to   state or federal law. Uh the one that is  different is what um we would have to show   that the request for the reduction or waiver of a  development standard um would not preclude the de   the construction of the project at the permitted  density and the granted concessions or incentives. So I mentioned earlier that uh the  number of concessions that are allowed   uh does depend on the type the depend on the  income level and uh percentage of of affordable   units. So you can typically uh receive one to four  concessions based off of the percentage that's   um that reserved for um lower or moderate or  very low income. um you can achieve a five you   can achieve five concessions um if you provide  or develop a 100% affordable project which I'll   go into a little bit later how you can do that  and what uh benefits you get from producing a   100% affordable project. So now that we've  gone over the the basics of density bonus,   let's see how it actually applies in real life.  So here um we outline the basic calculation for   density bonus. Um you first need to determine the  base density which is the maximum that would be  

allowed under the current zoning or land use  designation. Then you would determine uh what   percentage you want to set aside um at one income  level. you would find uh the corresponding density   bonus and multiply the density bonus percentage to  the base density to get the total project size um   as well as the percentage of uh income restricted  restricted units. On the right you can see a   uh example with a base density of 25 units. Um  when you set aside 10% as very low you would uh   which is three units you would get a 32.5% density  bonus which would result in a total project of 34   units. Um with this uh allowance or reservation of  units you would be allowed to have two concessions   or incentives. The state also has um outlined uh a  way to get additional uh density bonus above this   uh basic requirement. Um we call it the stacked  density bonus calculation. Uh in order to get this   additional density bonus, you first have to meet  the maximum percentage in one of the income levels   such as 15% very low income would get you a 50%  density bonus. Um then you would uh then you would   uh set aside additional um units for a separate  uh income category either low or moderate. Um and   you can get a density bonus of up to 50% based off  of the percentage that you set aside. So there is   a way that you can get a 100% density bonus.  Um that's when you maximize one of the first   income levels. Um in this scenario on the left  uh it's 15% very low income. Um and then when   you set aside 15 15% to moderate income, then  you'll get a 100% density bonus. On the right,   um is a more as a more specific example of a  of how this would apply. Um and with a 25 unit  

project um with providing very low income um in  both the base calculation and in the additional   stack um calculation uh you could achieve uh a  density bonus of um I'm sorry uh 23 units um which   would result in a project of 48 units. Um seven  of these units would then be uh reserved for very   lowincome households. Um when you're using the  stacked density um option, you do have to make   sure that the percentage of uh incomerestricted  units does not exceed 50% um of the base density.   So in the scenario noted above um with a very low  uh income um units only 25% of the base density   would be reserved. So it would comply with this  threshold of 50%. Uh as I mentioned before uh 100%   affordable projects are something the state um  outlines and there are very specific requirements   um that you have to meet in order to to get the  benefits of um a 100% affordable project. So you   have to have at least 80% of the the units  reserved for lowincome households and then   up to 20 or 20% uh reserved for moderate income  uh households. Then the density bonus that you   would get as a result of pro uh providing the  100% affordable, you would get um density bonus   equal to 80% of the lowincome units. Um you  could also achieve an unlimited density bonus   if you're within a half mile of a major transit  stop or within a very low vehicle travel area. So just to see this um kind of how it plays  out and and and visually um let's say a 50   unit project with the base with a base density  of 50 units. Um after you do the calculations  

for the 80% low income, 20% moderate and the  calculated density bonus um you would result   in a project of 140 units. Uh 28 of these units  are moderate income and 112 units are low income. Good question. Really quickly,   is this an exception to the article  34 rule for 100% affordability? So,   do we have article 34 authority or like how  does that fit into 100% affordability using   density bonuses? I would have to defer to city  attorney or our expert density bonus consultant. I'm not sure what I'm sure into that. Okay. Okay. Another question here. Uh in this  scenario, how many concessions or waiverss   etc could be requested? This would  be the five concessions. Okay. Oh,   because it's the 100%. So, it's five. Thank you. Okay. So, now that I've gone through uh the  density bonus requirements, you may be wondering   how this relates to with the inclusionary  housing ordinance that we just adopted. Um,   so the same income categories exist in both the  inclusionary and density bonus, the very low, low,   and moderate. So, the the units that are required  through inclusionary housing could also be used to   fulfill um density bonus uh requirements for  affordability. Um, it's important to keep in   mind that all uh percentages for affordability  are always based off of the base density. So,   you wouldn't apply that to the density  bonus units. Um, here is a table that shows   uh the basic uh thresholds for inclusionary  housing based off of the project size and tenure  

