01005.0005/1063116.1 Resolution No. 2025-29-3617
SP&DR(DA) No. 04-2022
This finding is no longer applicable, as Irwindale Community Redevelopment Agency no longer exists. There are also no owner's participation agreement or disposition and development agreement involved.
C. The following are so arranged as to avoid traffic congestion, to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effect on surrounding properties:
i. Facilities and improvements,
The proposed building is sited with minimum 20-foot setbacks from the north, west and south property lines. A drive aisle runs along the east side of the building and connects to a truck yard on the northeast portion of the property. Access is available from both Rivergrade Road and Live Oak Avenue. From Rivergrade Road, the northern entrance to the truck yard is setback approximately 46 feet and from Live Oak Avenue, the southern entrance is setback approximately 280 feet from the property line. The proposed site layout is anticipated to be able to accommodate projected queuing, avoiding overflow onto public roads. All structures and infrastructure improvements will be constructed to current code and completed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. ii. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress, egress, and internal circulation, The proposed project includes a 10’-0” wide street dedication along Live Oak Avenue, Stewart Avenue, and Rivergrade Road for a new sidewalk including curbs, gutters, and landscaping improvements as needed to facilitate Project site access along the Project’s frontage. Internally, the two access points are separated by the truckyard, therefore, no through-site access would be available. iii. Setbacks,
The project has been designed to comply with and exceed the minimum required setbacks for the M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing) zone. The proposed building is setback a minimum of 20’-0” from all street frontages, consistent with IMC requirements.
iv. Height of buildings,
The Irwindale Municipal Code does not include a maximum building height restriction in the M-2 zone. However, the proposed building is designed to complement the massing and height of the existing buildings in the area.
Per IMC Subsection 17.08.085 “Building Height” means the vertical distance from the finished grade of the lot to the highest average point of the building or structure.
The proposed roofline varies from 41’-6” to 45’-0” and the parapet walls, including the architectural features extend to a maximum height of 49’-0. Proposed walls are consistent with the maximum 8’-0” high requirement.
v. Signs,
01005.0005/1063116.1 Resolution No. 2025-29-3617
SP&DR(DA) No. 04-2022
Based on the approximate square footage of the speculative industrial building, the allowable amount of wall signage would equate to ±1,025 square feet.
Freestanding signs would be limited to 150 square feet regardless of building size. vi. Mechanical and utility service equipment,
The site has been designed to attractively screen all rooftop and surface level mechanical equipment and storage area. The parapet roof will provide adequate screening of any proposed rooftop equipment. During the permitting process, a line-of-sight study is required to substantiate proper screening. Mechanical equipment and storage areas are screened, out of public view and often with solid walls and landscaping.
vii. Landscaping,
The landscaping requirement has been met through considered choices of plantings appropriate to the location, building type, and building scale.
Approximately 30,140 square feet (over 14%) of the project site is proposed to be landscaped in compliance with the “City of Irwindale Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines” and the Zoning Code requirements for parking area landscaping. The proposed landscape plan is comprised of a combination of parking lot shade trees, shrubs, and groundcover.
viii. Grading,
The existing project site is relatively flat and developed. The proposed project will incorporate berms around the perimeter in compliance with the “City of Irwindale Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines”. A grading permit will be required and issued from Building and Safety.
ix. Lighting,
All lighting is designed to complement the structures and oriented to properly illuminate the site as not to create “dark pockets” that could support nefarious activities or spill onto other properties, creating a nuisance. The premises will be secured with appropriate security lighting, to obtain a minimum of 1-foot candles over the entire site. A photometric lighting plan shall be submitted, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department and the Police Department.
x. Parking,
IMC Subsection 17.64.030.P(2) provides, “Offices not providing customer service on the premises” requires a minimum one (1) parking space for each two (2) employees on the maximum (most workers) working shift or one (1) space for each 350 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is the greater and IMC Subsection
17.64.030(V) “Warehouse and storage buildings” requires one (1) parking space for each 1,000 square feet of the first 20,000 square feet of gross floor area, one (1) space for each 2,000 square feet for the next 20,000 square feet of gross floor area and one (1) space for each 4,000 square feet for all floor area over 40,000 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the proposed square footage, the project
01005.0005/1063116.1 Resolution No. 2025-29-3617
SP&DR(DA) No. 04-2022
requires sixty-three (63) stalls. The proposed project includes sixty-four (64) parking stalls [four (4) ADA stalls, forty-nine (49) standard stalls and eleven (11) compact stalls]. All parking is surface parking; there are no proposed parking structures or subterranean lots.
xi. Drainage,
A drainage port and Low Impact Development (LID) report has been prepared to address hydrology and drainage. The Public Works Department has reviewed and accepted the reports. The applicant shall continue to work with the Public Works Department to comply with all applicable regulations.
xii. Intensity of land use.
The Project site is currently fully developed with one existing two-story concrete industrial office building totaling 56,000 square feet and a surface parking lot. The Project site includes existing utility connections (water, sewer, and electrical). The proposed building will be a one-story, approximately 102,500 square foot industrial warehouse with associated passenger vehicle parking, truck parking, and twelve (12) loading docks. The proposed industrial warehouse building is consistent with the General Plan designation of Industrial/Business Park and Zoning designation of M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing), as well as adjacent industrial land uses.
D. The proposed development is consistent with applicable city design guidelines and historic design themes, and provides for appropriate exterior building design and appearance consistent and complementary to present and proposed buildings and structures in the vicinity of the subject project while still providing for a variety of designs, forms and treatments.
The proposed project incorporates many of the desired design elements from the Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines including but not limited to: varied parapet heights to resemble tower elements; arched windows, ornately carved designs, metal awnings, vertical and horizontal score lines and a multi-color palette. In addition, the site design includes multi-layered landscaping with meandering sidewalks.
3. The MND was circulated for public review for the required 30 days from September 30, 2024 through October 30, 2024. A copy of the MND was circulated through the State Clearinghouse, posted on the City’s website (https://www.irwindaleca.gov/621/14005-Live-Oak-Avenue) and was available at the Community Development Department – Planning Division, City Hall and the Irwindale Public Library. A copy of the MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and technical studies were posted on the City’s website.
4. Based upon the substantial evidence and conclusions set forth herein above, this City Council approves the application for the Site Plan and Design Review (DA) subject to adoption of the MND by the City Council, including the corresponding Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
01005.0005/1063116.1 Resolution No. 2025-29-3617
SP&DR(DA) No. 04-2022
5. Based upon the substantial evidence and conclusions set forth herein above, this City Council hereby approves the Application subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, which conditions are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and are reasonable and proper in accordance with the intent and purposes of Title 17 of the Irwindale Municipal Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council and to the Applicant.
The Secretary shall:
a. Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
b. Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by mail, to the Applicant at the address of record set forth in the Application.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of March 2025.
Larry G. Burrola, Mayor
ATTEST:
Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } ss.
CITY OF IRWINDALE }
I, Laura M. Nieto, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Irwindale, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-29-3617 was adopted at a regular meeting of the Irwindale City Council held on the 26th day of March 2025, by the following vote of the Council:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
01005.0005/1063116.1 Resolution No. 2025-29-3617
SP&DR(DA) No. 04-2022
Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit:
A. Conditions of Approval
01005.0005/1063116.1 Resolution No. 2025-29-3617
SP&DR(DA) No. 04-2022
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-29-3617
Site Plan and Design Review No. 04-2024
Concrete tilt-up warehouse building
14005 Live Oak Avenue
Irwindale, CA 91706
A. GENERAL
1. The use and development authorized by this Site Plan and Design Review (DA), allow for the construction of one (1) concrete tilt-up warehouse building substantially in conformance with the plans submitted to the City dated March 10, 2025.
2. A building permit shall be obtained within twelve (12) months from the date of approval. Thereafter, if the activities have been abandoned for ninety (90) or more days, the Site Plan and Design Review Permit approval shall expire and become null and void, unless a written request for extension is received by the Community Development Director at least thirty (30) days prior to such expiration or abandonment. Upon receipt of written request for extension, the Community Development Director may grant an extension of this Site Plan and Design Review Permit approval for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the original date of expiration, or may refer such request to the City Council for determination.
3. The Applicant shall agree and consent, in writing, to each and every condition set forth herein within twenty (20) days from the adoption of this Resolution by the City Council approving the Site Plan and Design Review (DA).
4. Prior to the issuance of a business license and/or occupancy permit and/or final inspection by the Community Development Department for the speculative building, all applicable conditions of approval (except those involving construction permits) shall be completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the City.
5. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Irwindale, its agents, officers, or employees from any claims, damages, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, any approval of the City, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body to Site Plan and Design Review Permit No. 04-2024, including the environmental review and approvals therefore. The City will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City and will cooperate fully in the defense.
01005.0005/1063116.1 Resolution No. 2025-29-3617
SP&DR(DA) No. 04-2022
6. The Applicant agrees to allow City inspectors access to the site to reasonably inspect the site during normal working hours to assure compliance with these conditions and other codes. Any and all fees required to be paid to any public agency shall be paid prior to obtaining any permits for this project.
7. The Applicant shall maintain and use the project location and facility thereon in full compliance with all codes, standards, policies and regulations imposed by the City, County, State, or Federal agencies with jurisdiction over the facility.
8. It shall be required that the subject location and its contents, including but not limited to, structures, fences or garden/block walls, and vehicles are maintained free and clear of any graffiti. The Applicant shall be held responsible for the immediate removal of any and all graffiti found on-site within 48 hours of its application.
9. The premises will be secured with appropriate security lighting, to obtain a minimum of 1-foot candles over the entire site. A photometric lighting plan shall be submitted, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department and the Police Department.
10. Security lighting fixtures are to be shielded and shall not project above the fascia or roof line of the buildings. The shields shall be painted to match the surface to which they are attached. Security lighting fixtures shall not be substituted for parking lot or walkway lighting fixtures.
11. In accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), the imposition of fees, dedications, reservations, or exactions for this project are subject to protest by the applicant at the time of approval or conditional approval of the project, or within 90 days after the date of imposition of the fees, dedications, reservations, or exactions imposed on the project.
12. Prior to occupancy of the project, all users of the facility shall comply with the City of Irwindale M-2(Heavy Manufacturing) zoning standards and regulations through the business license and zoning compliance process.
B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. The use and improvements authorized by this Site Plan and Design Review (DA), shall conform to the plans as finally approved by the City (dated March 10, 2025) as conditioned herein, and any appreciable modification of the plans or mode of operation, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall require the prior approval of the final approving body (City Council) pursuant to the amendment of the Site Plan and Design Review Permit.
2. This project shall be subject to the City of Irwindale’s utility tax.
01005.0005/1063116.1 Resolution No. 2025-29-3617
SP&DR(DA) No. 04-2022
3. This project shall be subject to the City of Irwindale’s Development Impact Fees (DIF).
4. The signed Final Conditions of Approval shall be photocopied and included as a sheet in the plans submitted to the Building Division for plan check.
5. Any future last mile tenant, which would provide the last leg of the delivery or final step in the supply chain, shall be subject to additional analysis including, but not limited to, traffic, air quality/greenhouse gas.
6. Project landscaping shall comply with Irwindale Municipal Code Chapter 15.30, “Water Efficient Landscape Standards and Guidelines.”
7. Landscaping shall be drought resistant low water with drip irrigation, low flow bubblers and water efficient rotor heads where applicable. Native plants shall be used where feasible. Landscaping shall be provided as shown on the approved Conceptual Landscape and as modified pursuant to City Building Plan Check review of Precise Landscape and Irrigation plans.
8. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, and are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and the Director of Engineering. Vision clearance shall be maintained at all vehicle entrances and exits.
9. A complete, permanent, automatic irrigation system shall be provided for all landscaped areas.
10. A six (6) inch horizontal concrete curb shall surround all landscaped planters.
11. The following invasive plants shall not be used in landscaping:
• Carpobrotus edulis (ice plant)
• Hedera helix, H. Hibernica, H. caneriensis (English ivy, Irish ivy, Algerian ivy • Vinca Major (periwinkle)
• Pennisetum setaceum and all cultivars and varieties (fountain grass) • Cortaderia selloana, C. jubata and all cultivars and varieties (pampas grass) • Retama monosperma, Genista monspessulana, Cytisus striatus, Cytisus scoparius, and Spartium junceum (broom – bridal, French, Portuguese, Scotch, Spanish)
• Acacia Cyclops (acacia or western coastal wattle)
• Myoporum laetum (myoporum)
• Washingtonia robusta and Phoenix canariensis (Mexican fan palm and Canary Island date palm)
• Schinus terevinthifolius (Brazilian pepper)
• Eucalyptus globules, E. camaldulensis (eucalyptus, blue gum, and red gum)
01005.0005/1063116.1 Resolution No. 2025-29-3617
SP&DR(DA) No. 04-2022
12. A minimum of 10% (±21,180 square feet) the total lot area shall be landscaped.
13. All plant material, including trees, shall be maintained in good condition and replaced in the event they die or become diseased.
14. Any event not held during typical hours of operation shall be subject to Community Development Department review.
15. The Applicant shall obtain approval and permits from the Planning and Building Divisions for all project signage prior to construction of any signs on the project site.
16. Drive aisles shall remain open and unobstructed for vehicular circulation.
17. All building design and construction, including the type, texture, color, and durability of the exterior building materials shall comply with the City’s Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines.
18. Trash enclosures (6’-0” high min.) with solid metal self-closing and self-latching gates shall be provided. The enclosures shall be covered and built with decorative materials to match the type, texture, and color of the materials used in the construction of the buildings. Gates shall remain closed at all times when the trash receptacles are not in use.
19. All utility equipment such as backflow units and transformers shall be screened with evergreen screen shrubs or similar planting materials as allowed.
20. All rooftop mechanical equipment, including heating and air conditioning units, antennas, and other electronic devices, shall be completely and decoratively screened from view from all public rights of way and adjacent properties and shall be integrated into the design and construction of the buildings1. All rooftop equipment and screening shall be shown on the plans and elevations, and shall be consistent with the building design and construction materials in texture and color. Such rooftop equipment screening shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department.
21. All rooftop wireless telecommunications antennas operated by third parties are subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.90 of the Irwindale Municipal Code shall require a separate permit in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code.
22. The street numbers for the development shall be painted on the rooftop of each building in such a manner that it is clearly visible to public safety personnel and shall be a minimum five (5) feet in length painted with minimum one (1) foot wide 1 Photovoltaic equipment is exempt from this requirement.
01005.0005/1063116.1 Resolution No. 2025-29-3617
SP&DR(DA) No. 04-2022
brush strokes. Rooftop numbers shall be shown on the plans submitted for plan check.
23. A lighting plan shall be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director describing lighting fixtures for building exterior lighting. Lighting fixtures shall be designed to shield light and/or directs light in a downward direction to minimize light spillover to adjacent residential areas. A minimum of 1-foot candle shall be provided.
24. Applicant shall obtain approval and permits from the Community Development Department and Building Division for all project signage prior to construction of any signs on the project site.
25. A temporary chain link fence with green screening, or acoustical fencing assembly shall be installed and maintained around the perimeter of the site during construction.
26. Any masonry walls, tube steel fences, and driveway gates shall be decorative and consistent with the building design and the Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines. The design of the walls and gates shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department. No chain link fencing shall be allowed for permanent perimeter fencing applications.
27. Applicant shall at all times comply with the Irwindale Municipal Code Noise Standards (as may be amended) as measured at the Site boundary. Additionally, if noise impacts exceed the applicable noise standard contained in the Irwindale Municipal Code, Applicant shall take necessary actions and implement procedures to bring the operations into compliance with this Code.
28. Applicant/developer shall post “No Overnight/Unauthorized Parking” signs on the property prior to construction to prevent unauthorized parking on the site.
29. Construction activity shall take place no earlier than 7:00 AM on each day and no later than 7:00 PM on each day, Monday thru Saturday. No construction activities of any kind shall be performed on Sundays or holidays without a permit per IMC Subsection 9.28.110(A).
30. All construction related activity shall comply with the noise standards as set forth in IMC Section 9.28.030.
31. All truck loading and unloading shall occur on the site. No loading, unloading or truck idling shall be permitted to take place on the street for any business located on the site.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
01005.0005/1063116.1 Resolution No. 2025-29-3617
SP&DR(DA) No. 04-2022
1. The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department.
2. Review and approval by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Prevention Engineering Section Building Plan Check Unit may be required for this project prior to building permit issuance. Please contact the Fire Prevention Engineering Section at 626.963.5564 for information on EPICLA submittals.
D. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
STREETS
1. All off-site improvements within the Public Right-of-Way shall be performed in accordance with City Standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering.
Construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Engineering.
2. The owner and/or developer shall resurface Live Oak Avenue (1/2 the street width from curb to median along the frontage), restore and resurface Stewart Avenue and Rivergrade Road wherever excavations are required along the frontage. Limits of restoration for excavations to be determined by the Director of Engineering. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering. Construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Engineering.
3. The owner/developer shall design and construct ADA accessible driveway approaches, sidewalks, and curb ramps and remove all existing driveways and parkway drains along Live Oak Avenue, Stewart Avenue and Rivergrade Road. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the current City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering. Construction plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Engineering.
4. Adequate “on-site” parking shall be provided per City requirements.
5. The owner/developer shall protect in place the bus shelter at the NW corner of Stewart Avenue and Live Oak Avenue. If the bus shelter is damaged or demolished during construction, the owner/developer shall bear the full cost of replacing the existing shelter in kind. This includes any and all design, engineering, installation, construction management and inspection for the replacement shelter and shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Engineering and the transit operator.
6. The owner and/or developer shall dedicate a roadway easement (10 feet wide) along the Live Oak Avenue, Stewart Avenue and Rivergrade Road frontage of APN: 8535-001-033, as directed by the Director of Engineering.
01005.0005/1063116.1 Resolution No. 2025-29-3617
SP&DR(DA) No. 04-2022
7. The owner and/or developer shall remove and reconstruct all damaged or deficient sidewalk, driveways, curb, and gutter as directed by the Director of Engineering.
New sidewalk along Live Oak Ave shall be curb-adjacent, unless otherwise specified by the appropriate board (PC or CC). The owner and/or developer shall design, install and construct sidewalk improvements specified by the board. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering. Landscaping and tree planting plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Services Director.
8. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the repair of all damage to public improvements in the public right-of-way resulting from construction-related activities, including, but not limited to, the movement and/or delivery of equipment, materials, and soil to and/or from the site.
9. The owner/developer shall bear the full cost of installing streetlights and/or upgrading the existing streetlights along the Live Oak Avenue, Stewart Avenue, and Rivergrade Road property frontage to more energy-efficient fixtures (LED).
Street lighting upgrade shall meet the City of Irwindale and County of Los Angeles Street Lighting Design Standards and be to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering.
10. The owner and/or developer shall reimburse the City for the actual cost for the installation, replacement or modification of street name signs, traffic control signs, striping and pavement markings required in conjunction with the development.
11. Common driveways shall not be allowed, unless approved by the Director of Engineering. Proposed driveways shall be located clear of existing fire hydrants, streetlights, water meters, etc.
UTILITIES
12. Storm drains, catch basins, connector pipes, and appurtenances for the sitespecific storm drain system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Los Angeles County standards and the Director of Engineering’s requirements.
The owner/developer shall submit grading and drainage plans to the Director of Engineering for review and approval. The grading and drainage plans shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer and comply with Los Angeles County grading permit requirements. A hydrology study shall be included with the drainage plan.
13. The owner/developer shall pay for the entire cost for the design, engineering construction and inspection of any upgrade to the water main and connections as required by the serving water company for the proposed development.
01005.0005/1063116.1 Resolution No. 2025-29-3617
SP&DR(DA) No. 04-2022
14. The owner/developer shall obtain a Storm Drain Connection Permit from the City of Irwindale and/or Los Angeles County Flood Control District for connection(s) to the existing storm drain system.
15. Fire hydrants shall be installed as required by the Fire Department. Existing public fire hydrants adjacent to the site, if any, shall be upgraded as required by the Fire Department and/or the Director of Engineering.
16. Sanitary sewers shall be constructed in accordance with the current City specifications to serve the subject development. The plans for the sanitary sewers shall be approved by the Director of Engineering. A sewer study shall be submitted along with the sanitary sewer plans.
17. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the owner/developer shall provide a willserve letter from the water utility provider to the City.
TRAFFIC
18. All ingress and egress from the site on Live Oak Avenue is Right In/Right Out ONLY. No left turn is allowed from the eastbound direction of Live Oak Avenue into the site. Proper signage shall be installed on the project site.
MISCELLANEOUS
19. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the owner/developer shall construct and/or comply with any and all required Mitigation Measures of the Project MND.
20. The owner/developer shall comply with all requirements of the County Sanitation District, make application for and pay the sewer maintenance fee.
21. That the owner/developer shall pay the connection fee upon application for storm water connection to the County of Los Angeles system.
22. The owner/developer shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program and shall require the general contractor to implement storm water/urban runoff pollution prevention controls and Best Management Practices (BMPs) on all construction sites in accordance with the City Code. The owner/developer will also be required to submit a Certification for the project and may be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Projects over five acres in size will be required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The owner/developer can obtain the current application packet by contacting the SWRCB, Construction Storm Water Unit, at (866) 563-3107 or by downloading the forms from their website at:
www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml.