um which is rental or sale. uh and then the  associated uh reserved incomes uh or units   for reserved incomes. Um and then on the right  hand side then you see what the u associated   density bonuses um with this uh affordability set  aside. Uh it's also important to note that while   the the city's inclusionary housing ordinance does  allow for other means to fulfill um that incl that   inclusionary requirement uh with density bonus  you do need to physically provide for the unit.   So for instance inloo fees would not suffice to  satisfy a density bonus affordability requirement. So in a real world example of how the how you  would apply both inclusionary and density bonus   provisions. Uh let's start with a 54 uh units as  base density. Uh you setting aside 15% for as low   income um which would fulfill the inclusionary  housing requirement. This or which also would   equate to nine units. 9 units out of 54 units  actually equals a uh 16 equals 16% which then   corresponds to a 29% density bonus. So after  doing all that math you would result in 70 units   um which is 54 base units and 16 density  bonus units with nine lowincome units. So the the city has also outlined um the  application process um and it is in alignment   with the state requirements. So the first thing  is that the applicant will submit the density   bonus application um with the first required uh  discretionary or ministerial action. Uh this would   be either in conjunction with like a conditional  use permit variance or as a ministerial action   as a building permit. um we would process  them according to how that other action has  

to be processed. Once we receive the application,  staff reviews for completeness. We have 30 days to   determine whether the application is complete. Um  in this review, we det evaluate the calculations   for density bonus as well as the request for  concession waiverss and determine if we have   enough information uh to process the application.  Um then the city is then the city's uh makes a   decision on this um application for density bonus.  The decision maker uh the decision-making body is   the first uh reviewer of the application. So if  it's a discretionary action, it would be the city   planning commission or the city council  or it could be the director of planning.   um if it's only a building permit application. Um  there are scenarios within our city's code where   um a multif family project could go straight to  a building permit level. Uh it's important to   note that a density bonus application on its own  does not require um a separate uh public hearing   or decision by a uh decision-making body above  the director of planning. Um once we have oh um   once once we get to that decision-making uh level  then we the state requires that we approve uh the   request for the density bonus unless we can make  one of those stringent uh findings for denial that   I went over previously. Um again it's on the city  to substantiate why we would deny one of those   requests. Um, and then once we've approved the  the application, we would work with the applicant   um and our city attorney to prepare an affordable  housing agreement. Um, which would record all the   long-term affordability requirements uh the  requested concessions, incentives, and parking   reductions. Um, and it would be uh in place for  the required affordability lengths of 45 years for  

for sale projects and 55 years for for rental.  So, speaking of affordable housing agreements,   you may remember that inclusionary housing also  requires an affordable housing agreement. Uh, in   order to reduce redundancy and having applicants  submit and record two separate agreements,   uh, the proposed ordinance uh, relocates the the  inclusionary housing affordable housing agreement   um, and the required agreement for density  bonus projects into one new section in our   administration chapter. Um the the requirements  of this agreement um as we established in the   inclusionary housing ordinance are not changed.  Uh the only thing that's being added is the the   request for d for density bonus uh units,  concessions, waiverss, etc. Um the same   requirements for monitoring and enforcement  would apply as well. So, in conclusion, um staff um does recommend uh that the planning  commission adopt uh resolution number 2025-00002   uh which would recommend approval of the ordinance  to the city council and find that the ordinance is   exempt from SQA pursuant to California code of  regulations section 15162A. Um and once if it   is adopted then the ordinance will be presented  to city council. As of right now it is set to be   uh heard on September 16th if if planning  commission recommends adoption. Um we also   received one public comment letter um to the  state uh from the California Housing Defense   Fund. Um they expressed some concerns on how  the ordinance may conflict with state law. Um   but our city attorney um can address any questions  related to that public comment letter that I think  