01005.0005/1063116.1 Resolution No. 2025-29-3617
SP&DR(DA) No. 04-2022
The project shall also conform to the City's Ordinance regarding the requirements for the submittal of a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (“SUSMP”), and the requirements of Low Impact Development ("LID"). The SUSMP includes a requirement to implement Post Construction BMPs to infiltrate the first 3/4" of runoff from all storm events and to control peak-flow discharges.
23. Unless exempted by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, a Covenant and Restriction ensuring the provisions of the approved SWPPP shall also be required.
24. Any changes to the site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
E. BUILDING AND SAFETY
1. Complete Construction Documents include but not limited to Grading, Drainage, Soil Investigation, Architectural, Structural, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Landscaping…etc., shall be submitted to Irwindale Building & Safety Department for Plan check and Approval Process prior to any Permit Issuance. All Construction Documents shall be prepared by a California Licensed Engineer specialized on the submitted documents based on the current Codes adopted by City of Irwindale.
2. Grading, Drainage, Building and all other trade permits shall be obtained from Irwindale Building and Safety Division by a California licensed contractor(s). All construction shall be in compliance with the current Irwindale Building & Municipal Codes.
3. Other agencies’ (Fire, Sanitation…etc.) approvals shall be required prior to any permit issuance. An agency referral sheet shall be provided to the applicant at the time of submittal to Building & Safety.
4. The Owner/Developer/Applicant shall be the sole responsible party for all required Plan Check and Permit fees, as well as any other agencies’ fees.
5. All plans submitted shall be subject to the County of Los Angeles (City of Irwindale office) Minimum Plan Submittal Requirements for Non-Residential Construction.
F. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. All walls that face the public right-of-way shall implement anti-graffiti management practices (such as planting vines on the walls). Applicant shall be responsible for graffiti removal to all walls that face the public right-of-way in a timely manner.
2. Onsite trash enclosure areas shall have sufficient space for solid waste and organic waste receptacles and shall be covered from the elements with a solid roof structure per Title 14, Division 7, Section 17313 of the California Code of
01005.0005/1063116.1 Resolution No. 2025-29-3617
SP&DR(DA) No. 04-2022
Regulations and Building Code Manual County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Building and Safety Division 312 Article 2.
3. Tenants must adhere to the SB 1383 regulations set forth by CalRecycle under California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 3 and outlined in the Irwindale Municipal Code Section 08.22 Specific Regulations for Organic Waste Disposal Reduction, Recycling, and Solid Waste, which includes the diversion of edible food to food recovery organizations and services.
4. The owner and/or applicant shall remove and reconstruct all damaged, deficient, or substandard sidewalk, driveways, curb, and gutter as directed by the Director of Engineering and the Public Services Director.
5. Sidewalk on Live Oak Ave shall connect or stop at property line for future development.
6. The following ADA ramps shall be replaced: northwest corner of Stewart Avenue and Rivergrade Road and the southwest corner of Stewart and Live Oak Avenues.
Truncated domes shall be brick red in color to comply with City standards. Plans shall be in compliance with the current standards for both Engineering and Building & Safety.
7. The owner and/or applicant is responsible for obtaining encroachment permit(s) prior to any type of work in the public right-of-way.
8. Any work within easements on the project site shall require proper permits and/or license from the easement holder (City of Irwindale, County of Los Angeles, Southern California Edison, etc.).
9. The City will not be responsible for the removal of any accidental or illegal dumping of debris on private property. It is the responsibility of the property owner to have it removed.
10. Right turn only when entering/exiting on south entrance approach of the development off Live Oak Avenue.
ATTACHMENT “D”
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
https://www.irwindaleca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9470/14005- Live-Oak-ISMND-FINAL
ATTACHMENT “E”
Response to Comments (RTC)/Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP)
https://www.irwindaleca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10775/14005- Live-Oak-Avenue-RTC-MMRP-01152025-FINAL
Item #22.B.
Date: March 26, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Julian A. Miranda, City Manager
Issue: Comprehensive Title 17 Zoning Code Update
City Manager's Recommendation:
That the City Council (1) Introduce for first reading by title only with further reading waived:
Ordinance No. 772 entitled, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRWINDALE REPEALING TITLE 17 OF THE IRWINDALE MUNICIPAL CODE (“ZONING”) IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE UPDATE AS TITLE 17 OF THE IRWINDALE MUNICIPAL
CODE, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF AND FINDING THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2005071047)
AND EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, PURSUANT CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15183, AND 15162; and (2) Adopt Resolution No 2024-08-3485 entitled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE CITY-INITIATED APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE NO. 04-2023 AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF IRWINDALE TO REFLECT UPDATES TO TITLE 17 (ZONING) CONSISTENT WITH ORDINANCE NO. 772, AND FINDING THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2005071047) AND EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, PURSUANT CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15183, AND 15162” Administrative Action:
Submitted / Prepared by:
Marilyn Simpson, AICP, Community Development Director
Reviewed by:
Adrian R. Guerra, City Attorney
Approved by:
Julian A. Miranda, City Manager
Background and Analysis:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of a proposed comprehensive update to Title 17, Zoning, of the Irwindale Municipal Code to eliminate constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c)(3); implement the City’s General Plan and Housing Element policies and programs, incorporate changes to State law and reflect recent case law; better define land uses, regulations, exceptions, and improve usability of the Zoning Code; address zoning districts in accordance with the General Plan Land Use Element; facilitate development and redevelopment; and remedy imperfect code amendments and map errors. The update Zoning Code includes a variety of graphics to assist applicants in understanding the written descriptions. The update includes text and map updates and is attached as Attachment A.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The City of Irwindale’s current Zoning Code is foundationally built upon the County of Los Angeles Zoning Code. Many of the code chapters were adopted in 1966 and have not been updated since.
There have been some efforts to modernize certain chapters and sections to comply with State laws, address outdated uses, non-conformities, include much needed overlays zones, incorporate new specific plans, and update administrative policies. Over the past 57 years, there have been a few efforts at preparing and adopting a comprehensive Zoning Code Update, but none that have gotten to this level of completion. The City of Irwindale was awarded an SB 2 Planning Grant to prepare an update to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which is codified as Irwindale Municipal Code Title 17, Zoning.
The City contracted with Interwest Planning Group to prepare the document. Public outreach efforts began in 2020 with informational brochures and surveys for the community.
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of Irwindale Municipal Code section 17.84.010 provides that, “The provisions of this title [Zoning], including, but not limited to, the classification of property, shall be amended whenever the public interest and necessity so require.”
The proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update is necessary and intended to be consistent with and will implement the City’s vision, goals, and policies of the Irwindale 2020 General Plan. The Comprehensive Zoning Code Update is intended to be consistent with state law, and the proposed revisions to the Zoning Code are in the interest of the public and are necessary to comply with state law. The following key issues are addressed in the Zoning Code update:
Streamlining of the development process by improving processes and permit requirements for the City. The updated Code will provide clear standards that eliminate ambiguity and help homeowners
and developers get their projects processed more quickly and easily.
Making the Zoning Code easier to use by reorganizing the Code into a more modern format that makes information easier to find. The existing Code, with the many changes that have been made over the decades, is complicated and hard to use, with critical information scattered throughout the document. The updated Zoning Code will be shorter and easier to read, with helpful illustrations and cross-references.
Complying with changes in state law that require cities and counties statewide to make changes in their zoning codes to, among other items, encourage the development of new housing. One example of these changes is a requirement to adopt “objective design standards” for multi-family housing that will allow developers to create projects that can be approved at a staff level if very specific standards for quality design are met. ADU regulations have also been updated to comply with recent State laws.
From time to time, further revisions to the Zoning Code may be necessary to comply with State laws.
For example, recent changes to mining have been made by the State that require updating Chapter
17.63 – Surface Mining and Reclamation Plans. Staff is currently in the process of making revisions; however, the California State Mining and Geology Board and mining operators need the opportunity to review and comment on the City’s proposed revisions. Once all necessary outside reviews have been completed, this chapter will be presented to the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council for adoption.
Implementing the City’s General Plan by making changes to the Zoning Code that are directed by the General Plan’s vision and policies;
Fixing problems in the existing Code of internal inconsistencies and errors that have cropped up over time;
Modernizing outdated portions of the Zoning Code; and
Streamlining the processes established in the Zoning Code that must be followed when developers and property owners submit projects and work with the Planning Department.
Below is a list of proposed revisions and additions in the Zoning Code. • Updated the general purpose of the residential zoning districts in 17.04.010, addressing the relationship of the residential zones to the General Plan’s goals and policies. In addition, purpose statements promoting high-quality design and preserving the quality of life and character of existing residential neighborhoods were added. • Prepared new purpose statements that discuss uses found in each residential zoning district, relationship with the associated General Plan land use categories, and maximum density limits allowed (Chapter 17.04).
• Created new permitted use tables in Chapter 17.04 for residential zoning districts to make it easier to find and compare what is permitted, not permitted, or conditionally permitted in each zoning district.
• Updated the types of residential uses allowed in residential zones to allow new housing options in the City, such as townhouses and condominiums. • Revised and added new housing-related definitions in Article V, including terms such as “group residential,” “assisted living,” “family day care,” etc. Definitions for various housing types were also added or updated to match the revisions in the residential zoning districts section. • Created new development standards tables in Chapters 17.05 – 17.07 for non-residential zoning districts (commercial, industrial, public/semi-public zones) to make it easier to find lot size requirements, setbacks, and building height information. • Updated density bonus provisions based on recent state law changes (Chapter 17.15) • Developed objective development and design standards for affordable multi-family housing projects (Chapter 17.14) meeting the eligibility requirements for streamlining under state law SB 35.
• Updated the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations to meet new State law that took effect Jan. 1, 2020. The new regulations provide clear standards for building or converting living space into an ADU and will help Irwindale property owners seeking to provide housing opportunities.
• Created objective design standards for residential and commercial districts to promote highquality design in the City (Chapters 17.05 and 17.14). • Combined A-1 district with R-1 zoning, to better reflect single-family development already occurring in the City and comply with the City’s General Plan and state laws. • The C-P zone has been removed from the Zoning Code, with most uses from the C-P district being incorporated into the C-1, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts. • The CM zone has been retired and CM uses were incorporated into the M-1 and M-2 zoning districts.
• Updated the C-3 district to align with State Law, the purpose of the C-3 district and the Town Center area as described in the General Plan.
• Updated off-street parking chapter created with revised parking space and parking design standards (Chapter 17.16).
• Enhanced landscaping and screening provisions provided in new stand-alone Landscaping chapter (Chapter 17.17).
• New General Site Design and General Planning standards chapter was added (Chapter 17.13). • New stand-alone Signage chapter showing permitted sign types and regulations for signage (Chapter 17.19).
• New Administration and Permits chapter created (Article IV). Describes the review and approval authority of City, and how various amendments with policy and regulatory documents.
• Renumbering the City’s current Surface Mining and Reclamation Plans Chapter (Chapter 17.63) to be consistent with the new Comprehensive Zoning Code numbering scheme. (Chapter
17.21).
Zoning districts in the updated Zoning Code:
City of Irwindale Zoning Designations
Zone Symbol Zone District Name General Plan Land Use
Designation Implemented by
Zone
BASE ZONES
Residential Zones
R-1 Residential – Low Density Residential
R-2 Residential – Medium Density Residential
R-3 Residential – Multifamily Residential
Commercial Zones
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Commercial
C-2 General Commercial Commercial; Regional
Commercial
C-3 Commercial/Residential Commercial; Residential
Industrial and Office Zones
M-1 Light Industrial Industrial/Business Park
M-2 Heavy Industrial Industrial/Business Park
BP Business Park Industrial/Business Park
Public and Semi-Public Zones
P/SP Public/Semi-Public Public/Institutional
RP Recreation and Parks Commercial/Recreation; Parks
OS Open Space Open Space/Easements
SPECIFIC PLAN ZONES
N/A City of Hope Campus Specific
Plan
Specific Plan
N/A The Park at Live Oak Specific
Plan
Specific Plan
N/A The Reliance II Specific Plan Specific Plan
N/A Gateway Specific Plan Specific Plan
OVERLAY ZONES
PD Planned Development N/A
AD Auto Dismantling Overlay Zone Industrial/Business Park QO Quarry Overlay Zone Quarry/Quarry Overlay
UPDATED ZONING CODE GRAPHIC EXAMPLES
PUBLIC OUTREACH
In addition to traditional means of public outreach, such as mailed and posted notices, the Community Development Department has used social media to reach and inform interested parties. In addition, Community Development Staff have participated in City sponsored events, such as setting up informational tables at Music in the Park, and the Irwindale Public Library Spring Book Festival on March 26, 2022. Stakeholder interviews were held on August 31, 2020, September 2, 2020, September 14, 2020, September 21, 2020 and September 30, 2020 with property owners, businesses, development professionals, and residents. Public outreach directly to residents included surveys.
Flyers were also distributed to each household, distributed in the Irwindale Chamber of Commerce email blast, and emailed to all Irwindale Business License holders, informational and meeting flyers were posted at City Hall, the Library, the Senior Center, and the Community Development Department.
The thirty (30) day public review period for the draft Zoning Code began on June 15, 2023. The dedicated webpage on the City’s website included information on the meetings and drafts of the Update. There were multiple public meetings for the project, including a joint study session with the City Council and Planning Commission in July 2023, multiple Planning Commission meetings (September 20, 2023; October 30, 2023; November 13, 2023; and February 21, 2024).
At the February 21, 2024 meeting, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to approve the Update.
On April 10, 2024, the draft Title 17 Zoning Code Update was presented to the City Council at a public hearing. At that meeting, the City Council heard various comments from the public and directed staff to have the Planning Commission review the Update in light of public comments.
The Update was then returned to the Planning Commission for additional review on July 17, 2024; August 21, 2024; September 18, 2024; December 18, 2024; and February 19, 2025. Discussions at each of these meetings included the review and revisions to building setbacks in the industrial districts, reducing maximum building heights in the commercial and industrial districts, the non-conforming uses and structures, and the administrative site plan and design review process.
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The draft Title 17 Zoning Code was presented to the Planning Commission at the February 19, 2025 meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Commission made the following recommendations as show in list and table format:
• Maximum building heights changed to 35 feet in the C-1, C-2, and C-3 zones. • C-3 renamed to Commercial/Residential zone.
• Maximum building height is 50 feet in the M-1 zone
• Maximum building height is 60 feet in the M-2 zone
• Maximum building height is 35 feet in the Light Industrial (M-1) zone within 250 feet of a residential-zoned property; otherwise it is 50 feet maximum • Maximum building height is 40 feet in the Heavy Manufacturing (M-2) zone within 250 feet of a residential-zoned property; otherwise it is 60 feet maximum • Maximum building height of 65 feet in Business Park Zone Additional Planning Commission recommendations included:
1. In the M-2 zone, the minimum side setback was revised to 50 feet for properties adjacent to a residential zoned property.
2. In the M1, M2, and BP zones, the rear minimum setback was revised to 50 feet for properties adjacent to a residential zoned property.
3. Modified Section 17.09.080a, Planned Development, time extensions shall be approved for not more than two years.
4. Table 17.13.070-B updated to include evergreen hedges for screening required in yard area for commercial and industrial zones.
5. Reduced the height of parapet walls from 10 feet to 8 feet in Section 17.13.080, which are calculated separately from the maximum height.
6. Chapter 17.13.140 updated as follows: B. Outdoor Storage Areas. Outdoor storage areas shall be screened from view from any adjacent public street or freeway; existing or planned residential area; or publicly accessible open space area with a solid masonry wall a minimum of six eight feet in height or wrought iron fence with mature, fast-growing, closely planted evergreen hedges of eight feet height. Such wall or fence must meet minimum setback requirements for the applicable zone.
7. Added specific requirements to section 17.18.070 Elimination of Nonconforming Uses and Structures to include 1) Building Code violations, Public Nuisance substantiated reports, Code Enforcement violations, Illegal activities as determined by the Irwindale Police Department.
8. Replaced the words “be completed” with “commence” in Section 17.18.090.C(2)(b) Nonconforming Structures.
9. Revised the amortization time period to be determined by the City Council for a nonconforming uses and structures to be removed.
10. Removed the burden of proof from the property owner in determining a nonconforming status.
11. Revised Table 17.18.050 Nonconforming Sites to include the following: A) Less than 20 percent (20%) increase in floor area or 500 square feet of expansion, whichever is less, there will be no site improvements required. When there is a twenty percent (20%) or greater increase in floor area, landscaping shall be installed along street and building frontages to the extent possible.
12. Added structures may be continued and maintained, explicitly “including routine repairs” in
17.18.040
13. Included “structures” to 17.18.060 to include non-conforming structures in addition to uses
14. Modified language in 17.18.060 for “Modifications” to explicitly state that non-conforming use shall not result in expansion of intensity or physical footprint.
15. Modified language in 17.18.070 Elimination of Nonconforming Uses and Structures to include:
substandard buildings as defined by Health & Safety Code section 17920.3
16. Section 17.27.030. The Planning Commission shall act as the review authority for all commercial and industrial projects over 15,000 square feet or that propose increasing the existing building by more than 15%.
17. In Chapter 17.31 Minor Variance, for an item not listed, the Community Development Director can reduce or increase a standard by up to 20%.
The Planning Commission adopted the following Resolutions:
1. Resolution No. 828(24) recommending that the City Council (1) Adopt Findings of Consistency with the City’s previously certified General Plan Environmental Impact Report, and Finding the Project exempt from further environmental review, pursuant CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 and 15162; and (2) Adopt Ordinance No. 772, a City-initiated application for a Zone Ordinance Amendment (ZOA No. 03-2023) repealing and replacing Title 17 (Zoning) of the Irwindale Municipal Code in its entirety with a Comprehensive Zoning Code Update.
2. Resolution No. 829(24) recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the City-initiated application for Zone Change No. 04-2023 and amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Irwindale to reflect updates to Title 17 (Zoning) consistent with Ordinance No.
772.
On February 28, 2025, a notice of public hearing describing the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation, as well as mailed and posted twenty (20) days prior to the public hearing, in accordance with the California Government Code for the March 26, 2025 City Council meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the City of Irwindale environmental guidelines, the City, as the Lead Agency, has analyzed the project, and has determined that the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update was assessed in the Environmental Impact Review for the City’s General Plan and, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183 and 15162, and is consistent with the previously certified EIR for the City’s General Plan, therefore no subsequent EIR, Negative Declaration, or addendum is required for approval of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update.
Fiscal Impact:
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impacts are directly associated with the adoption of the Zoning Code Update. Fiscal impacts associated with the implementation actions recommended in the Zoning Code Update will be assessed as each item is brought forward for consideration.
Attachments:
1. Attachment A: February 2025 Zoning Code Update
2. Attachment B: CC Ord No. 772 Adopting Zoning Code Update (Final)
3. Attachment C: CC Reso Adopting Update to Zoning Map to Reflect Zoning Code Update (Final)
4. Attachment D: Existing ZC Map
5. Attachment E: Proposed ZC Map
6. Attachment F: February 19, 2025 PC report
7. Attachment G: Draft PC Minutes 2.19.2025
Attachment “A”
Draft Title 17 Zoning Code
February 2025
https://www.irwindaleca.gov/DocumentCenter/V
iew/11230/Zoning-Code-February-2025
ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 772
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IRWINDALE REPEALING TITLE 17 OF THE IRWINDALE
MUNICIPAL CODE (“ZONING”) IN ITS ENTIRETY AND
ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE
UPDATE AS TITLE 17 OF THE IRWINDALE MUNICIPAL
CODE, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF AND
FINDING THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S
PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2005071047)
AND EXEMPT FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW, PURSUANT CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS
15183, AND 15162
WHEREAS, a city has the power make and enforce regulations designed to promote the public convenience or the general prosperity, as well as regulations designed to promote the public health, the public morals, or the public safety; and WHEREAS, in executing that power, a city council may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and
WHEREAS, Title 17 of the Irwindale Municipal Code (“Zoning”), otherwise known as the Zoning Code, regulates land use and development within the City of Irwindale (“City”) to protect public health, safety, and welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Irwindale (“Council”) finds that there is a need to update the City’s Zoning Code, contained in Title 17 of the Irwindale Municipal Code, to incorporate current best practices, industry standards, and recent State mandates, and to further protect public health, safety, and welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the Irwindale Community Development Department, Irwindale Planning Department, and other City of Irwindale staff have prepared, since April 2020, the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, attached herein as Exhibit A. The Comprehensive Zoning Code Update would implement, but is not limited to, the following improvements and changes:
(a) Streamline the development process by providing clear development standards that eliminate ambiguity to the City’s permit requirements and approval process; (b) Reorganize the Zoning Code to a modern, streamlined format, making it easier to read and navigate, and eliminating internal inconsistencies and errors;
Ordinance 772
(c) Comply with recent changes in state law imposing additional requirements on cities and counties statewide, including, for example, amending “objective design standards” for multi-family housing and updating regulations on Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”);
(d) Implementing the City’s General Plan by making changes to the Zoning Code that are directed by the General Plan’s vision and policies; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department and Planning Commission conducted a public information session regarding the draft updates to the Zoning Code on July 19, 2023, during which they received questions and comments from the public.
The City later published staff responses to comments and questions received during the session. The Community Development Department and Planning Department additionally solicited and accepted public comments regarding the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update until August 15, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2023, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to a future date; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 819(23), recommending that the City Council of the City of Irwindale approve proposed Ordinance No. 772, adopting the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to Title 17 of the Irwindale Municipal Code, with further recommendations; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, including without limitation, information provided to the City Council by City staff; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2024, the City Council directed staff to bring the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration; and
Ordinance 772
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and continued the item to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on August 21, 2024, and directed staff to prepare visual graphics of M-2 zones with proposed setbacks from residential and the proposed 500-foot buffer from the Town Center area; and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and continued the item to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on September 18, 2024, and directed staff to incorporate the recommendations into written form for Planning Commission review at the next regularly scheduled meeting; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2024, conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and continued the item to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on November 20, 2024, and directed staff to incorporate the recommendations into written form for Planning Commission review at the next regularly scheduled meeting; and WHEREAS, the November 20, 2024 Planning Commission meeting was cancelled. A Special Planning Commission meeting was held on November 13, 2024, and the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update was not discussed.
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and continued the item to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on February 19, 2024, and directed staff to meet with Planning Commissioners on a one by one basis, to provide clarification on certain sections of the proposed zoning code; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2025, the Planning Commission concluded the public hearing and recommended that the City Council of the City of Irwindale approve proposed Ordinance No. 772, adopting the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to Title 17 of the Irwindale Municipal Code, with certain recommendations; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to approve the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update in its entirety in order to update the City’s Zoning Code to incorporate
Ordinance 772
current best practices, industry standards, and recent State mandates, and to further protect public health, safety, and welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update is consistent with and will implement the City’s vision, goals, and policies of the Irwindale 2020 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Notice of Determination (“NOD”) using the City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), after determining that the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update is consistent with and was assessed during the City’s General Plan EIR, and no subsequent EIR, negative declaration, or addendum is required for approval of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites for the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRWINDALE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The facts set forth in the recitals in this Ordinance are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. Based upon substantial evidence and testimony taken from the record as a whole, and received at the public hearing, both oral and written, including the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the staff report, and all attachments thereto, all of which shall constitute the entire record of the matter, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, attached herein as Exhibit A, is necessary and consistent with and will implement the City’s vision, goals, and policies of the Irwindale 2020 General Plan. The City Council further finds, that the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update is consistent with state law, and the proposed revisions to the Zoning Code are in the interest of the public and are necessary to comply with state law. In particular:
a. The General Plan contains six land use categories that do not have zoning districts that implement these land use categories within the current Zoning Code. The Zoning Code Update will modify or create new zoning districts to be consistent with the General Plan, consistent with California Government Code section 65300 et seq. and the Infrastructure and Resource Management Elements of the City’s General Plan; and
b. The Zoning Code Update will modify Zoning Code districts/regulations to allow for infill and redevelopment in the City, allowing for land use plans and development patterns that allow succession of use and economic development, consistent with General Plan Community Development Element Policy 7, Community Development Element Policy 9, and Community Development Element Policy 10; and
Ordinance 772
c. The Zoning Code Update will create a new landscaping chapter, as to consolidate all landscaping regulations in the Zoning Code and provide adequate buffers, screening, and landscaping, and require and retain trees and plantings, consistent with General Plan Resource Management Element Policy 29; and
d. The Zoning Code Update will create new performance standards and additional site design regulations to minimize conflicts of industrial uses with residential neighbors, consistent with General Plan Resource Management Element Policy 19, Resource Management Element Policy 20, Resource Management Element Policy 21; and
e. The Zoning Code Update will update development standards, nonconforming regulations, and sign code regulations to address regulatory impediments of new businesses and business expansions, consistent with General Plan Community Development Element Policy 16; and
f. The Zoning Code Update will update residential lot requirements and development standards, allow new housing types and update Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations to encourage varied housing types, sizes, and tenure opportunities, and encourage creative and efficient residential site developments consistent with General Plan Housing Element Policies 16, 17, and 20, Resource Management Element Policy 11, Program No. 9, and Promotion of Energy and Water Conservation to Existing Residents and in City Sponsored Housing Projects; and g. The Zoning Code Update will update residential development standards and allow new housing types in order to codify inclusionary housing requirements and associated policies under state and local law, consistent with General Plan Housing element Policy 4; and h. The Zoning Code Update will update the Zoning Code to comply with State mandates, including SB 35, SB 330, the Housing Accountability Act, SB 9, and other Accessory Dwelling Unit Requirements, consistent with Housing Element Policy 14 and Housing Element Policy 19.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby repeals Title 17 of the Irwindale Municipal Code (“Zoning”) in its entirety.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby adopts the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update in its entirety, attached herein as Exhibit A, as Title 17 of the Irwindale Municipal Code (“Zoning”).
Ordinance 772
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby finds and determines based upon the independent judgment of the City Council, after consideration of the whole of the administrative record, that the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update is consistent with and was assessed in the Environmental Impact Review for the City’s General Plan (SCH# 2005071047), adopted on June 25, 2008 and, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and 15162 , no subsequent EIR, negative declaration, or addendum is required for approval of the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. City staff is directed to file a Notice of Determination incorporating these findings and determination regarding the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update.
SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional due to the writs of mandate issued by the Court.
SECTION 7. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, and shall cause the same to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law in this regard, and this Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its final passage. City Staff are directed and authorized to inform and educate the public regarding the adoption of this Ordinance prior to its taking effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Irwindale this 26th day of March, 2025.
_____________________________
Larry G. Burrola, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF IRWINDALE )
Ordinance 772
I, Laura M. Nieto, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Irwindale do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 772 was introduced for first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Irwindale held on March 26, 2025, and adopted on second reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Irwindale held on April 24, 2024, and was carried by the following roll-call vote of the Council:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
________________________
Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Laura M. Nieto, MMC, Chief Deputy City Clerk, certify that I caused a copy of Ordinance No. 772 adopted by the City Council of the City of Irwindale at its regular meeting held March 26, 2025 to be posted at the City Hall, Library, and Post Office on March 27, 2025.
___________________________ Dated:_______________________ Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Ordinance 772
Exhibit “A” to Ordinance No. 772
Draft Title 17 Zoning Code
February 2025
https://www.irwindaleca.gov/DocumentCenter/V
iew/11230/Zoning-Code-February-2025
Resolution No. 2024-08-3485
ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-08-3485
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING
THE CITY-INITIATED APPLICATION FOR ZONE CHANGE
NO. 04-2023 AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING
MAP OF THE CITY OF IRWINDALE TO REFLECT
UPDATES TO TITLE 17 (ZONING) CONSISTENT WITH
ORDINANCE NO. 772, AND FINDING THE PROJECT
CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED
GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH# 2005071047) AND EXEMPT FROM FURTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, PURSUANT CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15183, AND 15162
WHEREAS, a city has the power make and enforce regulations designed to promote the public convenience or the general prosperity, as well as regulations designed to promote the public health, the public morals, or the public safety; and WHEREAS, in executing that power, a city council may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and
WHEREAS, Title 17 of the Irwindale Municipal Code (“Zoning”), otherwise known as the Zoning Code, regulates land use and development within the City of Irwindale (“City”) to protect public health, safety, and welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the Official Zoning Map of the City of Irwindale reflects the Zones of all parcels of land within the City of Irwindale, as defined within the Zoning Code, to identify the zoning regulations and permitted land uses for any particular parcel; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Irwindale (“Council”) has found that there is a need to update the City’s Zoning Code, contained in Title 17 of the Irwindale Municipal Code, to incorporate current best practices, industry standards, and recent State mandates, and to further protect public health, safety, and welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the Irwindale Community Development Department, Irwindale Planning Department, and other City of Irwindale staff have prepared, since April 2020, the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. The Comprehensive Zoning Code Update would implement, but is not limited to, the following improvements and changes:
(a) Streamline the development process by providing clear development standards that eliminate ambiguity to the City’s permit requirements and approval process;
Resolution No. 2024-08-3485
(b) Reorganize the Zoning Code to a modern, streamlined format, making it easier to read and navigate, and eliminating internal inconsistencies and errors; (c) Comply with recent changes in state law imposing additional requirements on cities and counties statewide, including, for example, amending “objective design standards” for multi-family housing and updating regulations on Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”);
(d) Implementing the City’s General Plan by making changes to the Zoning Code that are directed by the General Plan’s vision and policies; and WHEREAS, in tandem with the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, the City has also prepared a proposed Zoning Map Update, attached herein as Exhibit A, which would incorporate any and all changes caused by the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to the current Official Zoning Map. The Zoning Map Update would implement, but is not limited to, the following improvements and changes:
(a) Reflect updated zones in the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, including:
1.) Eliminating Zone A1 – Agricultural Zone;
2.) Creating Zone P/SP – Public/Semi-Public;
3.) Re-naming Zone R1 from Single Family Residential to Low Density Residential;
4.) Re-naming Zone R2 from Light-Multiple Residential to Medium Density Residential;
5.) Re-naming Zone R3 from Heavy-Multiple Residential to Multi-Family Residential;
6.) Re-Naming Zone C2 Heavy Commercial to General Commercial;
7.) Eliminating Zone CM – Commercial Manufacturing.
(b) Reflect updates to the zoning of particular parcels, consistent with the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update; and
WHEREAS, the thirty-day public review period for the draft Comprehensive Zoning Code Update and Zoning Map Update began on June 15, 2023. The initial thirty-day public review period was extended until August 15, 2023. During the review period, the Community Development Department and Planning Department solicited and accepted public comments regarding the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department and Planning Commission conducted a public information session regarding the draft updates to the Zoning Code
Resolution No. 2024-08-3485
on July 19, 2023, during which they received questions and comments from the public.
The City later published staff responses to comments and questions received during the session. The Community Development Department and Planning Department additionally solicited and accepted public comments regarding the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update until August 15, 2023 including the following; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department and the Planning Commission have conducted additional public outreach efforts, including the following:
(a) Informational tables at Music in the Park, which took place on Thursdays from 7 PM to 9 PM at Irwindale Park, and the Irwindale Public Library Spring Book Festival on March 26, 2023;
(c) Stakeholder interviews with property owners, businesses, development professionals, and City residents on August 31, 2020, September 2, 2020, September 14, 2020, September 21, 2020 and September 30, 2020; (d) Flyer distributions made to each residential property in the City, through the Irwindale Chamber of Commerce, and to all Irwindale Business License holders. Informational and meeting flyers publicly posted at City Hall, the Irwindale Public Library, the Irwindale Senior Center, and the Community Development Department;
(e) Surveys to residents
WHEREAS, the draft Comprehensive Zoning Code Update and proposed Zoning Map was presented to the Planning Commission on September 20, 2023, for comment and review by the Commission; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing for the Planning Commission was originally scheduled for October 30, 2023. The Planning Commission received further public comment and input on the proposed Zoning Code and Zoning Map Update and continued the item to a date uncertain; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update and corresponding Zoning Map Update, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2023, the Planning Commission voted to continue the item to a future date; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Comprehensive
Resolution No. 2024-08-3485
Zoning Code Update, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 820(23), recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Cityinitiated application for Zone Change No. 04-2023, and amend the Official Zoning Map of the City to reflect updates Title 17 of the Irwindale Municipal Code (“Zoning”) consistent with Ordinance No. 772; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, including without limitation, information provided to the City Council by City staff; and
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2024, the City Council directed staff to bring the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and continued the item to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on August 21, 2024, and directed staff to prepare visual graphics of M-2 zones with proposed setbacks from residential and the proposed 500-foot buffer from the Town Center area; and
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and continued the item to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on September 18, 2024, and directed staff to incorporate the recommendations into written form for Planning Commission review at the next regularly scheduled meeting; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2024, conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and continued the item to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on November 20, 2024, and directed staff to incorporate the recommendations into written form for Planning Commission review at the next regularly scheduled meeting; and
Resolution No. 2024-08-3485
WHEREAS, the November 20, 2024 Planning Commission meeting was cancelled. A Special Planning Commission meeting was held on November 13, 2024, and the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update was not discussed.
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, including without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and continued the item to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on February 19, 2024, and directed staff to meet with Planning Commissioners on a one by one basis, to provide clarification on certain sections of the proposed zoning code; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2025, the Planning Commission concluded the public hearing and recommended that the City Council of the City of Irwindale approve proposed Ordinance No. 772, adopting the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update to Title 17 of the Irwindale Municipal Code, with certain recommendations; and WHEREAS, Irwindale Municipal Code section 17.12.020 provides, “the official zoning map for the city may be amended by reference thereto, and by reference to this section;” and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to adopt Zone Change No. 04-2023, approving the proposed Zoning Map Update and adopting the Zoning Map Update as the Official Zoning Map of the City of Irwindale, to reflect updates and changes to the Zoning Map consistent with the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Map Update is necessary and is consistent with the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update, and will implement the City’s vision, goals, and policies of the Irwindale 2020 General Plan, is consistent with state law, and the proposed revisions to the Official Zoning Map are in the interest of the public and are necessary to comply with state law; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Notice of Determination (“NOD”) using the City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), after determining that the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update was assessed during the City’s General Plan EIR, and no subsequent EIR, negative declaration, or addendum is required for approval of the Zoning Map Update; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites for the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The facts set forth in the recitals in this Resolution are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
Resolution No. 2024-08-3485
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the City-initiated application for Zone Change No. 04-2023, and hereby approves and adopts the Zoning Map Update in its entirety, attached herein as Exhibit A, as the Official Zoning Map of the City of Irwindale in accordance with Irwindale Municipal Code section 17.12.020.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds and determines based upon the independent judgment of the City Council, after consideration of the whole of the administrative record, that the Zoning Map Update was assessed in the Environmental Impact Review for the City’s General Plan (SCH# 2005071047), adopted on June 25, 2008 and, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and 15162, no subsequent EIR, negative declaration, or addendum is required for approval of the Zoning Map Update.
City staff is directed to file a Notice of Determination incorporating these findings and determination regarding the Zoning Map Update.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional due to the writs of mandate issued by the Court.
SECTION 6. The Chief Deputy City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution. This resolution shall take effect consistent with the effective date of the Zoning Code Update.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Irwindale this 26th day of March, 2025.
__________________________
Larry G. Burrola, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } ss.
CITY OF IRWINDALE }
I, Laura M. Nieto, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Irwindale, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2024-08-3485 was adopted at a regular meeting of the
Resolution No. 2024-08-3485
Irwindale City Council held on the 26th day of March, 2025, by the following vote of the Council:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_________________________
Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
Resolution No. 2024-08-3485
Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2024-08-3485
Attachment F
February 19, 2025 Planning Commission staff report
and attachments (link below)
https://irwindaleca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/109
1/files/agenda/1661
IRWINDALE COUNCIL CHAMBER February 19, 2025
5050 N. IRWINDALE AVENUE Wednesday
IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA 91706 6:34 P.M.
The Irwindale PLANNING COMMISSION met in a regular session at the above time and place.
CHAIR FRYMARK Good evening, everyone. I would like to call the Planning Commission Meeting of February the 19th to order at 6:34 P.M. If able, let's please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Ready begin.
PLEDGE OF I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to ALLEGIANCE the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I invite you to for invocation.
INVOCATION Dear Heavenly Father, we come before you with gratitude in our heart CHAIR FRYMARK and appreciation for all of us standing here today. Lord, we ask that you bless this body of Commissioners as we walk into tonight's meeting.
Help us to be firm in our convictions and our affirmations to do what's best for the Irwindale community, including residents, business, safety and City Staff. Lord, we ask that you continue to bless this community and that you take care of all of those around us. All this in Jesus’ name we pray. Amen.
CHAIR FRYMARK Roll Call, please.
ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: Albert Acosta; Casey Miranda; Joseph Rodriguez; Richard Chico; Maricela Frymark
Also present: Julian Miranda, City Manager; Theresa Olivares, Assistant City Manager; Jamie Traxler, Assistant City Attorney; Marilyn Simpson, Community Development Director; Eddie Chan, Director of Engineering; Brandi Jones, Senior Planner; Luis Pimentel, Associate Engineer; Jarrod Palmer, Assistant Planner; Jesus Hernandez, Administrative Secretary
AB 2449
DISCLOSURES
CHAIR FRYMARK It looks like we are all here. So for Item E, AB 2449 Disclosures, we don't have any. We can move on. Let's move on to letter F.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHAIR FRYMARK Do we have any announcements?
ADMINISTRATIVE No announcements from Staff.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
CHAIR FRYMARK Do we have any announcements from any of our Commissioners?
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 2
COMMISSIONER I do. I'm not sure if the City is aware. We had a great loss recently.
MIRANDA A few days ago Lucia Fraijo passed away. She battled blood cancer and she lasted a lot longer, as she would, then they told her she would.
And amazingly blessed our family were all there when she passed. But she is the daughter of Mike S. Miranda, one of our founding fathers.
She is my cousin. I would call her, Tia Lucia, even though we're first cousins. A wonderful woman who helped me with my daughter and countless others, tutoring and loving the city. She's an amazing woman and… As you know, she has four children that live in the city. John Fraijo is one of them, who is an amazing officer here. Darlene, and Davy, and Barbara, they're amazing. And if you see them, please give them your condolences. But I wanted to dedicate this… today to her because she's an amazing woman and she went home with the Lord.
And she's an amazing woman. So, thank you.
CHAIR FRYMARK Thank you for sharing that. It is tragic to hear that, that family is going through that. So of course, our condolences to that entire family and may she rest in peace.
COMMISSIONER Thank you.
MIRANDA
CHAIR FRYMARK With that, we are going to try to move along. The first item on our Agenda, Item Number 1, is the Consent Calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR
CHAIR FRYMARK We don't have any items or any minutes for approval. So we're going to go ahead and continue to Item Number 2, which is Spontaneous Communications.
SPONTANEOUS
COMMUNICATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE This is the time set aside for members of the audience to speak on any SECRETARY item not on this agenda that is within the Planning Commission’s HERNANDEZ subject matter jurisdiction. The Planning Commission is an advisory body appointed by the City Council to review and provide recommendations on matters related to land use, planning, and development within the city. Except for very limited circumstances, state law prohibits any Commission discussion or action on items that are not on the agenda. All members of the public are asked to observe the City’s Rules of Procedure and Public Meeting Decorum. The City’s Rules of Procedure and Public Meeting Decorum can be found on the City’s website, and Chapter 2.40 of the Irwindale Municipal Code. You may also contact the City Clerk’s Office for copies. Each speaker will be limited to 3 minutes unless such time limits are extended. If a member of the public wishes to donate their time to another speaker, both persons must be physically present and in attendance of the meeting. The Presiding Officer may, in his or her discretion, extend the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 3
3-minute time limitation for the particular subject for all speakers. In no event shall the total amount of speaking time exceed 6 minutes per person for the subject under discussion. Organized groups of persons wishing to address the Board on the same subject should select a spokesperson to represent the group, so as to avoid unnecessary repetition. The Commission may regulate a speaker who is speaking too long or out of order, being unduly repetitious, discussing irrelevancies, or extending to items not within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. Please be reminded that discrimination, abusive use of profanity, unruly disruption, and violent or physically threatening conduct is discouraged. Members of the public shall not disrupt the orderly conduct of the meeting. The Presiding Officer will request that a person cease any disruptive conduct, and if not immediately stopped, will direct the person to be removed from the meeting. We are in a hybrid format so we do have both in person and hybrid audience members and they will participate in the following order: Tier one, in person attendees; Tier 2, teleconference attendees; and Tier 3, in person and teleconference attendees who have not previously provided comments on the matters being discussed by the legislative body.
CHAIR FRYMARK Thank you, Jesus. Do we have any members in the audience that would like to come forward to the podium to speak under Spontaneous Communication? If so, I invite you to come forward now.
ROBERT DIAZ Robert Diaz, 2408 South Mountain Avenue, here in Irwindale. Just a question I had basically, is that a while back, the Planning Commission approved the updated Zoning Code and Zoning Map. Went to the Council. The Council asked for the item to go back to the Planning Commission for further study and review, and some of the things that were brought up haven't been discussed by the Planning Commission to this date. And what I did hear from some Staff members is that it's a matter of policy decision. Nevertheless, I also heard the City Attorney answer a question from a Commissioner about whether the Zoning Map has to be approved at the same time as the code. And if I understand correctly, she advised that it should be done at the same time. So, the question I raise, are you going to be looking at other possible matters that were discussed at the City Council Meeting and bring them up. For example, you're going to consider rezoning land commercially. Now there have been some changes that have been recommended since then, such as the residential property being rezoned Residential instead of Light Industrial in some areas. But other areas right now were used commercially and yet the zoning shows Manufacturing. And even if I recall, the park was known as Skate Park across the street, is projected to be zoned Manufacturing. At least that's, I believe part of the reason that the City Council pushed this matter back to the Planning Commission. So the question is, will any of these proposed changes or even discussion be coming up before considering approving the Zoning Map and the General Plan Updates, as it has been recommended?
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 4
CHAIR FRYMARK Thank you, Mr. Diaz. Are there any other members of the public that would like to come forward to speak under Spontaneous
Communication. Seeing none, we can move on to Tier 2.
ADMINISTRATIVE Looks like we have no one for Tier 2.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
CHAIR FRYMARK And Tier 3, in person or any hybrid teleconference attendees who have not already spoken on matters under Spontaneous Communication? Last call. All right. Thank you. So, then we're going to go ahead and close Spontaneous Communication and move on to New Business.