you all received as well. So that concludes my  presentation. Thank you. Thank you. So do we do   the public comment after we discuss or how where  do so we do questions first questions for staff   and then we open the public testimony portion and  then we hear from the applicants then we hear from   the public. Okay. Perfect. So, questions now.  Okay. I just want clarification for me because   that was a lot and it's a little bit confusing. A  little bit confusing. But the the items um that we   that we talked about um the parking, the waivers,  all of those benefits were set by the state. So,   that's not anything that the city came up with.  No. So we can't change the parking business. No,   we can only make it less less stringent. We  can't make it more more stringent. Okay. So   that was came down from the state and this is  what you have to do. Correct. So in essence,   we really don't have a whole lot of leeway on  this. Correct. The aim was to implement the   state's requirements and not expand upon it at  this point. Okay. I that's what I just wanted   to make sure that that came from the state and it  wasn't anything that that the planning department   came up with. Um who enforces this? Do you have  to re if you were to get an application and they   went through with it because it seems like this  is really a difficult thing to do. Um, do you   have to submit that information then to the state  so that they I mean or is that just something you   do every six months? You let the state know what  you've done anyway? Well, we have to keep track   of the affordable units so we can show the state  how we fulfilled those rea specifically about this  

density bonus. But I think we do specify um well  I'm not sure actually if we specify whether it's   through density bonus or inclusionary housing how  the how those units are created. I just know that   we do tell the state how many of each category we  have produced. Um, is your question more are they   identified as density bonus affordable units  or Yeah. And and are they reported separately   beforehand to the state? Does the state monitor  this? I don't believe so. Okay. But you all   correct. Yeah. Yeah. Staff submits a um an annual  report on all the housing units we and those   denity bonus really I don't think they're called  out separately. They're just included with all the   units. Yeah. Okay. The affordable units is is what  they really want to keep track of. Make sure So,   the state just wants to put this, but they  they're not really monitoring it or anything. No,   they just want to have incentives for developers  to build more. Okay, that was my questions.   Thank you. I have a question. Um Oh, was there  someone else? Sorry, I'll I'll be quick. Um,   this is just so I can understand all these  incentives, waiverss, etc. Are they an exception?   Just in my head, just I'm kind of going through my  little boxes to prevailing wage. Just curiosity. I don't have an answer for that. Okay. I was  just curious. Okay. Okay. We can we can we can   have someone look into that because I'm  going through like analysis in my head,   but that's all do you I can have someone  respond quickly if you want. He's our   density bonus consultant who helped  us prepare this ordinance. Thank you,   Madam Chair. Excuse me. My name is David Blumathon  with Sage Crest Planning um a consultant for the   city. Um the short answer is no. that they  don't get out of any requirements for um or  

can request requirements for um prevailing  wage. So there's those set state laws that   um trigger the need to provide prevailing wages.  They can't request waiverss against those state   laws. It's only the city's development standards.  Okay. I was just that's what I'm thinking because   when we're talking about financial feasibility,  I'm like, okay, they're going to take all this   stuff and then they're Yeah. Yeah. It's just  against the city standards. Okay. Got it. Um, and just to uh expand a little bit  on on what Commissioner Rose asked,   um, we are offering only the concessions and  waiverss that the state mandates in their law,   nothing more, right? Correct. Okay. Um, a few  more questions. So, similar concern to the   one I raised while we were talking about  the inclusionary housing ordinance. Um,   one concern I have is kind of a two-tier  uh, housing development. Like the uh,   higher income units are fancy and nice and the  affordable units are not so nice. Um, I know that   there are there's some language in the ordinance  that says uh some things about at least the   exterior quality of those units, but can you talk  a little bit more about, you know, why we why we   why I shouldn't be concerned that we're going to  have some very nice units and not so nice units.   So, the ordinance requires that the units have the  access to the same amenities um be comparative in   size and location um as the market rate units. Uh  the exterior can't look any different than the the   exterior market rate. Um the only thing that uh we  do allow is that the the interior finishes could   be of a lesser quality than of the market rate  just to make them more financially feasible. Um,  