Item Number 3 on our Agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
CHAIR FRYMARK Seeing that there are no New Business to discuss, we're going to go ahead and move on to Item Number 4, Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CHAIR FRYMARK Under Public Hearing, we have a couple items that we're going to discuss today. The first one being a Site Plan and Design Review Number 04-2022, a speculative 100,500 square foot concrete tilt up building, at 14005 Live Oak Avenue. And I believe we have a Staff Report.
SENIOR PLANNER Good evening, Chair, members of the Planning Commission. The next JONES item is Site Plan and Design Review, DA Number 04-2022 located at 14005 Live Oak Avenue. The applicant is requesting a Site Plan and Design Review for the construction of a 102,500 square foot tilt up building and associated parking. The site is located at the northeast corner of Stewart and Live Oak Avenue in the M-2, Heavy Manufacturing Zone, and it has a General Plan designation of Industrial Business Park, which are both consistent. So, the proposed building met all of the requirements or exceeded all the requirements in the M-2 Zone from all of the setbacks, floor area ratio, building height, landscaping, and parking. So, the proposal is a 102,500 hundred square foot building which includes 6,000 square feet of office, which includes 300 on the ground floor, 3,000 mezzanine, and then the remaining as warehouse. The lot size is 5.13 acres of gross acreage.
And there was a dedication required, which brought it down to 4.86 acres. There was no perspective user at this time. So, the proposed project is a single-story building that incorporates many of the desired elements of the Commercial and Industrial Guidelines. The building incorporates parapet heights, breaks up expansive exterior walls with architectural projections and various materials. If you can see. They have again a parapet here. Which incorporates the mission style that conforms with the design guidelines. There's a use of metal, glass,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 5
wood, brick, and stone. There's also, for example, a low wall here, which is made of river rock to represent the City. So, these are just elevations of the proposed building as it would look like from different views. So, at this point I'm going to turn it over to our environmental consultant who can talk about the environmental process. Then it'll come back over to me. I'll conclude. Then the applicant has a power PowerPoint presentation.
CHAIR FRYMARK Thank you Brandi.
NOEMI WEISS Alright, good evening. So, my name is Noemi Weiss, with Kimlee Horn Associates, and we prepared the environmental document with the city. I have three/four slides on the overview of CEQA and the process we went through for the specific project too. Initially, there's a preliminary review where you define the project, which is very important for CEQA on what the project is. And if there's a discretionary action like tonight, then we go through the CEQA process. The first step is the Initial Study, OPR, the Office of Planning Resources, has CEQA guidelines with twenty resource areas that we look at. And so we do the Initial Study. We prepare technical analysis and see what impacts there may be potentially or not. Depending on that, you then go to a Negative Declaration which means you have no impacts or less than significant impacts. A Mitigated Negative Declaration, where you have some potentially significant impacts that you can mitigate, or an Environmental Impact Report where you have significant and unavoidable impacts. And then you get to the project consideration approval, which is where we are today. So next. This is the process that we went through for this project. So, we prepared the Draft Initial Study back in last summer/fall, and then we went out to public review in end of September through end of October. Then we received, I think three comment letters that we responded to prepare for the Final Initial Study, and then Planning Commission today, and then City Council in the spring, and then an issue or notice of determination. So backing up. Yeah, for this… So for this project, for the Live Oak project, we first prepare the technical studies of air quality health risks, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, and the applicant had also prepared a handful of studies. We reviewed all of those and then pursuant to the guidelines, Appendix G, we discussed, what the strategy was for the Initial Study. So, we prepared the Initial Study and found some of the… Thank you. The technical studies found that all impacts could be less than significant. The additional analysis, such as biology, cultural, geology and tribal, did have some potentially significant impacts. But then we had mitigation measures that were pretty standard for the city, that then resulted in a less than significant with mitigation. Because everything could be mitigated, an Initial Study was the appropriate document, and an EIR was not necessary. And I think I have one more slide on, kind of the difference with an EIR and an MND. And this also looks like it's cut off a bit. So an EIR is prepared, as I discussed, if there are significant impacts that cannot be
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 6
mitigated to the less than significant level. An Initial Study can be mitigated. A Draft EIR is also circulated for between thirty and sixty days. Usually, cities do forty-five days. Initial Studies circulated for thirty days and then part of an EIR, there's also the comments that are then responded to in the final EIR, which is not as necessary in the Initial Study. So that is kind of high level CEQA and the process we went through for this project. So, back to Brandi.
SENIOR PLANNER So that actually concludes my report. We do have a presentation from JONES applicant also, do we need to close the Public Hearing before they present?
ASSISTANT Uh, not at this time.
CITY ATTORNEY
TRAXLER
SENIOR PLANNER Okay. So, they'll come up and do their presentation.
JONES
CHAIR FRYMARK Sounds great. Thank you. And then the Commission will then be able to hear any public comments and then discuss?
ASSISTANT Correct. But before then I would recommend the Commission ask any CITY ATTORNEY questions of Staff, the CEQA consultant, or the applicant?
TRAXLER
CHAIR FRYMARK Before we have internal discussions?
ASSISTANT Before the hearing…
CITY ATTORNEY
TRAXLER
CHAIR FRYMARK We open the Public Hearing?
ASSISTANT Yes.
CITY ATTORNEY
TRAXLER
EMILIO LOZANO Good evening to the Planning Committee. First and foremost, I would like to thank our planner, Brandi, and the rest of the City Staff for the work they did to help bring this project before you. And just briefly, we have a representative from the owner/applicant here to give a brief overview of who they are.
LUIS GOMEZ Thank you, Emilio. Can I move to the next slide. There we go. Good evening. I am Luis Gomez, Vice President of Development at Rexford Industrial. Rexford Industrial is a publicly traded REIT. We are based out of Los Angeles and our sole focus is on industrial real estate in
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 7
Southern California. We do have a proven track record of responsible development throughout many cities in Southern California, and we're a long-term holder. What that means is we're not looking to buy, develop, flip and move on. We're here to stay. So, we like to build new buildings at a high-quality standard, in this case it's a LEED gold building, as you'll hear tonight. And hold on to that building for a good amount of time. Throughout our portfolio, we currently own about four hundred and twenty-four properties. That number moves up and down slightly every day, but not every day but pretty regularly. We have a seven hundred and twenty buildings, and we're at about fifty million square feet. Just to give you a little bit of perspective, in the City of Irwindale we do own about two million square feet, so that's about four percent of our portfolio, if you will. That includes twenty buildings in the City of Irwindale, and that equates to fifty-three business partners or tenants and plenty of employees that are hired through those tenants.
Currently we have one building under construction. That building is at 4416 Azusa Canyon, we have three under entitlements, including this one here, two that are further behind. And we were expecting to invest about sixty-five million when those projects are done. Very excited to be here. We're glad to be a part of the community and we look forward to working with the City. Thank you.
CHAIR FRYMARK Thank you Mr. Gomez.
Moving on to Item B, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment Number 03-2023 and Zone Change Number 04-2023; Citywide, the Title 17 Zoning Code Update.
Do we have a Staff Report.
COMMUNITY Thank you, Chair, and Commission, and members of the public. Yes, DEVELOPMENT you do have a Staff Report Presentation. So just a little bit of a brief DIRECTOR recap. You've heard this before, but this project is a Comprehensive SIMPSON Zoning Code Update and it was continued from the December 18th, Planning Commission meeting. On January 31st, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the San Gabriel Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation, in accordance with the California Government Code. A Notice of Public Hearing describing the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update and Zoning Map Update was posted at Irwindale City Hall, the library, Community Development Department, and the local post office. The notice was also mailed or delivered at least twenty days prior to the Public Hearing to all owners of the subject, real property proposed to undergo Zone Changes or Amendments. So, with this presentation Nick Pergakes, from Interwest, he will be with us tonight via zoom. And he will give a brief review of previous changes and go through in more detail on the latest direction from the Planning Commission. And like previous presentations, this is a joint one with Staff and Nick discussing the slides. But he'll be chiming in later with that. So, as I mentioned, this item was continued for the Planning Commission to have further discussion on building heights within a proposed residential buffer. The
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 8
non-conforming chapter was discussed and the administrative review process. So, these items were included in the Staff Report and we'll go into further detail. So, I want to point out, no changes are actually being made to the Zoning Code document until the Planning Commission is finished with all the recommendations. So, one thing, we are keeping the SMARA chapter as is, that's not changing. But again, you know, the direction will be that we'll bring it back to you. To bring back the amended chapter, excuse me, at a later date for consistency with state law. Frog in my throat. Anyway, I also want to point out the red line document, that was included in your packet, it will be correctly renumbered and put in order when all recommended changes are final. So, we did receive a written... Oh, thank you. We did receive written public comments after this December 18th meeting. We received an e-mail from Craig Furniss from the Alderson Business Park that was dated on 12-20-24. And we received a letter from NAIOP that was dated 12-18-24. Those are discussed in the Staff Report.
There was also a letter that we got on December 18th from a law firm, I believe it was Buchalter. And we had placed that on the dais, but in this this thing, I included in the packet just for your reference. And I do want to point out that one of the exhibits, it's the Exhibit A to Resolution Number 828(24) has a complete list of the Planning Commission's recommendations to date. So, the Environmental Review for this project is pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA and the City of Irwindale Environmental Guidelines. The City is the lead agency, has analyzed the project and determined that the proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update was assessed in the Environmental Impact Review Report for the City 's General Plan and pursuant to CEQA guidelines is consistent with the previously certified EIR for the City's General Plan.
So therefore, no subsequent EIR, Negative Declaration, or Addendum is required for approval of the Zoning Code Update. So, one thing I do want to say that it was a year ago that this Zoning Code Update was recommended for approval to the City Council. It was last February.
So, the Planning Commission has worked long and hard over this past year, so I really want to commend you for that. There's been a lot of hard work that's been put into this, but I also want to remind you that, and remind everyone who's listening, that this project was financed primarily through grants that were provided to the City by the state, and it covered most of the cost for preparing it. So, the City has until June 30th to adopt the Zoning Code Update, or the total amount of the grants would need to be returned to the state. So, I just want to point that out.
The deadline for the grounds was a few months ago, but we have talked to them. We've explained, you know, over this past year how much work has been done and there have been some changes, you know, in the Planning Commission set up. But they've understood that.
They see the goal. And the whole purpose of those grants was to be able to create a planning policy guideline and to bring, you know, hopefully bring cities not just for Irwindale, but throughout the state, you know, to get this done. So, I do want to commend you for that, but
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 9
I have to remind you I have to be the negative Nancy, to point that out.
So at this point, what I'm going to do is I'm going to turn it over to Nick.
NICK PERGAKES Hi, good evening everybody. Good evening, Chair, Members of the Planning Commission. This is Nick Pergakes, Principal Planner for Interwest Consulting Group and Project Manager for the Zoning Code Update. I am going to give a brief overview of the agenda tonight for the presentation. We would like to discuss direction received at the December Planning Commission meeting. Also, some of the items that were discussed in some of the individual meetings with the Planning Commission and City Staff, as well as the consultant team. We discussed potentially looking at 35 feet of building height maximums within the 500 feet buffer to be increased to 40 feet. We looked at analyzing 250 feet residential buffer from M-1 and M-2 properties from Residential zones properties or zones. We also looked at and talked about parapet wall heights, as well as reviews for non-residential developments at the director level review. We also… Tonight will look at these items and discuss the recommendations to then take forward to City Council. Next slide. So, Marilyn gave a bit of a recap on the meetings that have been happening over the last year, so I won't go into too much detail about this. But we have been working with City Staff and the Planning Commission on addressing several comments and ideas and revisions that came from property owners, business owners, City Staff of course, as well citizens in the community to look at various development standards. You know, including setbacks, building heights, and other things, as well as the non-conforming use regulations. And there's been several meetings with Planning Commission members to work on these edits to satisfy the community 's residents and business owners concerns. And we have made revisions since the last meeting, and they've been reflected in the document that's been provided in your packet to review. So next steps would be to take it to City Council for adoption later this year. Next slide. So back in August of 2024 at the Planning Commission meeting, City Staff presented analysis of M-1 and M-2 properties that were within 500 feet of residential zone properties. Staff received direction at the December Planning Commission meeting to then look at a 250-foot buffer from residential zone properties, due to input from property owners and businesses, noting that the height limits of 35 feet within that area would cause several existing industrial buildings to be nonconforming in height, and could potentially cause issues with existing or future bank lenders. So, this table here shows the M-1 and M-2 zones. The parcels affected with that 500-foot buffer around residential properties, so this is parcel line to parcel line. And here you can see 37 parcels are affected from the M-1 Zone to the Residential Zone properties. And then in our new analysis, and I'll show some slides here in a few moments, the 250-foot buffer around the residential uses, it reduces the number of parcels affected by about 30 percent or so.
And then for M-2 zone properties that are within the 500-foot buffer, we
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 10
analyzed 60 back in August, and then looking at the 250-foot buffer from residential zone properties it does reduce it down to 46 parcels.
Next line. So, we're going to show a series of maps. We shared similar maps back in August of different areas where Residential Zones are near, Industrial M-1 and M-2 buildings. So, this is showing that 250- foot buffer, in blue, from residential zone properties today. And this is about a half dozen or so buildings that are impacted. You know, property line to property line within that that area. Next slide. This is showing a building at 500, excuse me, 15601 Cypress. This is an existing industrial building that's about 38 and a half feet in height. So, it would be non-conforming with the new Development Standard in the new Zoning Code Update. Next slide. In the Town Center area, Arrow/ Pepper Tree, again we were showing a similar slide or similar example of a buffer this time it is a 250-foot buffer from properties that allow residential. So those are the properties shown in yellow. And then the buffer of 250-feet from those properties is shown in blue. And then next slide. We're showing here an example building which is across street from the Planning Department 's building at 5200 North Irwindale Avenue an M-2 Zone property. And these sets of buildings is about 32 feet in height. Next slide. This is now down south in the southern part of the Town Center designate in the General Plan, showing residential properties in yellow with a 250-foot buffer in blue, and the impacts to some of the industrial buildings that would be to the west of those properties here shown yellow across from Irwindale Avenue. The next slide. This photograph is showing a building at 16035 Arrow Highway and it's in the M-2 Zone, and it's roughly sitting at 34 feet in height.
Next slide. Here is the Park Neighborhood with a buffer around… about 6 or 7 residential zone properties today, and with a buffer the impacts to a few M-1 properties in the area. Next slide. Here is some buildings here at 1488 Los Angeles Street and this is the Alderson Business Park, that has an average building height for a lot of these buildings at 35 feet. And as you can see, some of the buildings at the entries, you know, kind of the ends are a little bit taller in height for an architectural feature. So those architectural features bring it up to about 41 and a half feet. So having a parapet wall or architectural feature counted outside of the building height measurement, you know, would make several buildings now be nonconforming in status. Next slide. Here's the Mountain Neighborhood showing 250-foot buffer in blue and showing some of the impacts to M-2 properties and M-1 properties. And next slide. Here are a couple of buildings along Bateman Avenue in the M-2 Zone, which have an average height roughly around 36 to 38 feet. Next slide. So wanted to show this slide in terms of what was being discussed at some of the individual Planning Commission meetings with Staff, there was some talk about bringing the 35-maximum height, if you're within the residential buffer zone and, you know, considering it to be up to 40-feet. And then also with the maximum parapet height considerations, now in the in the Zoning Code draft, we've been showing 10 feet proposed but considering to bring that down to 8 feet. So, as you can see here with
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 11
the building heights to the right, if you take a 35 feet building height, you know, within the residential buffer and you add the parapet, you know, that could bring the top of a structure with architectural feature or parapet up to 43 feet, if it stays at that ten feet proposed and it could get you to 45 feet. And then if we do consider raising it to 40 feet you would have an extra 8 feet for parapets. So that would be 48 feet tall in height, or 50 feet if you keep it at the 10-foot proposed parapet height maximum. Next slide. So, some of the revisions, as well, since the December meeting to the non-conforming uses and structures chapter of the document, we added, “structures may be continued to maintain.” Explicitly including routine repairs in Section 17.18.040. We've also included the term structures to 17.18.060 to include non-conforming structures in addition to uses. And then we also modify the language in
17.18.060 for modifications to explicitly state that, “non-conforming uses shall not result in an expansion or intensity of a physical footprint of a building.” Next slide. We also have modified language in
17.18.070, Elimination of Non-conforming Uses and Structures, to include substandard buildings as defined by the Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3. And then in Article 5 in table 17.24050-1, Review Authorities for Decision and Appeals, the site design excuse me, the Site Plan and Design Review Table for Administrative Approvals for Industrial Zones was then revised. As you can see in the document. So with that, I'm going to turn it back over to Marilyn to discuss the Site and Design Plan Review process. Next slide.
COMMUNITY Thank you, Nick. So. At the last meeting, one of the things that had DEVELOPMENT been brought up by some of the developers and the business owners, DIRECTOR was the Site Plan and Design Review and having what is the current SIMPSON process and what's being proposed in the Zoning Code, and then as it was revised. So, let me see, let me go to the next slide. This has the same information, but a new column. So, we'd have some discussions, and we had a few conversations and some direction and comments from the Planning Commission. So, in the current code right now, maximum that can be approved administratively is 1,000 square feet.
And that goes through a Site Plan and Design Review that we keep a file for that. We keep records. We go through the same analysis with it, but it's just we look at the square footage. So that processing time, 2 to 4 weeks depending on what the expansion is for or the project. And then the cost of the applicant averages around sixteen hundred. So, in the proposed code, this was a recommended, you know, because of the size of the buildings that we have, up to 25,000 square feet. And again, it would go through the same kind of Site Plan and Design Review that we do at the staff level. Would take 4 to 6 weeks. Cost would be just over two thousand. So, what was proposed, this was in the September meeting, that there would be no Director or Administrative Review it would have to go through Site Plan and Design Review, that would go to Planning Commission City Council.
The processing time on that 3 to 5 months. That's a very ambitious schedule with that. I would say it would take a little bit longer than that,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 12
but the cost significantly increases to just over twenty-four thousand.
So, after the discussion with some of the Commissioners looking at putting a cap of either ten to fifteen percent of the existing area not to exceed 2,500 square feet. It would still go through a Site Plan and Design Review process for director approval, with the option to take it to the Planning Commission. We always have that option to take things to the Planning Commission, by the way, so. In that the processing time, again, you know 2 weeks to 2 months for that. And the cost would be just over 2,000. So wanted to bring that up because there was still some concerns that had been raised to Staff, you know, on not being able to have an Administrative Review and having that discouraged somebody from doing some improvement to their project or to their site. So, without that, that concludes the Staff Report.
Recommendation is to adopt Resolutions Number 828(24) and 829(24). If there's any additional revised or alternative recommendations to bring that to the City Council, and direct Staff to report back to the City Council. And the second recommendation is that… to the Planning Commission is to have the City Council adopt findings of consistency with the cities previously certified, General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Thank you.
CHAIR FRYMARK Do we have any members of the Planning Commission that have any clarifying questions or need additional information from Staff before we open up the Public Hearing? Yeah?
COMMISSIONER Question. Marilyn, by the way, thank you so much for the workshop it MIRANDA was amazing and got us to where we're at right now. I had a question regarding what would prompt you, particularly, to take it to the Planning Commission versus just making a decision that way, or what would concern you or that come across your table that you would think, “hey, I need to take this?”
COMMUNITY Well, we'd have to have clarification on what was the expansion for, DEVELOPMENT with that. That would be one of the things. If there was anything that DIRECTOR was questionable or that our code really didn't define. You know, I'd SIMPSON want to get some kind of clarification on that. And it would be something if they weren't necessarily wanting to agree with the Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines with that. That if they thought that Staff was overreaching. That, you know, I'd say that's fine.
We understand the criteria. We've heard you loud and clear about the Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines and we'd want to bring it, you know, back. And you know, depending on it's, it's not like we're using you as a hammer I just want you to know. And I don't want any developers or anybody in the public to think that we use that, but it's just no, sometimes there are some things, you know. Or if there's something that, you know, this is something… It might be, you know… If we're looking at the size. If it's like kind of stretching it, you know for that. But again, I want to go back to if they were coming in and they're proposing this expansion, the analysis that we do, you know, we have
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 13
to look at parking. We’d look at the use. We'd look at the height. We’d look at the design. We’d look at the colors. All of that goes into it. So yeah, and we actually write up a report with it. So, we have the file for that, so we leave it for generations to come.
COMMISSIONER Great, thank you.
MIRANDA
COMMISSIONER I do have a question. Yes, it's for Staff. So, regarding the parapets, right RODRIGUEZ now it's at 10 feet currently in the zone.
COMMUNITY In the proposed Zoning Code, yes.
DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
SIMPSON
COMMISSIONER It's my understanding that those cover any like air condition units or RODRIGUEZ something on the roof.
COMMUNITY In the proposed Zoning Code, yes.
DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
SIMPSON
COMMUNITY That's correct.
DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
SIMPSON
COMMISSIONER Okay. So, if we were to decrease that down to 8 feet, would it cover RODRIGUEZ most of the air-conditioned units or anything that's up there on the roof? Or are the are they at certain standard size that's placed on the buildings?
COMMUNITY Thank you, Chair and Commissioners for that question. So, there's a DEVELOPMENT lot of variables with that. So, it would depend on the building and the DIRECTOR size of the building and the building code itself, which is not the Zoning SIMPSON Code. Not my purview, but the building code require were some of that mechanical equipment needs to be placed on the roof. And the code does require… All codes require this, that there be screening from public view of that. So, depending on where they are putting it, and it's very handy that we have our Building Official here and he can correct me at any time. But there are, depending on the use that is on the floor, that would depend on what kind of equipment needs to be up on the roof with that. So 8 feet, that could cover it. But again, you know, if there was a question about it, we would have them do a line of sight drawing for that that we'd have to see it. That's a typical drawing that you have somebody who is, or they have a figure, that is at least 6 feet tall from the public right of way doing the line of sight that can they see
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 14
it, you know, or not. So we want to be careful with that, but I think that most of the equipment is about 6 feet. Things end up getting compact, but sometimes it depends on the use that someone has, it may need to be higher. If it was something that if it had to be higher without it, it might need a variance for that, and that's something definitely that we would come back to the Planning Commission for. But I do want to talk about the difference between a parapet and architectural features. So the parapet is one thing to screen that, but something that has been, and it's even part of the Design Guidelines, is to have kind of an entry statement to the building and those are the architectural features.
Those should be higher than the parapet, because otherwise you just get a very flat building. You want something tells visitors this is the entrance. And so you really don't want to limit that. I know that the preferred thing is to have some kind of arched design with that. So you want something a little taller so that it's not just a small eyebrow that goes over that entryway. So an architectural feature really should be allowed to go a little higher than the parapet.
COMMISSIONER I do have another question.
RODRIGUEZ
CHAIR FRYMARK Yes, go ahead Commissioner. Please.
COMMISSIONER Okay, so regarding the graph that was put together, the analysis of the RODRIGUEZ buffer.
COMMUNITY Yes.
DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
SIMPSON
COMMISSIONER Oh, I'm sorry, yes, the buffer. It was my understanding that those RODRIGUEZ buildings were non-conforming not based on height. It was based on their application process.
COMMUNITY There are some of them that they were considered legal nonDEVELOPMENT conforming because they were constructed prior to having to get a Site DIRECTOR Plan and Design Review entitlement with that. Thank you. We consider SIMPSON it illegal non-conforming with that.
COMMISSIONER With these numbers, is it accurate that these numbers are based on RODRIGUEZ height alone?
COMMUNITY Yes. If I can have Nick, who did the analysis, speak to clarify that.
DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
SIMPSON
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 15
NICK PERGAKES Yes. So, the numbers that are shown in that table, in the PowerPoint presentation, the distance of the buffer is from property line to property line. It is not necessarily property line to the structure or like a multifamily or like, excuse me, or like an industrial building structure to a residential structure because it's it's too difficult to do it that way. We had to look at it just property line to property line because you know like a building could be set back quite a ways. There could be parking and then at some point a building could be expanded or a new building can go in there at some point. So, we had to kind of measure it from property line to property line for the residential buffer. So those are the parcels that are affected. Now, the number that are non-conforming in terms of height, we don't have that exact number, so it's probably less than that.
COMMUNITY Thank you. And if I may add to that, that would be one of the things that DEVELOPMENT if we had a building that was legal non-conforming because it was DIRECTOR constructed prior to the requirement for Site plan and Design Review, SIMPSON and they came in and they wanted to expand even if it was that 1,000 square feet or something smaller, that is something… Because we want them to be legal. So that when we want them to conform… So that would be something that we would bring back to the Planning Commission.
CHAIR FRYMARK Thank you Marilyn. Are there any other clarifying questions that any Commissioner would like to ask? While we're reviewing or considering additional questions, I do want to just thank the Planning Department for your time inworking with us and workshopping this. I know you met with us for multiple hours, at different times, and we were able to, you know, just have meaningful conversations and get this analysis information that we requested. I do want to thank you for that. It does show that if we were to consider reducing the buffer from 500-feet to 250-feet, we are making a difference in the number of businesses in our business sector that would be impacted and considered nonconforming. I mean the delta would be in M-1 Zone, 13 businesses and M-2, 14. I hope… Not that we need to show anybody anything, but I hope that it is recognized the work that the City Staff and the Planning Commission is doing to just kind of thread that needle delicately and address the needs of the residents as well.
COMMUNITY Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. You know, I do want to say that DEVELOPMENT was time well spent with that. And there's been sometimes DIRECTOR extraordinary effort to address everybody's questions with that, and I SIMPSON really appreciate that from the Commission.
CHAIR FRYMARK Vice-Chair Acosta?
VICE-CHAIR ACOSTA Yeah, I got a clarifying comment, Marilyn, on the part we're just talking about now about the parcels that would be affected, going from the 250
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 16
buffer. Those numbers just mean they'd be effective, it doesn't mean that they would be non-conforming. Is that correct?
COMMUNITY That is correct.
DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
SIMPSON
VICE-CHAIR ACOSTA Okay.
CHAIR FRYMARK Another quick question not related to buffers, parapets, any of those things, but it does apply in the in the sense of the Zoning Map. I do see where we have currently the proposed Zoning Map, where the skate park is as an M-1 Zone. I don't remember and please refresh my memory if we ever talked about changing that area to align with what it currently exists there, which is a park. Which would be zoned as a public/semipublic space I believe.
COMMUNITY I don't believe we've had that conversation, but that's something that DEVELOPMENT that we can bring. We did that for the library project, that we had to DIRECTOR change the zoning and get the General Plan into conformance with that, SIMPSON but we can do that because it's it doesn't look likely that the skate park's going to change.
CHAIR FRYMARK No, we hope not. So. If we can get it properly zoned as we're working through this, I think that would be a good opportunity for us to do that.
And address facts. I couldn't remember whether or not it's been discussed or not. Maybe not.
COMMUNITY And I'll work with the City Manager on that.
DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
SIMPSON
CHAIR FRYMARK Do I need to present that, like as a motion in any kind of way, or is that just something that's going to be worked on?
ASSISTANT Yeah, we can have… direct staff to work on analyzing rezoning of the CITY ATTORNEY skate park. And that can be included as a motion, yeah.
TRAXLER
CHAIR FRYMARK Do we have any other comments or questions before we open up the Public Hearing?
COMMISSIONER Commissioner Acosta had a great comment regarding the properties MIRANDA that are affected by the 250. I was curious, you said non-conforming, they're not going to be affected, those properties? The 46 properties? I mean they're in the zone, but they will be non-conforming. We're trying to address the people who came into our Council Chambers.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 17
CHAIR FRYMARK We're talking about this table?
COMMISSIONER Correct.
MIRANDA
COMMUNITY Yeah, I'm gonna have Nick address that. because they’re the ones who DEVELOPMENT did the study on that.
DIRECTOR
SIMPSON
COMMISSIONER Thank you.
MIRANDA
NICK PERGAKES Well, excuse me, can you state that again? I'm not sure I understood your question.
COMMISSIONER Well, regarding the graph we have the M-1/M-2, Light Industrial MIRANDA Heavy Industrial. The buffer from 500 to 250 and how it lessened the impact from 37 to 24 to 62 to 46. That's a good impact, but those left behind in 46, for instance, or 24, are they gonna be affected as far as their status as non-conforming? Or are they conforming because of the difference in the buffer now?
NICK PERGAKES Well, so there's now less properties that would be… Yes, potentially non-conforming so we don't have an exact count. You know based on the building heights of all those properties. But certainly, there will be less. And you know, as we, the City Staff, and the City received a letter from NAIOP in December. They did propose, within 250 feet, having a, you know, a height limit of 40 feet. And you know, not going any lower than that. So, that would help also probably decrease the number of non-conforming buildings. Because that would then you know bring up the height to 40 feet as a maximum and then that would probably solve most of the issues with the non-conforming structures, if not all of them.
COMMISSIONER I thought so. Thank you. And by the way, Nick was amazing with MIRANDA helping, with all this too. Thank you, Sir.
COMMUNITY If I may add too, so the M-1 Zone, that's had a maximum height of 35 DEVELOPMENT feet for years with that. So, the buildings that are in there, I can't attest DIRECTOR to all of them in there, but since we've had… At least for the past 20 SIMPSON years, that we know of that it's been 35 feet high. Most of those then would be in the M-1. Those would be conforming to that maximum 35 feet.
CHAIR FRYMARK Sorry I have one more question. The question is specific to, the Administrative Site Plan and Design Review process. We… I recognize that in January when we made the change, to request that, any you know Site Plans and Design Reviews come to the Commission, would extend not only processing but also significantly increase administrative
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 18
costs, which is not the goal of the Planning Commission, of course. So, we talked about the possibility of exploring instead of completely removing the director review permissions, but rather, consider doing some kind of amount, dollar amount. Like, for example, some language to state like not to exceed X amount of dollars, for director approval, when there is a Site Plan or Design Review being considered. That is something that we discussed at our meeting. I think we got a couple of examples from other cities, so I wanted to just put that on the table as a comment for us to consider. Because I don't think that an intended consequence was to delay processing time, or to increase any administrative costs associated with Design Reviews. So, I just wanted to make that comment. Do we have any other clarifying questions before we open the floor to Public Hearing? Okay. Thank you, Marilyn.
COMMUNITY Thank you.
DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
SIMPSON
CHAIR FRYMARK Do we have any members from the audience that would like to come forward.
OPEN PUBLIC At 8:11 p.m., Chair Frymark opened the Public Hearing.
HEARING
SCOTT FURNISS Good evening, Chair Frymark, members of the Planning Commission, City Staff, thank you for all your time spent on this Zoning Code Update and listening to stakeholders like us. For reference, I'm Scott Furniss.
I’m with Seventh Street Development and I'm also here representing the Alderson Business Park, on Los Angeles Street and Alderson Avenue. One thing, I think Chair Acosta already kind of clarified, but I believe, the buildings presented were within the 250-foot buffer zone, but they are not necessarily non-conforming. I guess it's my understanding that, that was what those buildings presented were in the buffer zone but are not necessarily non-conforming. So, if we could maybe clarify that that would help me, but other than that I'm just want to say I appreciate all the work that you guys have done. That you've sought out all the various stakeholders. And thank you so much.
CHAIR FRYMARK Thank you.
MIHRAN TOUMAJAN Good evening, Chair Frymark, fellow commissioners, Mihran Toumajan with NAIOP SoCal. We've come a long way from our discussions last summer, and I applaud the Planning Commission, City Staff, Interwest, Nick at Interwest working with residents and with business owners to find a good balance. And I think that which Nick presented today, our members can live with and specifically, we welcome the proposed 10- foot maximum height for parapet walls. As well as a 40-foot height limit for any building, Commercial or Industrial in the M-1 and M-2 Zones
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 19
within 250 feet of a residential buffer. We believe that the 40-foot building height would better reflect existing structural demands by industrial tenants engaged in cube stacking for their distribution, logistics, and warehouse businesses. The 40- foot building height limit would ideally require a clear height around 36-38 feet, depending on the design and intended use of the structure. So again, that which Nick proposed today with the 40-foot building height limit I think, would also negate a lot of potential nonconformity. And even the examples that Nick showed there was, I think, one building that was above 35, within the 35- and 40-foot range. And with a 40-foot limit that specific building would likely not be legal non-conforming. So again, we've come a long way and on behalf of our Members and NAIOP SoCal, we appreciate the time well spent by you in studying this, working with Nick and with the Staff in trying to find a sensible solution for all stakeholders. Thank you very much.
ROBERT DIAZ Robert Diaz. On that chart that’s shown above you, I like where it says proposed at September, Planning Commission meeting, where the maximum to be approved by director, says no director review permitted, I like that idea. Residents of Irwindale, including myself, feel much better knowing that it's the Planning Commission and Council to making decisions regarding land use rather than a staff member that may not be familiar with the City as well as we are. So, where they have considered other proposals, I like that one, but if you must, then go back to the current Zoning Code that allows director approval for only 1,000 square feet. I do feel that approvals, the kind you're talking about, should be postponed until the City and the Plan Commission review possible additional Commercial Zoning, or changing the definition of Regional Commercial. It bothers me when I see the Planning Commission Staff recommending changes to our General Plan, when that's supposed to be our blueprint for our future. And then we're having… I believe they should be following what's written in the code, and if someone says we want to propose a certain use, Staff should be able to tell them, “sorry, no you can’t because the zoning or the General Plan doesn't permit it.” And then if they wish to make an appeal, then they can make an appeal to the Planning Commission or Council for… But at least they know that what the code is. Any case. Anyway, I wish you'd consider other, some Commercial Zoning because… Also reviewing the General Plan. The General Plan was amended. It used to say that the pits along the six, oh, five freeway are to be developed, filled and developed commercially. And I'm paraphrasing, but that's what it basically says. But it was amended and changed to say, commercial or industrial use along the 605 freeway are to be filled and developed commercially. And I am paraphrasing but that is what it basically says. It was amended and changed to say Commercial or Industrial use along the 605. And the developers are proposing nothing but industrial. Instead of just commercial, which has changed because of what the General Plan says. So maybe you can recommend the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 20
Council change that language to make it possible for commercial development.
CHAIR FRYMARK Thank you, Mr. Diaz.
FRED BARBOSA Good evening, Fred Barbosa. 16164 Calle de Paseo. We mentioned that the 500-foot buffer zone was not in the best interest of the city, it will cause more problems down the road. Another thing on the Site Plan and Design service, I like the proposed draft code from the Planning Commission in January for two reasons. One, it's not as expensive and it doesn't waste a lot of time, and it's a developer friendly. You know, and there's nothing wrong in sharing power. That's what everybody 's afraid of, you know, they don't want to give people too much power.
Hey, we're not going to let them abuse it, that's why we're here. So at least give them some. And if they hang themselves, hey, whatever happens but the idea, share the power. Let's move together. Thank you.
CHAIR FRYMARK Thank you, Mr. Barbosa.
LUIS GOMEZ Good evening, Chair, Planning Commissioners. Once again, Luis Gomez with Rexford Industrial. Just here to support the 40-foot height, the 10-foot parapet and the 250-foot buffer. I do believe that the extra 5 feet in height, going from 35 to 40, would make a big difference and it strikes a good balance between the industrial development groups and obviously the wants and needs of the residents. I think at 250 feet away it would be very difficult to see the difference between 35 and 40 feet of height. So, but on the other hand, from our standpoint, it makes all the difference in being able to drive…. Sorry. Design a building to today's industrial standards. So again, we're in support. We thank you for your time, your consideration. I know it's been a long process and I'm glad we're finally here. Thank you very much.
CHAIR FRYMARK Do we have any other Members in Tier 1 that would like to come forward to speak? Seeing none, we're going to move on to Tier 2. Do we have anyone on teleconference?
ADMINSTRATIVE We do. I'm gonna go ahead and unmute Ms. Gomez.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
CHAIR FRYMARK Thank you. Welcome, Ms. Gomez.
SUZZANE GOMEZ Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners, Staff. It's interesting that Seventh Street Developers came on tonight because they were the model. They collaborated with the City and they have a beautiful setting. They created the set back and allowed us to envision what it would look like to plan and engage and create a vision for the City. And
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 21
I just like to remind the Commission that's what they're doing. We have done hard work, and Staff has done hard work, but this is our vision, our future. When we we’re looking at the PowerPoint, which was also wonderful, we got to see and review some of the buildings. 35 feet is ample. And also, you know, with the architectural eyebrows and speaking also then the additional for the air conditioning unit up to 40- feet in terms of that. It's a beautifully sized building and I think that it speaks adequately. Then when we're speaking to conforming and nonconforming, the terminology used means that, they do business as usual. If they want to expand or create something else, then they have to come to the Planning Department. But conforming and nonconforming is a terminology. I believe, you can clarify that for me if I'm wrong, meaning that their partnership with the City and business and they continue as usual. And as far as the site plan, I encourage the Commission to stay steadfast with a decision in January and if not, as Mr. Diaz proposed that we go back to, I think it was a thousand feet.
We are creating our vision for our future. You are the new Commission that are adequately representing us, doing hard work and setting the pace for the future. Of what we want in our city, as our land is being used productively for our legacy. And that the decisions that you make are going to be well held to way long when you're gone, I'm gone, or any of us are gone. So, I encourage you, I know that you've worked hard on this. I I talked to you, and I see it and I see even the evolution of staff has done. It's been a great job and Nick has done a wonderful job as a consultant and bring it all together. I encourage you to keep the five hundred feet set back. I encourage you to keep the thirty-five feet height limitations and I trust you though even whatever your decision is this should be the best for our city or the residency for Legacy and even in partnership with our developers and our family. Mister Gomez indicated numerous properties that they own, and you know, that's a wonderful collaboration. However, we have a legacy and a vision that goes back, way before nineteen sixties when we were incorporated as a city, as our families have lived here long before that. I thank you for your time. Thank you for your hard work and good luck.
CHAIR FRYMARK Thank you, Ms. Gomez. Do we have anyone else Jesus in tier two? ADMINISTRATIVE Looks like we have no one else.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
CHAIR FRYMARK We'll move on to tier three. Is there anyone in the audience that has not spoken on this item that would like to come forward, invite you now? Anyone on zoom?
ADMINISTRATIVE No one on zoom.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 22
COMMISSIONER Be appropriate to have Marilyn speak about this, regarding what her MIRANDA role would, how much that would mean twenty-five thousand square feet, like projects like kitchens and adding bathrooms. Wasn't that new project per se all the time? Add-ons for instance, so they understand what they're asking. What? How much allowance does she has? Ability to do whatever appropriate. Jamie?
CHAIR FRYMARK Yeah, I believe. Marilyn, would you be able to speak to that? Thank you, Commissioner Miranda.
COMMUNITY Thank you, chair and Commission. So just as an example, if we were DEVELOPMENT to take the previously discussed project so and I'm going to round out DIRECTOR for math purposes, but a hundred thousand square feet. So, if. That if it SIMPSON was fifteen percent, we'd be looking at, you know what? A thousand five hundred square feet. Fifteen thousand course. Good grief, I'm looking at you. Yeah. Fifteen thousand square feet. So again, what's being proposed is that that's the fifteen percent, and it would be not to exceed the twenty-five thousand square feet. So, if another thing the typical, you know, larger buildings that we've had four hundred thousand or five hundred thousand square foot, that's huge and that would exceed the twenty-five thousand. The fifteen percent would exceed that, and so that would definitely have to go back to the Planning Commission, and if they were adding, that wouldn't be just a bathroom, and, you know, maybe a utility room. But sometimes that for a larger building, even a hundred thousand square foot building. That if they had to add, you know, restrooms, you know, just because of building code requirements, you know, for the space that they have to have the numbers that they have to have or a utility room, if they added that that, you know, that could be. it could be what is considered maybe a larger, Definitely larger than a thousand square feet. In that and we've had that before that someone had come in that wanted. It was a building that they wanted to stay in, a use that wanted to stay, but they were being required by actually by the federal government, to enclose an outdoor loading area that they had. And it was going to exceed the thousand square feet and they really had to make a business decision and they were honest, they went through the, they were going through the administrative side plan design review, trying to reduce it to a thousand square feet or less. But it wasn't penciling out for them, so they're no longer here with it. So that was one case that it was very, very small, but it was something that was at use that had been in the city for quite some time.
COMMISSIONER Appreciate that. Thank you for clarifying.
MIRANDA
CHAIR FRYMARK Any other questions or?
ADMINISTRATIVE Yes, I have someone on zoom. Would you allow them to speak?
SECRETARY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 23
HERNANDEZ
CHAIR FRYMARK We've already closed the public hearing.
ADMINISTRATIVE Okay, thank you.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
CHAIR FRYMARK Thank you. Is there any other sorry discussion/comments from the Commission. I do have a question. There's been talks about the expansion of commercial use in the city, that's you know, we hear it.
We definitely hear it. Is there, and this is a question for our staff, is there any unoccupied space that currently could be rezoned as more commercial to address some of the needs and the asks from some of our residents? I know in looking at the proposed zoning map. The area that is zoned commercial is pretty. We have quite a bit of M-1 and M-2. But I am curious if there's opportunity there.
COMMUNITY Oh, since it would thank you in Commission that it would be DEVELOPMENT privately owned. So, it would be something that, you know as a private DIRECTOR property owner that they would have to request that. I don't know what SIMPSON you know if there's other kind of efforts, you know, via economic development, to try to incentivize you know that and look but. It's something we can look into, but that's, you know, no guarantee. You know when it's private property.
CHAIR FRYMARK We can't control what the developers or the people that own that land want to use it as such, right?
COMMUNITY Yeah. Well, yeah, yeah.
DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
SIMPSON
CHAIR FRYMARK I get that. I just… I wonder if its like that premise, If you build it it will come. You know? Like if it is zoned for commercial is there a possibility that we would get more commercial.
COMMISSIONER That's the question. You could in fact end up with more vacancies.
CHICO
CHAIR FRYMARK True. So, I think that that can be either or.
COMMISSIONER Roll of the dice.
CHICO
CHAIR FRYMARK So, I think that that can be either or right. That can happen with if it's zoned as M-1 or M-1 too, so I mean, we can't predict the future of that I know, but I'm just, I wanted to explore and just have that conversation
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 24
because it's it's been mentioned multiple times and it's not going in one ear and out the other. We hear that and we know that there's opportunity here, but we're not currently zoned for that.