I mean that that that's something that both the  inclusionary housing um requirements outline as   well as the density bonus uh requirements. Okay,  thanks for talking about that. Um, on on another   topic um how does the evaluation of the concession  request work? Because from my understanding,   like I mentioned earlier, I I believe it's true  that the city has to say uh when a developer asks   for a concession, oh indeed that is necessary  for you to have your project be economically   feasible. Is is it you guys who are saddled with  that responsibility now? Are you prepared to take   that on? It's I mean it's the decision maker. So  it could be the director of planning. It could   be could be you the city planning commission.  It could be city council. they the decision-m   body has to gather that evidence to make that  finding of denial. We do ask that the applicant   submit evidence to support their requests. Um, and  it's on the decision-making body to evaluate that   information um or provide additional information  that uh negates their request. So, part of the   application process is the developer explaining  why I need to do this to make this economically   feasible. Yes. And it's up to us or whatever  decision maker is considering that application to   evaluate that. Correct. And any decision of denial  is appealable. So just like any other action. Oh, and then uh are requests to exercise  the density bonus law a matter of public   record and subject to public comment? I'm  assuming yes because it would be part of   an application for AC and we would  uh consider that here or um one of  

the other decision-making bodies in the  city. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. I just wanted clarification. I know you covered  that the intermixing is already spelled out in   the ordinance. the uh access to common areas  is already spelled out. Um in there too,   it had a list of also like these are the  minimum things that are in there. Is it   possible to add that there's a um it's called a  permitted transfer where it's like so right now   it for the for sale it gives a first right of  refusal to like the city but like people die,   people get divorced etc etc. Can we add a  permitted transfer in there where it's like,   you know, if I die and my child is a qualified  purchaser that that person can then take title   and it doesn't just automatically go to  the city. Can we I would have to defer   to our city attorney on this question on the  legality of adding that as a requirement. Okay.   Yeah, I believe the for sale provisions  that are currently in the draft ordinance   are based on the provisions in state law.  So I do not think we can deviate from those. So I've Okay. I've seen permitted  transfer provisions in there. Can   we can I respectfully request that we look into  that or Yes, we can look into that. Thank you. That's all I have. And I have one more question. While while  we're on that topic of ownership units, um,  

how are the prices for ownership units determined?  The same way that we discussed how the for sale   prices were calculated for inclusionary would  apply. I'm sorry, my memory is hazy. I would have   to go back to look at how that was presented with  inclusionary housing. I don't have that answer   um available at the moment. Um it's something I  can provide though. Okay. I don't think it's a   showstopper for this uh personally, but um I would  like to be reminded of that if possible. Okay. So if we have no more discussion, do  we do the public comment now? Okay. Yes. So you open the public testimony  portion of the public hearing. Okay. This   isn't identified on here as a am I missing  it? Okay. So let's open the public hearing. So, do we have any So, we do have we have the  applicant. There is no applicant. Consult may   have an answer to your question. We can  call them up. Okay. Sorry about that. Um,   just going back to the um question on how  affordable sales prices are determined. Um,   you know, it's based on income levels. So, the  state sets your annual um income levels. Um,   and if you recall back to the  inclusion area, it goes to that   um 80% um 100% 120%. They're adjusted annually  or locally um by county. So for LA County,   it's a little bit weird. The mean the median  income is um actually lower than the 100% income   um because it's it takes into cost of local cost.  Basically, it takes into account of local cost.   So all of that goes into the accounting of how  the sales price is determined and it's based on  

that actual income level much like the rentals  would be determined the same way. Okay. It was   clear to me how that results in a or how that  it gets translated into a rent but it I didn't   understand how it gotated into a almost the same  formula just yeah into a sales. Interesting. Okay. Thank you. Um, do we have any persons in favor  that would like to speak? Persons with concerns. So, I think the one we do have is a person  with a the written public comment. Okay. So,   is someone going to read that in or how does um I  don't know how that works. Could could we ask for   a summary of that because it was very long and  we only received it not that long before this   meeting tonight. So, can you please summarize  what they're saying there, the key points? I'm going to defer to the city attorney to  address the the comment letter and our response. Yes. So, the letter expressed concerns about the  ordinance, stating that certain provisions may   conflict with density bonus law, which should be  implemented without additional restrictions. That   the requirements for affordable unit design,  location, and access, can make some projects,   such as those using low-income housing  tax credits less affordable to develop.   And because density bonus law allows developers to  request waiverss from conflicting local standards,   the commenter believes that enforcing local  standards could um present legal challenges.   And our office would like to make a few points in  response to the public comment letter that you all  