COMMUNITY And if I may, there are any of the projects that come in that we do DEVELOPMENT ask them to do the larger ones to do an analysis you know of uses with DIRECTOR that and what has come back is that it's the commercial is there's not SIMPSON the thrust for that at this time. I'm thinking when you said that I'm thinking Field of Dreams, if you build it, they will come, for that, but yeah. And but then you know the bigger risk is to have it empty.
And that's not something that the city would want to do, you know this. But again, you know, just when people come in, we can ask them all the time. If they're interested in commercial do they could do a commercial could. They could do a commercial component for that.
CHAIR FRYMARK You mentioned incentives is that a common thing within other cities to kind of incentivize commercia? I've heard that there's been studies that there's no need for commercial any more people are shopping online. I think that that could be true to some degree, but I know I go shopping.
Assuming others do too.
COMMUNITY Well, when they do an analysis, it's pretty sophisticated. You know, DEVELOPMENT they look out. And again, I am not the the person that does our DIRECTOR economic development coordinator, you know has done that before SIMPSON that she has multiple hats. A public information officer and the assistant to the city manager. So yeah, but she has reached out and again, it wasn't just Co star, but they looked at some other analysis, you know of it, but they have to look at a range and they look at rooftops, you know, basically because I know in the past when we looked at a grocery store because I know. Been the desire. And when we've gone to different conferences, you know, promoting the city and because there's land for that. They always ask about the rooftops in there, and they're familiar with this area. But. You know, we tried to tell them is how the daytime population. You know, so that market and you know that has changed a little bit of interest, but we've not seen them come to the table with that.
CHAIR FRYMARK Thank you.
COMMUNITY Again with commercial, there's certain commercial, but there's also DEVELOPMENT restaurants. Those would be considered commercial operations, DIRECTOR so there and there's always an opportunity for that, so whoever 's SIMPSON listening to me out there.
CHAIR FRYMARK There's gonna be a new potential warehouse coming in. You know, we need people. Need to eat somewhere?
COMMUNITY Yes, come on over.
DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 25
DIRECTOR
SIMPSON
CHAIR FRYMARK Just throwing it out there.
CITY MANAGER And chair, I just would like to add that I know in the past, Council has MIRANDA asked for there to be a study done. On the Arrow Highway corridor going from Azusa Canyon Road all the way to Vincent. And so that's something that as a staff, we're going to be engaging in in the course, during the course of this year and no doubt the Planning Commission will be a part of that as well.
CHAIR FRYMARK Sounds good thank you.
CITY MANAGER And you’ll be receiving updates.
MIRANDA
CHAIR FRYMARK Thank you. That's good to hear. OK. Well, do we? I think that there's a lot to think about. Nick has done a great job. We've talked about staff participating in those workshops, we appreciate that. I think there's a couple things that are up in the air right now. One is the M one and M two heights, making a decision on that and making a decision or making a recommendation rather not a decision on the parapet height and then also discussing the site plan and design review. We have some language that's currently proposed based on our conversation in September, but then there was more discussion in January. There's also the possibility and the idea of going back to the current zoning code, which would one limit the OR reduce the processing time, but also the application costs and feel like that could be a happy medium between, no director review permitted, and some permitted. But do we have any, any motions to explore? Any discussion that we want to continue to have?
CHAIR FRYMARK Commissioner Rodriguez, please
COMMISSIONER Yes. So, I would just like to say that I do appreciate all the work that RODRIGUEZ staff has put into it and Nick for everything that you've done as well. I do like what I'm seeing with this two hundred fifty-foot buffer. I also appreciated the difference between the M-1 and M-2. So, I'd like to see a consideration of possibly recommending M-1 remaining at thirty-five feet and m-2going up to forty feet within that buffer.
CHAIR FRYMARK I would. I'm in alignment with that, the only concern would be the parapet. I think that the parapet should be eight feet, not ten feet.
COMMISSIONER I’m along with that too.
MIRANDA
CHAIR FRYMARK And keeping M-1 at thirty-five and M-2 forty. Jaime, would that
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 26
need to be presented as a motion or a direction to staff. I'm assuming we need to take a vote.
JAIME Correct. You would need to take a vote, but I would recommend discussion, discussing any other changes that you have at this time as well.
COMMISSIONER Chair, you know, I see the recommendations here. One of the MIRANDA recommendations that I feel strongly about, we discussed it and I think was guarding, staff. Approving the square footage and I think it's very strong. I think we made some good points in that that it'll help streamline some things and it's well within the scope of things and anything larger they come to us anyways, I think it's that's one of the things we can maybe get off our plate, possibly.
CHAIR FRYMARK Commissioner Miranda, are you suggesting….
COMMISSIONER Site plan and design review process.
MIRANDA
CHAIR FRYMARK Would that be the conversation? The discussion that we had in January where we're saying fifteen percent of existing area not to exceed twenty five hundred square feet?
COMMISSIONER Correct.
MIRANDA
CHAIR FRYMARK The other option on the table was to go back to the existing current zoning code, which is basically a maximum approval of a thousand square feet.
COMMISSIONER I don't think that's, you know, a good business position.
MIRANDA
COMMISSIONER Yes, I definitely don't feel like that thousand square foot is enough. I like RODRIGUEZ the proposal of the January. Where it's fifteen percent or not exceed twenty-five thousand square feet as well.
VICE-CHAIR ACOSTA Hope out if we consider the fifteen percent of existing area, but not to exceed a lower amount, say fifteen thousand square feet? COMMISSIONER How big is that? Per say, do we know how big that would be? Like, for MIRANDA instance, they added a bathroom or a kitchen parking lot for instance.
VICE-CHAIR ACOSTA I guess it's gonna depends on the size of the square foot of the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 27
project. If it's a hundred thousand dollar a hundred thousand square foot Building, fifteen percent of that is going to be the fifteen thousand.
COMMISSIONER Yeah.
MIRANDA
CHAIR FRYMARK I could support that.
COMMISSIONER I think Marilyn, if you control that, with that you're okay with that?
MIRANDA
COMMUNITY Thank you, chair and commission, I just want to clarify something. So, if DEVELOPMENT they were coming in for if it was the fifteen percent, let's just say, so DIRECTOR they would still have to meet all the development standards, and SIMPSON parking is one of the things that if you have a lot of you have a fifteen thousand square feet, they would still have to park it, that depending on the use. The other thing is they would have to meet the floor area ratio for that area. That can also determine that even if even if they may, the fifteen percent they could do it, but it might exceed one or the other.
One of the development standards or the F A R. That's all something that we look at so.
SPEAKER Listen, and all of the elements of approval would be documented, Correct?
COMMUNITY Absolutely. We document it all the time, yes.
DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
SIMPSON
COMMISSIONER I mean, I just think we should be business friendly and I know that there MIRANDA are residents they are leery about maybe too much power to staff for instance, and not going through us who are residents, but I think this is very comfortable is where we're at, myself. To help the businesses is not exceeding anything outrageously, I think this is something to go forward and help them. We lost businesses as she mentioned before, people couldn't give us the process and wait, and this will help us you know, help us proceed going forward businesses rather.
SPEAKER Question, What would it take to, suppose we adopted this condition as is, what would it take to change it if we wanted to in the future? What would it be? What would?
SPEAKER Gonna go ahead, Marilyn. Um, assuming it was something that was city initiated, it would be the planning commissions direction, to direct staff to ask the City Council if they were interested in making that change.
We could then take that request to the City Council and receive direction on whether to move forward or whether they were not
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 28
interested in making that change.
SPEAKER Would it require a public hearing? Eventually?
SPEAKER Eventually to adopt the ordinance, yes, but when we're discussing any potential changes like in the very beginning at the City Council level, no.
SPEAKER I do have a question.
SPEAKER And we're still going to just make the recommendation now or the motion.
SPEAKER Well, even in the future, if we find that it's not satisfactory, nothing is set in concrete. We can undo it.
SPEAKER I do have a question for staff.
SPEAKER Commissioner Rodriguez.
COMMISSIONER Yes please, if Marilyn can just explain how you came, how the planning RODRIGUEZ department, came up with the twenty-five thousand square foot number.
COMMUNITY That was with the consultant’s assistance looking at similar size DEVELOPMENT buildings, similar situation and that and that's why the twenty five DIRECTOR thousand, and we looked at, you know, the request that we would get SIMSON that but I want to respond to Commissioner Chico, if I may chair.
SPEAKER Yes, please.
COMMUNITY That the process is exactly what the assistant city attorney had DEVELOPMENT mentioned with that so, but the entitlement would be it'd be a zone DIRECTOR ordinance amendment. So, Zone Ordinance amendments they would SIMPSON have to go to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to City Council. And given that we would have gone through that process, let's just say that the City Council wants to they accept the Planning Commissions request with that. Then it would just be the Zone ordinance amendment and there would be opportunity for public hearing for that because they are public hearings. Thanks.
SPEAKER Any other discussions?
SPEAKER Commissioner Acosta, would you be uncomfortable, something a little in between, like twenty thousand or fifteen thousand, is where you're at, perhaps.
COMMISSIONER I I could move from fifteen thousand to twenty. I'm comfortable with ACOSTA that, but if, twenty five large, It is especially jumping from a thousand. Yeah. And we just want to make sure that we get oversight that we get to see it.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 29
SPEAKER No, I'm with you.
SPEAKER Yeah, I'm comfortable moving to twenty.
SPEAKER I was feeling really good about fifteen.
SPEAKER I have no problem at fifteen. That's why I proposed it.
SPEAKER Darn.
SPEAKER You know, I think I think, Marilyn, be happy with fifteen actually too.
SPEAKER I mean, from where we from, what we proposed and, what we considered and what we proposed in September to what we're discussing now, I mean that's a vast difference, so.
SPEAKER Yeah, I think I'm good with that.
SPEAKER Do we have? I know that we made a couple of suggestions, Jamie. I do not want to forget to ask from staff to review the rezoning of the area at the skate park. And it was mentioned that that would have to be presented, I believe, like when we make these recommendations in form of a motion. Right?
JAIME Correct, yes.
SPEAKER So. I would like to make a motion. Let me see if I can do this and Jamie, please. Wait, I'm getting, like, some hesitancy.
SPEAKER One moment, Chair, I apologize.
SPEAKER So chair, if I may,
SPEAKER Yes, please.
SPEAKER It would be administratively better for staff to do the rezoning of the skate park as a separate motion. And then include all of the recommendations for the zoning code update. In one motion, but a separate motion with the adoption of the resolution. Well, I guess we're we're looking at three motions here.
SPEAKER So one would be the skate park.
SPEAKER So one is the skate park, which is separate.
SPEAKER Okay. The second one would be the motion to accept or approve the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 30
rezoning with the conditions that we were discussing about the site specific design plan, and then also the Heights M, One, M two and the parapet correct.
SPEAKER Yes. And then the third is for the City Council to adopt the second resolution, which is the Zoning Map.
SPEAKER Would you be able to present that motion us for us? I just want to make sure that they're captured in the Minutes correctly.
ASSISTANT Yes, I can definitely do that should actually have one clerical correction CITY ATTORNEY that I would like to make in resolution eight, two, eight. The list of TRAXLER recommended changes is attached as exhibit A to that resolution and it's just basically a summary of the Planning Commission 's recommendation. That should actually be labeled as exhibit B. Exhibit A will be the final zoning code ordinance that you all are approving. So I just want to make that clerical update before I read the motion.
SPEAKER Thank you, Jamie. I think we're ready, OK.
ASSISTANT I, I will do the resolutions first and then we can address the skate park CITY ATTORNEY at the end. OK, so the first motion would be adopt a resolution number TRAXLER eight, two, eight, two four, which is a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Irwindale, recommending that the city council, one adopt findings of consistency with the city’s previously certified General Plan Environmental Impact report. And finding the project exempt from further environmental review pursuant to SEQUA guidelines, sections one, five, one, eight, three and one five one six, two. And two, adopt Ordinance number seven, seven, two, a city initiated application for a zone ordinance amendment zero eight Zero three dash twenty twenty-three. Repealing and replacing title seventeen zoning of the Irwindale Municipal Code. In its entirety with a comprehensive zoning code update. With the added recommendations of including a two fifty-foot buffer for M one. Zoned property is at thirty five feet for M two zone property is at forty feet. Maximum height and then maximum parapet heights of eight feet in both zones. For the site plan and design review administrative approval. The recommendation is a fifteen percent administrative approval by the planning director and not to exceed fifteen thousand square feet. And I believe that's all of the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
SPEAKER Those were the two, so I move.
ASSISTANT As stated by the assistant city attorney.
CITY ATTORNEY
TRAXLER
SPEAKER I move as stated by Jamie. Do we have a second?
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 31
SPEAKER Do we have a second?
SPEAKER I second. We all second.
SPEAKER Thank you, I believe. Commissioner Acosta, roll call, please.
ADMINISTRATIVE Commissioner Chico.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
COMMISSIONER Yes.
CHICO
ADMINISTRATIVE Commissioner Miranda.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
COMMISSIONER Yes.
MIRANDA
ADMINISTRATIVE Commissioner Rodriguez.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
COMMISSIONER Yes.
RODRIGUEZ
ADMINISTRATIVE Vice Chair Acosta.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
VICE CHAIR Yes.
ACOSTA
ADMINSTRATIVE CHAIR FRYMARK.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
CHAIR Yes.
FRYMARK
ADMINSTRATIVE Thank you.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
SPEAKER Thank you, commissioners. May I ask for a quick five-minute recess? ASSISTANT Do you want to finish the motions first?
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 32
CITY ATTORNEY
TRAXLER
SPEAKER Oh my gosh. I am so sorry guys. We still have the skate park.
ASSISTANT We have two more motions actually.
CITY ATTORNEY
TRAXLER
SPEAKER Thank you Jamie.
ASSISTANT So I'll be quick, I promise I'll read this one fast.
CITY ATTORNEY
TRAXLER
SPEAKER No, you're good.
ASSISTANT The second one is adopt resolution number eight, two nine, two CITY ATTORNEY four, Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of TRAXLER Irwindale recommending that the City Council of the City of Irwindale.
Adopt a resolution approving the city initiated application for zone change number. Oh four twenty twenty three and amending the official zoning map of the City of Irwindale to reflect updates to title seventeen zoning consistent with ordinance number seven. Seven two.
SPEAKER Moved, as stated by Jamie.
SPEAKER Second.
SPEAKER Thank you Commissioner. Roll call please.
ADMINISTRATIVE Commissioner Chico.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
COMMISSIONER Yes.
CHICO
ADMINISTRATIVE Commissioner Miranda.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
COMMISSIONER Yes.
MIRANDA
ADMINISTRATIVE Commissioner Rodriguez.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 33
COMMISSIONER Yes.
RODRIGUEZ
ADMINISTRATIVE Vice Chair Acosta.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
VICE CHAIR Yes.
ACOSTA
ADMINSTRATIVE Chair Frymark.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
CHAIR Yes.
FRYMARK
ADMINSTRATIVE Thank you.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
SPEAKER Thank you, we have one more.
ASSISTANT More one more and this is to direct staff to review and bring back an CITY ATTORNEY item on rezoning of the skate park. I don't know the official title of.
TRAXLER Hardin de Roca, skate park.
SPEAKER So moved, as stated. Thank you, Commissioner Chico. Roll call, please.
ADMINISTRATIVE Commissioner Chico.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
COMMISSIONER Yes.
CHICO
ADMINISTRATIVE Commissioner Miranda.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
COMMISSIONER Yes.
MIRANDA
ADMINISTRATIVE Commissioner Rodriguez.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
COMMISSIONER Yes.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 34
RODRIGUEZ
ADMINISTRATIVE Vice Chair Acosta.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
VICE CHAIR Yes.
ACOSTA
ADMINSTRATIVE Chair Frymark.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
CHAIR Yes.
FRYMARK
ADMINSTRATIVE Thank you.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
SPEAKER So, is anyone now opposed to a five-minute recess? SPEAKER Go, no.
SPEAKER Are we OK? Okay, let's take a quick five minute recess. Thank you.
SPEAKER I'll take another martini.
SPEAKER Oh my gosh, I just like. OK. Thank. Thank you everyone for your patience as we took that quick five minute recess. We're going to go ahead and pick up where we left off. Which is item C on the agenda, a zone change number zero, one dash, two zero, two five general plan Amendment map number zero. One, two, zero, two, five. Rezoning of a select property located at seven. Fifteen Shrode Avenue from C Three, which is heavy commercial/ residential. Zone two R one, which is single family residential. So revision of the general plan to change the existing general plan designation of select properties on Live Oak Lane and our highway from regional commercial to industrial slash business park.
Thank you. Do you have a staff report?
PLANNER Good evening, chair members of the Commission. The next item is, BRANDI JONES Zone change number zero one dash, twenty twenty five and general plan Amendment zero one dash twenty twenty five. So, this is a city- initiated proposal which will revise the general plan and zoning map to reconcile inconsistencies and make the appropriate changes to support the highest and best uses. So, I'll give some some background. I mean this is a lot of text, so I'll try to make it quick. So again, so the general plan is the Blue Plan, blueprint for the future planning and development
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 35
in the city, the zoning code and the related zoning designations are required to be consistent with the general plan. So back in twenty eighteen, a lot of inconsistencies were discovered during the clean up.
So we went through like pretty much all the ordinances and general plan amendments that we had on file to make sure that they were consistent with the maps. So because of the inconsistencies, there are multiple non conforming uses. So that could mean because of height or something like that, but mostly it was because the general plan map and the zoning map didn't match. So consistency between the general plan and zoning is a common sense approach to planning and transparency. It's not commonplace for cities to spot, zone, or change a general plan designation for a single parcel is usually for a large group of parcels.
And Penny direction from PC. We initiated the rezone process for these parcels. So again, there's all the the text timelines, so I'll try to get that go through that quickly. So in July, we hailed two separate zone change workshops at the Community Center. So one was for the properties that are residentially zoned and the other one was for commercially and industrial zone properties. Let's see. On August thirty first twenty twenty two, we received direction from the Planning Commission on the above reference properties as well as Meridian. Ramona, specifically a portion of the Durban pit. Park Avenue. Calle Barola, Fri Ho, Nora and Las Lomas Road. On May twenty third twenty twenty three, we sent out a general information letter to the property owners who were currently impacted by the inconsistencies, the letter explained. The city initiated process and what our next steps would be. On April fourth, twenty twenty four property owners and property owners within five hundred feet were notified by mail. The notice was also published in the newspaper on April fifteenth. Planning Commission heard the zone change in general plan amendment item continued it to the May fifteenth meeting, where the Planning Commission recommended. Adopt recommended adopting resolution eight twenty two twenty four to the City Council. And also for the rezone. For the for the zone changes to rezone and to resend ordinances. One ninety five and two hundred. On June twelve, twenty four, the Council had a public hearing and continued the item to June twenty sixth and on June twenty six the City Council held a public hearing and approved the zone change. So, there's one, So there's one parcel on Schroed Avenue. That's being changed and that was because when we had it last time, there was a public notification error. So that's the only reason we're bringing this one single parcel. So in the previous public notice, it had mentioned that this parcel was m one when it was actually C three. So in order for. Decision to be valid. We had to make sure that the public notice was done correctly. That's why we redid it. And then for the second, so that's just for a zone change. The second batch of parcels is for a general plan amendment. So their zoning is currently m two heavy manufacturing.
What we're proposing is to take the current general plan designation of regional commercial and change it to industrial business park. So this is just the current general plan map. So it's just. This whole area here, well, this is. This is the Irwindale Gateway in the middle and along
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 36
the perimeter of arrow and on Live Oak Lane is pretty much the properties in question. This one, I mean, it's too tiny to see, but it's it'll be changed once everything is done. So, this is just a close. So again, this was all changed to R one. And we accidentally there was an error with the notification. So, with that this property will be changed to R one to be consistent with everything else in the neighborhood. So, for Live Oak lane again. All of this is currently regional commercial. This area here, which is purple, is the window gateway which is not a part of this. These air these parcels here along Live Oak Lane. And Arrow Highway are the ones that are in question. The majority of those properties are. Outdoor industrial uses, which they've always been, there's a there are a couple of. Just like small industrial buildings over there and currently they're inconsistent. So, if somebody wanted to come in and add on additional square footage, potentially intensify their business, they couldn't because the zoning and the general plan are inconsistent. And if you in the general plan itself, there's a chart that show there's a chart that shows the general plan designation. And the the appropriate zoning designation. So currently in the general plan, it lists regional commercial, but there is no corresponding zoning designation. So and one has never been created. So I I thought I had more to say, but I think that's it actually so. So that does. That concludes my. So if you have any questions, I'm available.
SPEAKER Properties that are being affected at Live Oak. That's the Gray area.
PLANNER Correct.
BRANDI JONES
SPEAKER Brandi, sorry, its just all by the gateway. The whole the driveway there.
PLANNER Correct. Yes, and Live Oak Lane itself is a private street, which is part of BRANDI of that, the Gateway project with the Gateway project they're proposing JONES to convert the majority of that to a public street. So.
SPEAKER Commission. Have any other questions?
SPEAKER You we have one quick actually, I was doing some research on the APN numbers and it was kind of odd, I was getting pictures of Badillo, Ramona for some reason, some APN. It's very odd, I don't know if it's just anomaly. Sorry, there's an anomaly. But, but we're just talking about Live Oak only, right?
PLANNER Yeah, we're talking about, yeah Shrode, Live Oak Lane and Arrow BRANDI JONES highway okay.
SPEAKER Shockingly, I don't have any questions. Seems straightforward.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 37
SPEAKER Okay.
SPEAKER I have no questions. Thank you. Then we will go ahead and open up the floor for any public comments. Do we have anyone in tier one that would like to? Forward to speak on this item.
ROBERT DIAZ Poverty is speaking. I'm opposed to the idea of approving these recommended resolutions because the land for the Live Oak site is a portion is regional commercial. So, I'm a bit appalled that the city would initiate a proposal to have it all industrial. That's not the way the general plan is, but here's an example of how our staff is recommending doing something different than our general plan has. And uh regional commercial, the way it's defined is not very much commercial. It's a balance of commercial and as well as the industrial business. But a half a loaf is better than none. And by saying it’s all industrial, you lose that potential to have any commercial development by the freeway.
Particularly because the applicant is asking for a specific plan. And that means it's their own zoning. So the city loses regulatory authority over that. So if you want to do anything different in the future, how? It may not be possible unless you make a recommendation to say no specific plan. Is recommended in the general plan, it says a specific plan may be considered, It doesn't mean it has to be approved. You've considered it recommended be denied. They go through the regulatory process Planning Commission Council for consideration of these buildings and matters. Another thought is if you can't do that, then maybe you can recommend limiting. The use for certain period of years where they get to amortize their investment, at which point in the future it changes to all commercial, but you'd have to establish a zoning for commercial for something like that too. Any case? Instead of winding up with more commercial, something we need to supplant lost revenue from the mining industry we're winding up with a less and here's an example of it, so I'm sorry to see that. City initiated and finally that you recommended. Have specific plans not be automatically processed by the Commission, by our staff, since it's not required, but the way it's been done, they're going to the City Council with their proposed spend for environmental study once they approve. Then it starts these wheels where we have a specific plan under consideration when it should first be decided, do we even want to have a specific plan. Answer the question first. That's my comment on this. I'd ask you to deny it as proposed.
FRED BARBOSA Good evening, FRED BARBOSA. My question to you is all the zoning changes in the drop resolution eighty-four slash twenty-five, does the changing of the zoning code, affective revenue stream generated by these properties.
SPEAKER Staff, do we have any comments?
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 38
PLANNER Yeah, I just wanted to address a few comments. Regarding the BRANDI JONES discussion about the specific plan. So, in this case there is no proposed change to a specific plan and again it's not automatic. The Planning Commission would make recommendation to the City Council to adopt a specific plan. And in the specific plan, it would have regulations on who does what as far as who has the decision-making power. So, it's not an administrative process. So anytime there's something in the specific plan, if it needs to come to Planning Commission, then we bring it forward. But also, regarding I was looking in the general plan, so, the definition for regional commercial, it does talk about a land use that is designed to encourage a balance of a balanced mix of commercial office and light manufacturing uses along a high visibility corridors. So it does also discuss you know potential for manufacturing and what would be like if there were a, appropriate zone for regional commercial. Yeah. And as far as, like a fiscal impact on on zone changes, that typically that's not something that is associated with it, especially because in this case it wouldn't be. It would be to make something conforming, so this would be more beneficial. So, in the past, like when we came back the first when we came to you with the first time, there was a lot of discussion with the property owners on Live Oak Lane because they did have a lot of questions. I don't know if you remember last time there were a lot more here. So, we were able to alleviate a lot of their fears because they realized that they 'd actually have more flexibility with their property than they currently do.
SPEAKER Excuse me. OK. Do we have any other Members in tier one that would like to speak? Tier two.
ADMINISTRATIVE I will go ahead and mute iPhone.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
SPEAKER Caller, are you there?
ADMINISTRATIVE Hand was up last time, so maybe they just kept it up.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
SPEAKER Yeah. Are there any other Members that on zoom that want to speak? ADMINISTRATIVE Yes, give me one second. I will go ahead and unmute Crystal Howard.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
SPEAKER Welcome.
CRYSTAL HOWARD Thank you for having me. I would say like I represent, my client is on Live Oak Lane and this general plan amendment is beneficial to them, so we support this change. Thank you very much.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 39
SPEAKER For your comment, Miss Howard. Any other members on zoom? ADMINISTRATIVE We have no more Members on zoom.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
SPEAKER Is there anyone on tier three that has not spoken that would like to come forward? Okay, seeing none, then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this item. Thank you very much. (coughs) Excuse me.
Any comments or discussion from the Commission?
SPEAKER I do have a question for staff. Oh. With these businesses that are on Live Oak Lane, has it always been zoned regional commercial? PLANNER He, I believe since the since the two thousand eight general plan this BRANDI JONES was regional commercial. So, it's been it's had that general plan designation since at least two thousand eight.
SECRETARY The majority of the businesses have been there prior to that time. So does that mean that they're legal?
HERNANDEZ Yes. For me, they're currently legal. Nonconforming, yes.
PLANNER Yes. For me, they're currently legal. Nonconforming, yes. So again, if BRANDI JONES they wanted to come in and expand, they'd be very limited on what they could do. And I'll give you an example, we have a proposal for a new building on Arrow Highway and they haven't been able to go any further because we've had to get this finished. So, and again because it's a city inconsistency like we couldn't have like an applicant do it because it's actually the city 's responsibility to fix this.
SPEAKER When it was changed in two thousand eight, do you know who initiated that change to regional commercial?
PLANNER I'm assuming it would have been the Council.
BRANDI JONES
SPEAKER A vision for it back then, and the businesses that occupy that space just never materialized. And so now we're in a situation where most of the businesses that are currently there are technically non- conforming.
PLANNER Yes.
BRANDI JONES
SPEAKER It is interesting that we do want. Move it to industrial slash business park from regional commercial because I think that there is this energy
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 40
surrounding adding more commercial space into the community. It is an interesting ask, but I do recognize. That the majority of the businesses are already there are not commercial for the most part.
PLANNER Right.
BRANDI JONES
SPEAKER So we're really just trying to remedy an issue that already exists, right? PLANNER They're most like, especially along Live Oak Lane mostly outdoor. You BRANDI JONES know you have like badge plants or something like that along there and then along Arrow Highway you do have business parks which again can't expand if they wanted to or do any improvements.
SPEAKER And there wouldn't be any financial impact by making this change because those businesses are already there. They're not going to leave if anything, it might just improve processing and relations because we're allowing them more flexibility. It sounds like.
PLANNER Yes.
BRANDI JONES
SPEAKER Any other questions? Thank you, Brandi. I would like to propose a motion to adopt resolution number eight. Four, six. Two, five recommending that the City Council approve zone change number zero one dash, two zero to five.
SPEAKER Second.
SPEAKER Thank you Commissioner Miranda, roll call.
ADMINISTRATIVE Commissioner Chico.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
COMMISSIONER Yes.
CHICO
ADMINISTRATIVE Commissioner Miranda.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
COMMISSIONER Yes.
MIRANDA
ADMINISTRATIVE Commissioner Rodriguez.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 41
COMMISSIONER Yes.
RODRIGUEZ
ADMINISTRATIVE Vice Chair Acosta.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
VICE CHAIR Yes.
ACOSTA
ADMINSTRATIVE Chair Frymark.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
CHAIR Yes.
FRYMARK
ADMINSTRATIVE Thank you.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
SPEAKER I'd like to propose a second motion, and that's a motion to adopt resolution number eight, four, seven, two, five. Recommending that the City Council approve general Plan amendment number zero one dash two zero, two five.
SPEAKER Second.
SPEAKER Thank you, Commissioner Rodriguez. Roll call, please.
ADMINISTRATIVE Commissioner Chico.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
COMMISSIONER Yes.
CHICO
ADMINISTRATIVE Commissioner Miranda.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
COMMISSIONER Yes.
MIRANDA
ADMINISTRATIVE Commissioner Rodriguez.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
COMMISSIONER Yes.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 42
RODRIGUEZ
ADMINISTRATIVE Vice Chair Acosta.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
VICE CHAIR Yes.
ACOSTA
ADMINSTRATIVE Chair Frymark.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
CHAIR Yes.
FRYMARK
ADMINSTRATIVE Thank you.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
SPEAKER Okay, I believe that takes us through all the way to item number five, discussion items or presentations.
ADMINSTRATIVE Do not have any.
SECRETARY
HERNANDEZ
CHAIR FRYMARK Community Development director report.
COMMUNITY Thank you, chair and Commission. I just want to remind you the DEVELOPMENT planning Commissioners Academy is March fifth through seventh.
DIRECTOR Which a few of you are signed up for that. It's a great opportunity for SIMPSON networking and learning, you know, and then you come back and you tell us about things. So that's good. And then just to mention, there's a blood drive tomorrow, so parking is going to be limited in front of the City Hall. And then I just want to mention yesterday city of Hope had a ribbon cutting ceremony for their central utility plant. And they did a tour of it, and it was very interesting. And it's something that it was the Planning Commission that had approved it and I got to tell you, it's very impressive with that. So anyway, I just wanted to say that. Good Work Planning Commission for approving it because they were, they were very appreciative of that because it I ran into just to tell you, ran into a group, Louise was with me, and there were a lot of City of Hope people around and I just saw this group talking, I said they look like, they might be interesting so I dragged Louise over there. Turns out that they were the facility and maintenance engineers you know, for it. So they were so proud of it. You know, you could tell and you know, because, you know without that and they made this point. City of Hope doesn't run unless you have that building with that and they've developed it so that it's
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 19, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 43
going to go way into the future. You know that they can expand and treating the patients and they kind of went into detail of some of the things I mean. You don't think about the temperature in a room, but it's regulated. But let me tell you, I think you need a PHD to run it. So anyway, but that's all I have.
CHAIR FRYMARK Thank you. Do we have any comments from legal counsel? ASSISTANT None from me, thank you.
CITY ATTORNEY
TRAXLER
Item #22.C.
Date: March 26, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Julian A. Miranda, City Manager
Issue: General Plan / Zoning Code Inconsistencies
City Manager's Recommendation:
That the City Council consider the Planning Commission’s Resolutions Nos. 846(25) and 847(25), and (1) Introduce Ordinance No. 792, by title only with further reading waived “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRWINDALE ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE NO. 01-2025 AND MODIFYING THE CITY OF IRWINDALE ZONING MAP TO REZONE A PARCEL FROM C-3 (HEAVY COMMERCIALRESIDENTIAL) ZONE TO R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE LOCATED AT 715 SHRODE AVENUE (APN 8534-001-016); AND FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(B)(3)” and (2) Adopt Resolution No. 2025-31-3619, entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IRWINDALE AMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT AND LAND USE PLAN MAP OF THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN (GPA NO. 01-2025) FROM REGIONAL COMMERCIAL TO INDUSTRIAL/BUSINESS PARK PLAN FOR PARCELS LOCATED AT: (APN 8532-002-015), (APN 8532-002-016), (APN 8532-002-021), (APN 8532-002-022), (APN 8532-002-023), (APN 8532-002-024), (APN 8532-002-027), (APN 8532-002- 800), (APN 8532-002-801), (APN 8532-002-900), (APN 8532-002-901), (APN 8533-002-800), 13631 LIVE OAK LANE (APN 8532-002-017), 13643 LIVE OAK LANE (APN 8532-002-029), 13644 LIVE OAK LANE (APN 8532-002-040), 13645 LIVE OAK LANE (APN 8532-002-030), 13646 LIVE OAK LANE (APN 8532-002-043), 13649 LIVE OAK LANE (APN 8532-002-020), 13651 LIVE OAK LANE (APN 8532-002-019), 13654 LIVE OAK LANE (APN 8532-002-036), 1400 ARROW HIGHWAY (APN 8532-002-009), 1438 ARROW HIGHWAY (APN 8532-002-028), 1580 ARROW HIGHWAY (APN 8532-002-012), 1600 ARROW HIGHWAY (APN 8532-002-005), AND FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(B)(3).” Administrative Action:
Submitted by:
Marilyn Simpson, AICP, Community Development Director
Prepared by:
Brandi Jones, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
Adrian R. Guerra, City Attorney
Kambiz Borhani, Finance Director / City Treasurer
Approved by:
Julian A. Miranda, City Manager
Background and Analysis:
REQUEST
The City-initiated proposal will revise the General Plan and Zoning Maps to reconcile inconsistencies and make appropriate changes to support the highest and best uses.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
On February 19, 2025, the Planning Commission made the recommendation to the City Council to approve/adopt both applications.
On April 17, 2024, the Planning Commission continued General Plan Amendment No. 01-2024 and Zone Change No. 01-2024 to the next regularly scheduled meeting of May 15, 2024, and directed staff to re-notice the item. The continuance allowed the affected property owners and the public additional notice and time to review the proposed project. On May 15, 2024 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 822(24), recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change No. 01-2024 to rezone select properties (not including 715 Shrode Avenue), and rescind Ordinance Nos. 195 and 200.
On June 12, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-38-3515 and Ordinance No. 780 approving the Zone Change, which had its second reading at the July 10, 2024 meeting.
The parcel at 715 Shrode Avenue was not included in the aforementioned approval due to a discrepancy in the original notice, Staff had to revise, repost, mail, and republish the public notice. RePage 248 of 315 zoning of the 715 Shrode Avenue parcel would make it consistent with the rest of the properties listed in Zone Change No. 01-2024. The discussion on the Live Oak Lane and Arrow Highway parcels was continued to allow for future discussion.
The Irwindale General Plan serves as the blueprint for future planning and development in the City. It indicates the City‘s vision for the future through the policies and plans that are designed to shape the physical development of the community. This General Plan acknowledges the City’s previous planning efforts, the established land use patterns in the community, and adopted development policy. The Zoning Code, Map, and related zoning designations, are required to be consistent with the General Plan. Staff proposes to update the Zoning and General Plan Maps for consistency between the appropriate classifications.
Due to inconsistencies throughout the City, there are multiple non-conforming uses. The existing nonconformities limit the highest and best uses of the properties because of limitations on expansion/intensification for their zone. These impact properties zoned for industrial, commercial, and residential. For example, the inconsistency would hinder residential improvements such as the ability to increase square footage for additions and Accessary Dwelling Units (ADU) conversions. For commercial and industrial businesses, the non-conformity hinders business growth with respect to increased square footage or scope of business operations.
This issue was discovered during a zoning map “clean-up” in November 2018. Since then, Planning Staff has received multiple applications that require General Plan Amendments. Zoning is one of the primary means of implementing the General Plan. The success of a General Plan rests upon the effectiveness of the Zoning Code and Map. Additionally, there should be consistency between the General Plan and Zoning as a common-sense approach to planning and transparency.
TIMELINE
On July 9, 2019, Staff held two (2) separate zone change workshops at the Community Center; one (1) for residentially zoned properties and the other for commercially and industrially zoned properties.
On August 31, 2022, Staff requested direction from the Planning Commission on the above referenced properties as well as Meridian Avenue, Ramona Boulevard (Vulcan Durbin Pit), Park Avenue, Calle Burrola, Fraijo Avenue, Nora Avenue and Las Lomas Road.
On May 23, 2023, Staff sent out a general information letter to property owners who were currently impacted by the inconsistencies. The letter explained the City-initiated process and future public notification informing them about the City’s next steps.
On April 4, 2024, the property owners and property owners within 500 feet of the subject properties were notified by mail. The public notice was also published in the newspaper the next day. This timing met the minimum public notification requirement of 10 days prior to the meeting.
On April 15, 2024, the Planning Commission heard the proposed Zone Change and General Plan Amendment item and continued the item to the May 15, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. The
Planning Commission directed staff to re-notice the continued meeting.
On April 18, 2024, the second public notice was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. The second public notice was published in the newspaper on Friday, April 19, 2024, this timing met and exceeded the minimum public notification requirement of 10 days prior to meeting.
On May 15, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 822(24), recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Zone Changes to rezone the above referenced properties and rescind Ordinance Nos. 195 and 200.
On May 30, 2024, the property owners and property owners within 500 feet of the subject properties were notified by mail. The public notice was posted in the four (4) designated public places (City Hall, Community Development Department, Library and Post Office) on May 30, 2024 and also published in the newspaper on May 31, 2024. This timing met the minimum public notification requirement of 10 days prior to the meeting.
On June 12, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the Application and continued the item to the June 26, 2024 City Council meeting.
On June 26, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the Application and approved the Zone Change, subject to the approval of this Ordinance.
On February 7, 2025, the property owners and property owners within 500 feet of the subject properties were notified by mail. The public notice was also published in the newspaper the next day.
This timing met the minimum public notification requirement of 10 days prior to the meeting.
On February 19, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of both applications to the City Council.
LOCATIONS AND SITE HISTORY
PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE NO. 01-2025 TO 1) REZONE PARCELS FROM C-3 (HEAVY COMMERCIALRESIDENTIAL) ZONE TO R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE LOCATED AT:
Shrode Avenue – 715 Shrode Avenue (APN 8534-001-016).
At the May 15, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting, Staff stated that the property at 715 Shrode Avenue was not being considered as part of the Zone Change No. 01-2024 application. Due to a public notification error, the Zone Change for that single parcel would have to be brought back separately. All of the properties listed are currently developed as single-family residential properties, and the General Plan designates these properties as Residential. However, on June 20, 1967, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 200 to allow the rezoning of the properties located on Citrusview Avenue, Park Rose Avenue, Ruelas Street and Shrode Avenue and parcels outside of City boundaries. This changed the existing zoning designation from A-1 (Agricultural) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing). Although the Ordinance memorialized the change, the City’s Zoning Map was not updated. As a result, the residential developments were approved based on the previous A-1 (Agricultural) designation allowing single-family residential use. Thus, all of the current residential development is considered legally nonconforming because it is a residential use in an M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zone. This hinders improvements such as the ability the increase square footage and compliance with recent State legislation allowing Accessary Dwelling Units (ADU) conversions and small lot subdivisions. The proposed Zone Change from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-1 (Single-Family Residential) would be consistent with current use and the existing Residential General Plan designation.
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 01-2025 TO CHANGE THE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION FROM REGIONAL COMMERCIAL TO INDUSTRIAL/BUSINESS PARK FOR PARCELS LOCATED AT:
LIVE OAK LANE – (APN 8532-002-015), (APN 8532-002-016), (APN 8532-002-021), (APN 8532-002- 022), (APN 8532-002-023), (APN 8532-002-024), (APN 8532-002-027), (APN 8532-002-800), (APN 8532-002-801), (APN 8532-002-900), (APN 8532-002-901), (APN 8533-002-800), 13631 Live Oak Lane (APN 8532-002-017), 13643 Live Oak Lane (APN 8532-002-029), 13644 Live Oak Lane (APN 8532-002- 040), 13645 Live Oak Lane (APN 8532-002-030), 13646 Live Oak Lane (APN 8532-002-043), 13649 Live Oak Lane (APN 8532-002-020), 13651 Live Oak Lane (APN 8532-002-019), 13654 Live Oak Lane (APN 8532-002-036);
ARROW HIGHWAY – 1400 Arrow Highway (APN 8532-002-009), 1438 Arrow Highway (APN 8532-002- 028), 1580 Arrow Highway (APN 8532-002-012), 1600 Arrow Highway (APN 8532-002-005).
The General Plan, adopted in 2008, designated a large area as Regional Commercial. This area encompassed all of the properties on Live Oak Lane as well as the properties along the south side of Arrow Highway, east of the I-605 westerly to the San Gabriel River. The General Plan called for the creation of a new zoning district that was compatible with Regional Commercial, but it was never created. The majority of the current uses are non-conforming due to the inconsistency between the Zoning and General Plan. In the past, to accommodate for the inconsistency, Staff brought forth entitlements with sunset clauses that would still allow the properties to expand until there was a resolution in consistency. In order to eliminate the inconsistencies and costly and time-consuming process of yearly Conditional Use Permit applications for some of these businesses, changing the General Plan to Industrial/Business Park would resolve the issue. The parcels on Live Oak Lane and Arrow Highway, which are consistent with permitted and conditionally permitted industrial uses, would be changed to the Industrial/Business Park General Plan designation.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
A recommendation for approval of a General Plan Amendment is required to be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the Planning Commission. The proposed changes to the General Plan and Zoning Maps will remedy the existing inconsistencies and non-conformities. The maps will be updated to reflect the proposed changes. Both Ordinance Nos. 195 and 200 were rescinded under Ordinance No. 780.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the City of Irwindale environmental guidelines, the Project has been determined to qualify for a general rule exemption pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3) in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the General Plan Amendment or Zone Change, by themselves, will have a significant effect on the environment. However, any proposed physical development will undergo its own CEQA review when the entitlement is considered.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no cost with the City Council approval of the Zone Change or General Plan Amendment.