received earlier today. Um, first, as you know,  state density bonus law requires the city to adopt   an ordinance that specifies how compliance with  state density bonus law will be implemented. And   that's exactly what the city's proposed density  bonus ordinance does. Um, second, and importantly,   an ordinance cannot clash with the text of  density bonus law, as the commenter alleges,   when density bonus law does not mention  specifications for affordable units. Um, and   the commenter here seems to be arguing that the  city cannot impose any development standards on   the size or physical characteristics of affordable  units. And this is an argument that has no support   within the text of density bonus law and is also  contradicted by density bonus law. Um specifically   by government code section 65915 subsection E1.  um which the section prohibits the application   of any development standard that would physically  preclude the construction of a development that   meets the criteria of density bonus law. And  this section also provides a specific process   um by which the developer may receive a waiver by  showing that a development standard such as size   or location requirements will have the effect  of physically precluding the development. Um,   state law, specifically within the health and  safety code, also requires that occupants of   affordable units in mixed income developments  have access to the same entrances, common areas,   and amenities as occupants of the market rate  units. And also, the developer is not allowed per  

state law to segregate affordable units to certain  areas or floors of a mixed unit development.   Um and finally, as you may have seen, the  commenter provided a letter from HCD, which is not   relevant here. Um in that letter, HCD concluded  that deed restricted ADUs can serve to qualify   a project for a density bonus under state density  bonus law, even if the bonus is for primary units   as opposed to ADUs. um which does not relate to  the design and distribution of affordable units   um as the city is proposing in proposed  Monrovia Municipal Code section 17.38.080. Um and that concludes our response  to the public comment letter. Thank you. Um let's see. So if that's  it for public comment, we can close the   public hearing and um have further discussion  or if someone wants to make a motion or can I   oh please can I ask a question of staff?  Um I just thought of this. So when the if   a if a developer qualifies for density bonus  and say they get the they have 17 more units   that they can add. That doesn't necessarily  mean that they can take a unit and like split   it in half to create two units. They have to  still be reasonable size. Is that correct? You   guys are in control of that. Well, we the city  does have minimum size requirements for units.  

Okay. Um based off of number of bedrooms. Um so  the the the unit would have to comply with that   unless they asked for a concession or waiver  from that development standard. But again,   that request would have to be justified um  for those. Okay. I I'm just trying to think   of ways that you get you can get around adding  more more units and not because it's expensive   to add more units. They Okay. Okay. I'm  just trying to calculate it in my head. Any other Anybody else? Anybody want to  make a motion or uh Sure. That's quick. Uh,   I move to adopt planning commission  resolution number 2025-00002. Second. I'll second. Second. Did you want  to have your your item? Can we approve this   without the research on which you were asking  to be included? Um, we can just You know what   I'm saying? Yeah. For the permitted transfer, we  can just I'm I'm fine with but I'm I'm curious   to hear from her. But again, it's okay. Yeah. I'm  not going to You don't want to hold it? Yeah. So,   we have We had a first, we had a second,  right? Did I miss the second? I did. Okay.   Roll call. Commissioner Austin, yes.  Janisk, yes. Rose, yes. Sheffller,   yes. Stira, yes. Vashani, yes. Chair Brown,  yes. Okay. So, the the appeal language, yes,   this is actually this is a recommendation of  the city council. The next step will be um uh   scheduling this for the September 16th,  2025 meeting. Okay, perfect. Thank you.

All right, so moving along on our agenda. Uh now we have the community  development director report. Yes,   thank you chair. Um just on behalf of um chair  uh director um Verjo, I'd like to just share a   brief announcement about the Monrovia area  partnership youth and adult leadershipmies.   Uh these are free programs that are designed  to help residents, students, and those who   work in Monrovia gain some valuable leadership  skills. Learn how the city government operations   work and connect with others in the community.  Graduates often go on to serve on city boards,   commissions, and community groups, making it  an excellent way to prepare for future service,   including uh like the planning commission.  The applications are now open and the programs   will begin in early September. You'll find two  flyers in front of you on the dis uh one for the   youth academy and one for the adult leadership  academy. Uh please take a moment to review them   and consider sharing this information with  others who might be interested. Thank you. Thank you. Um, now we're going to move to any  reports or announcements from commissioners. None. All right. So, um, this meeting  is adjourned, right? Good job. Do I I forgot we don't we don't do motions for  adjourning. Okay. Some people do. Okay. Perfect.   You could gave that into into being. There  we go. Don't miss your chance to use that.

Oh my god. Good job.