Attachments:
1. Attachment A - CC Resolution No. 2025-31-3619 GPA No. 01-2025(1063141.1)
2. Attachment B - Ordinance No. 792(1063136.1)
3. Combined attachments C - I
01005.0005/1063141.1 Resolution No. 2025-31-3619
General Plan Amendment No. 01-2025
ATTACHMENT “A”
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-31-3619
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRWINDALE AMENDING
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT AND LAND USE PLAN MAP OF THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN (GPA NO. 01-2025) FROM REGIONAL COMMERCIAL TO INDUSTRIAL/BUSINESS PARK FOR PARCELS LOCATED AT: (APN 8532-002-015), (APN 8532-002-016), (APN 8532-002-021), (APN 8532-002-022), (APN 8532-002-023), (APN 8532-002-024), (APN 8532-002-027), (APN 8532-002-800), (APN 8532-002-801), (APN 8532-002-900), (APN 8532-002-901), (APN 8533-002-800), 13631 LIVE OAK LANE (APN 8532-002-017), 13643 LIVE OAK LANE (APN 8532-002-029), 13644 LIVE OAK LANE (APN 8532-002-040), 13645 LIVE OAK LANE (APN 8532-002-030), 13646 LIVE OAK LANE (APN 8532-002-043), 13649 LIVE OAK LANE (APN 8532-002-020), 13651 LIVE OAK LANE (APN 8532-002-019), 13654 LIVE OAK LANE (APN 8532-002- 036), 1400 ARROW HIGHWAY (APN 8532-002-009), 1438 ARROW HIGHWAY (APN 8532-002-028), 1580 ARROW HIGHWAY (APN 8532-002-012), 1600 ARROW HIGHWAY (APN 8532-002-005), AND FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(b)(3).
WHEREAS, the City of Irwindale, 5050 Irwindale Avenue, Irwindale, CA 91706, acting as the Applicant, has initiated the request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 01-2025) to reconcile inconsistencies on the City’s Zoning Map and make appropriate changes to support the highest and best use and modify the General Plan Map to remedy inconsistencies between the General Plan and Zoning Map at the above referenced properties. (This GPA is being processed concurrently with Zone Change No. 01-2025); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered proposed General Plan Amendment No. 01-2025, an amendment to the General Plan Map designation for twenty-five (25) parcels of land located at the above referenced locations; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the City of Irwindale environmental guidelines, the Project has been determined to qualify for a General Rule exemption pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3) in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the General Plan Amendment, by itself, will have a significant effect on the environment. However, the proposed physical development will undergo its own CEQA review when the entitlement is considered; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the General Plan Amendment at which time it received input from Staff and the City Attorney’s Office, heard public testimony, and discussed the Proposed
01005.0005/1063141.1 Resolution No. 2025-31-3619
General Plan Amendment No. 01-2025
Project; and closed the public hearing and continued the item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of May 15, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the General Plan Amendment at which time it received input from Staff and the City Attorney’s Office, heard public testimony, and discussed the Proposed Project; and closed the public hearing and continued the item to a date uncertain; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the Application and recommended that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to approve the General Plan Amendment in order to further protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the proposed Resolution is consistent with and will implement the City’s vision, goals, and policies of the Irwindale 2020 General Plan; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the Application and approved the General Plan Amendment, subject to the approval of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the City Council the City of Irwindale as follows:
1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in Recitals, of this Resolution are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the public hearing conducted with regard to the Application, including written staff reports, verbal testimony, and evidence in the City’s record for the project, this City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The proposed General Plan Amendment from Regional Commercial to Industrial/Business Park is intended to encourage the highest and best use for the subject properties and is determined to be in the best interests and welfare of the City and its residents.
01005.0005/1063141.1 Resolution No. 2025-31-3619
General Plan Amendment No. 01-2025
b. The proposed General Plan Amendments are internally consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan. The Community Development Element of the General Plan promotes several policies that support the proposed entitlement. Community Development Element Policy 1 strives to preserve the overall mix of land uses and development in the community. Community Development Element Policy 3 seeks to ensure that the type, location, and intensity of all new development and intensified developments adhere to the requirements specified in its particular land use category.
Community Development Element Policy 5 promotes the
comprehensive development consistent with the General Plan as opposed to piecemeal and incremental planning.
c. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
The purpose of the proposed General Plan Amendment is to properly remedy inconsistencies with previously adopted ordinances and inconsistencies with the General Plan. The proposed changes to the General Plan Map will remedy the existing inconsistencies and nonconformities that were specifically caused by such. The maps will be updated to reflect the proposed changes.
d. The affected properties are physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public services and utilities and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to ensure that the proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.
3. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the City of Irwindale environmental guidelines, the City Council determines that the Project qualifies for a General Rule exemption pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3) in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the General Plan Amendment, by itself, will have a significant effect on the environment.
4. Based upon substantial evidence and testimony received at public hearing and the findings and conclusions set forth hereinabove, the the City Council adopts and approves proposed General Plan Amendment No. 01-2025 to change the General Plan Map as shown in attached “Exhibit D”.
01005.0005/1063141.1 Resolution No. 2025-31-3619
General Plan Amendment No. 01-2025
5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution which shall, in turn, have immediate effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of March 2025.
Larry G. Burrola, Mayor
ATTEST:
Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } ss.
CITY OF IRWINDALE }
I, Laura M. Nieto, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Irwindale, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-31-3619 was adopted at a regular meeting of the Irwindale City Council held on the 26th day of March 2025, by the following vote of the Council:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
01005.0005/1063136.1 Ordinance No. 792
Zone Change No. 01-2025
ATTACHMENT “B”
ORDINANCE NO. 792
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRWINDALE ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE NO. 01-2025 AND MODIFYING THE CITY OF IRWINDALE ZONING MAP TO REZONE A PARCEL FROM C-3 (HEAVY COMMERCIAL-RESIDENTIAL) ZONE TO R-1 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE LOCATED AT 715 SHRODE AVENUE (APN 8534-001-016); AND FIND THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(b)(3)
WHEREAS, the City of Irwindale, 5050 Irwindale Avenue, Irwindale, CA 91706, acting as the Applicant, has initiated the request for a Zone Change (Zone Change No. 01-2025) to reconcile inconsistencies on the City’s Zoning Map and make appropriate changes to support the highest and best use and modify the Zoning Map to reflect the updated zoning designations at the above referenced properties. (This Zone Change is being processed concurrently with General Plan Amendment No. 01-2025); and WHEREAS, Section 17.84 (Amendments) of the Irwindale Municipal Code allows for changes to the classification of property whenever the public interest and necessity so require; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered proposed Zone Change No. 01-2025, an amendment to the Zoning Map designation for one (1) parcel of land located at the above referenced location; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the City of Irwindale environmental guidelines, the Project has been determined to qualify for a General Rule exemption pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3) in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Zone Change, by itself, will have a significant effect on the environment. However, any proposed physical development will undergo its own CEQA review when the entitlement is considered; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2024 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 822(24), recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change No. 01-2024 to rezone select properties from C-3 (Heavy Commercial-Residential) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) consistent with their current use, and rescind Ordinance Nos. 195 and 200.
On July 10, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-38-3515 and Ordinance No. 780 approving the Zone Change; and
WHEREAS, the parcel at 715 Shrode Avenue was not included in the aforementioned approval solely due to a discrepancy in the original public notice. Staff has since revised, reposted, mailed, and republished the public notice, in compliance with
01005.0005/1063136.1 Ordinance No. 792
Zone Change No. 01-2025
the California Government Code. Re-zoning of the 715 Shrode Avenue parcel would make it consistent with the surrounding properties listed in Zone Change No. 01-2024; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the Application and recommended that the City Council approve the Zone Change, subject to the approval of a Resolution, which details the specific conditions under which the application is approve; and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the Application and approved the Zone Change, subject to the approval of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRWINDALE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in Recitals, Part A, of this ordinance are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this City Council during the public hearing conducted with regard to the Application, including written staff reports, verbal testimony, and evidence in the City’s record for the project, this City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The proposed Zone Change from C-3 (Heavy CommercialResidential) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) is intended to encourage the highest and best use for the subject property and is determined to be in the best interests and welfare of the City and its residents.
b. The proposed Zone Change is internally consistent with all other provisions of the General Plan. The Community Development Element of the General Plan promotes several policies that support the proposed entitlement. Community Development Element Policy 1 strives to preserve the overall mix of land uses and development in the community. Community Development Element Policy 3 seeks to ensure that the type, location, and intensity of all new development and intensified developments adhere to the requirements specified in its particular land use category. Community Development Element Policy 4 examines the future potential opportunities for residential development. Community Development Element Policy 5 promotes the comprehensive development consistent with the General Plan as
01005.0005/1063136.1 Ordinance No. 792
Zone Change No. 01-2025
opposed to piecemeal and incremental planning. The proposed Zone Change would implement the General Plan.
c. The proposed Zone Change will not be detrimental to the public interest, health safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The purpose of the proposed Zone Change is to properly rezone existing parcels to appropriate zoning designations and remedying inconsistencies with previously adopted ordinances and
inconsistencies with the General Plan. The proposed changes to the Zoning Map will remedy the existing inconsistencies and nonconformities that were specifically caused by such. The maps will be updated to reflect the proposed changes.
d. The affected property is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access, and public services and utilities and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate, to ensure that the proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.
3. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the City of Irwindale environmental guidelines, the City Council determines that the Project qualifies for a General Rule exemption pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3) in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Zone Change, by itself, will have a significant effect on the environment.
4. Based upon substantial evidence and testimony received at public hearing and the findings and conclusions set forth hereinabove, the City Council adopts and approves proposed Zone Change No. 01-2025 to change the Zoning Map as shown in attached “Exhibit C”.
5. The City Clerk shall certify this Ordinance on behalf of the City of Irwindale forthwith upon its adoption and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of April, 2025.
01005.0005/1063136.1 Ordinance No. 792
Zone Change No. 01-2025
Larry G. Burrola, Mayor
ATTEST:
Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } ss.
CITY OF IRWINDALE }
I, Laura M. Nieto, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Irwindale, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 792 was adopted at a regular meeting of the Irwindale City Council held on the 9th day of March 2025, by the following vote of the Council:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
ATTACHMENT "C"
ATTACHMENT "D"
ORDINANCE NO. 780
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRWINDALE RESCINDING ORDINANCE NO. 195 IN ITS ENTIRETY WHICH REZONED PROPERTIES LOCATED
ON MOUNTAIN AVENUE AND AMBRIZ STREET (FORMERLY MOUNTAIN AVENUE) TO C-3 (HEAVY COMMERCIAL-RESIDENTIAL), AND RESCINDING ORDINANCE NO. 200 IN ITS ENTIRETY WHICH REZONED PROPERTIES LOCATED ON CITRUSVIEW AVENUE, PARK ROSE AVENUE AND RUELAS STREET TO M-2 (HEAVY
MANUFACTURING), AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(b)(3).
WHEREAS, the City of liwindale, 5050 liwindale Avenue, liwindale, CA 91706, acting as the Applicant, has initiated the request for Zone Change No. 01-2024 to reconcile inconsistencies on the City's Zoning Map and make appropriate changes to support the highest and best use and modify the Zoning Map to reflect the updated zoning designations at the above referenced properties; and
WHEREAS, Section 17.84 (Amendments) of the liwindale Municipal Code allows for changes to the classification of property whenever the public interest and necessity so require; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the City of liwindale environmental guidelines, the Project has been determined to qualify for a General Rule exemption pursuant to CEQA Section 15061 (b)(3) in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Zone Change, by itself, will have a significant effect on the environment. However, any proposed physical development will undergo its own CEQA review when the entitlement is considered; and WHEREAS, on May 2, 1967, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, and approved Ordinance No. 195 to allow the rezoning of the properties located on Mountain Avenue and Ambriz Street (formerly known as Mountain Avenue). This changed the existing zoning designation to C-3 (Heavy Commercial~ Residential); and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 1967, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, and approved Ordinance No. 200 to allow the rezoning of the properties located on Citrusview Avenue, Park Rose Avenue, Ruelas Street and Shrode Avenue and parcels outside of City boundaries. This changed the existing zoning designation from A-1 (Agricultural) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing); and Ordinance No. 780
ATTACHMENT "E"
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2019, Staff held two (2) separate Zone Change workshops at the Community Center; one (1) for residentially zoned properties and the other for commercially and industrially zoned properties; and
WHEREAS, on August 31, 2022, Staff requested direction from the Planning Commission on the above referenced properties as well as Meridian Avenue, Ramona Boulevard (Vulcan Durbin Pit), Park Avenue, Calle Burrola, Fraijo Avenue, Nora Avenue and Las Lomas Road; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2023, Staff sent out a general information letter to property owners who were currently impacted by the inconsistencies. The letter explained the Cityinitiated process and future public notification informing them about the City's next steps; and
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2024, the property owners and property owners within 500 feet of the subject properties were notified by mail. The public notice was posted in the four (4) designated public places (City Hall, Community Development Department, Library and Post Office) on April 4, 2024 and was also published in the newspaper on April 5, 2024. This timing met the minimum public notification requirement of 10 days prior to the meeting; and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2024, the Planning Commission heard the proposed Zone Change item at which time it received input from Staff and the City Attorney's Office, heard public testimony, and discussed the Proposed Project; and closed the public hearing and continued the item to the May 15, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission directed staff to re-notice the continued meeting; and WHEREAS, on April 18, 2024, the second public notice was mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and posted in the four (4) designated public places (City Hall, Community Development Department, Library and Post Office). The second public notice was published in the newspaper on Monday, April 22, 2024. This timing met and exceeded the minimum public notification requirement of 10 days prior to meeting; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, regarding the proposed Zone Change to receive testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed Zone Change, including without limitation, information to the Planning Commission and City Staff; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2024 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 822(24), recommending that the City Council approve the proposed Zone Changes to rezone the above referenced properties and rescind Ordinance Nos. 195 and 200; and WHEREAS, on May 30, 2024, the property owners and property owners within 500 feet of the subject properties were notified by mail. The public notice was posted in the four (4) designated public places (City Hall, Community Development Department, Library and Post Office) on May 30, 2024 and also published in the newspaper on May 31, 2024.
Ordinance No. 780
Page2
This timing met the minimum public notification requirement of 1 O days prior to the meeting; and
WHEREAS, on June 12, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the Application and continued the item to the June 26, 2024 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to approve the Zone Change in order to further protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance is consistent with and will implement the City's vision, goals, and policies of the Irwindale 2020 General Plan; and WHEREAS, on June 26, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, on the Application and approved the Zone Change, subject to the approval of this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites for the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRWINDALE DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the recitals in this Ordinance are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. Ordinance No. 195, which rezoned properties on Mountain Avenue and Ambriz Street (formerly Mountain Avenue) to C-3 (Heavy Commercial-Residential) is hereby rescinded in its entirety.
SECTION 3. Ordinance No. 200, which rezoned properties located on Citrusview Avenue, Park Rose Avenue, and Ruelas Street to M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing), is hereby rescinded in its entirety.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds and determines based on the independent judgment of the City Council, after consideration of the whole of the administrative record, that this Zone Change and Ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061 (b )(3) on the grounds that it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will have no significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more Ordinance No. 780
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional due to the writs of mandate issued by the Court.
SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, and shall cause the same to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law in this regard, and this Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its final passage. City staff are directed and authorized to inform and educate the public regarding the adoption of this Ordinance prior to it taking effect.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Irwindale this 1 oth day of July, 2024.
ATTEST:
Ordinance No. 780
Page4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF IRWINDALE )
I, Laura M. Nieto, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Irwindale do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 780 was introduced for first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Irwindale held on June 26, 2024, and duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Irwindale held on July 10, 2024, and was carried by the following-roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Burrola, Garcia, Ortiz, Mayor Ambriz NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Breceda
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I, Laura M. Nieto, MMC, Chief Deputy City Clerk, certify that I caused a copy of Ordinance No. 780 adopted by the City Council of the City of Irwindale at its regular meeting held July 10, 2024, to be posted at the Ci all, Library, and Post Office on July 17, 2024. oatec1 7 /n [ 2-Cj ~ I
Ordinance No. 780
Page5
ORDINANCE NO. 195
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF IRWINDALE REZONING CERTAIN
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRWINDALE DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Irwindale does hereby find, determine and declare as follows:
a) That the Planning Commission of the
City of Irwindale has heretofore conducted a
series of public hearings to consider the
rezoning and reclassification of certain real
property located within said City; and
b) That based upon the recommendations
of the Planning CommissLon, the City Council
conducted public hearings upon said matters,
and determined that the public interest,
convenience and necessity require the reclassification of said real property in the manner hereinafter described; and
c) That the property to which this
Ordinance relates is more particularly described
as follows:
The West 150 feet and the
North 150 feet of Lot 1 of Tract
4675 as recorded in Book 99, Page
34 of Maps of the Office of the
County Recorder, County of Los
Angeles.
d) That the Planning Commission' s
recommendations were approved in part and
disapproved in part by the City Council; and
e) That the public interest, convenience
and necessity requires that said property be
rezoned to Zone C- 3.
SECTION 2. That notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9310 of the Irwindale Municipal Code, said real property, above described, be and the same hereby is, rezoned to Zone C- 3.
SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in the manner prescribed by law.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 2nd day of May, 1967.
Mikc Miranda, Mayor
R;/ K
M
231
ATTACHMENT "F"
232
Ordinance No. 195
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ss.
CITY OF IRWINDALE
I, Margaret S. Barbosa, City Clerk of the City of Irwindale do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 195 was regularly introduced, adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 2nd day of May, 1967, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: Breceda, Diaz, Pat Miranda, Barbosa
and Mike Miranda.
NOES: COUNCILMEN: None.
ABSENT:., COUNCILMEN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ss.
CITY OF IRWINDALE
None.
Mar gplet S. Barbosa, City Clerk
and says:
I, Margaret S. Barbosa, being first duly sworn, deposes That she is the duly appointed and City Clerk of the
City of Irwindale, California, and is and was at all times herein mentioned a citizen of the United States over the age of eighteen 18) years and competent to be witness herein.
On May 5, 1967, she securely and conspicuously posted
at each of the public places in said City, to wit:
1. Police Department;
2. Post Office on Calle del Norte;
3. At or near the door of the Council Chambers, a copy of Ordinance No. 195 of the City of Irwindale, being in all respects the same as that attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Dated: May 5, 1967.
ATTACHMENT "G"
RESOLUTION NO. 58-( 66)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF IRWINDALE RECOMMENDING
THE RECLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN
PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE: CITYOF IRWINDALE
DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the Planning Commission of the
City of Irwindale does hereby find, determine and
declare as follows:
a) That pursuant to instruction by
the City Council the,Commission has conducted a series of hearings, over a period of months, to consider the reclassification
of a number of parcels of real property
located within the City; and
b) That attached hereto, marked
Exhibit " A", and incorporated herein by this
reference, is,ia description of the properties
considered for reclassification, each of
which description contains the proposal for
such reclassification; and
c) That in each case, as to each
parcel described on Exhibit " A", the
Commission has determined as a result of
hearings, staff reports and each member of
the Commission being familiar with the
properties involved, that the public interest,
convenience and necessity require the reclassification to the zones as indicated on Exhibit " A".
SECTION 2. That the said Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council the reclassification of
the properties, to the zones indicated as set forth on
said Exhibit " A" attached hereto.
SECTION 3. That the Secretary of the Planning
Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and forward a copy hereof to the City Clerk for submission to the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 10th day of November, 1966
ChairmanChairman
ATTEST:
x
Secretary
6d
ATTACHMENT "H"
EX1ERIT A
LANDS RECOMMENDED FOR REZONING BY IRWINDALE PLANNING COMMISSION November 10, 1966
1. Rezone from A- 1 to M- 2: That property in the City of Irwindale lying northerly of Foothill Boulevard and presently zoned A- 1.
2. Rezone from R- 3 to M- 1: That property in the City of Irwindale fronting Central Avenue and presently zoned R- 3.
3. Rezone from R- 1 to M- 2: That property in the City of Irwindale fronting Central Avenue and presently zoned R- 1.
4. Rezone from R- 2 to M- 1: Blocks 10, 11 and 12 of the Davis Addition to Duarte as recorded in Book 11 Page 72 of Miscellaneous Records.
5. Rezone from A- 1 to C- 3: Beginning at the intersection of Mountain Avenue and Van Meter Street on the east side of Mountain Avenue designated the southwest corner of Lot 10, J. R. Loftus Tract No. 1, Map Book 11, Page 170 and extending north to the northwest corner of Lot 11, Tract 4675, Map Book 99, Page 34, a uniform depth of 200 feet and beginning on the southwest corner of Lot 6 of said Tract 4675, and extending north to the northwest corner of Lot 1 of said Tract 4675, with a uniform depth of 150 feet. Also including those properties fronting Meridian Street from Mountain Avenue to Citrusview Avenue.
6. Rezone from A- 1 to M- 1: All that property in the City of Irwindale lying east of Mountain Avenue between Van Meter Street and Meridian Street presently zoned A- 1, excepting therefrom that property to be rezoned C- 3.
7. Rezone from A- 1 to M- 1: Lots 135- 138 inclusive and Lots 2267e2272 inclusive of the Chicago Park Tract recorded in Miscellaneous Records, Book 30 Page 100.
8. Rezone from A- 1 to M- 1: Commencing at the southeast corner of Lot 12, Tract 4316, thence East 66 feet with a uniform depth of 500 feet.
9. Rezone from A- 1 and C- 2 to C- 3: Parcels 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, 30 and 31 of Licensed Surveyors Map, recorded in Book 14 Page 32 of Maps of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County.
Parcels 1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, West 123. 46 feet of 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, West 140. 10 feet of 55, 56, 66, 68, 71 and West 187. 68 feet of 75 of Possessory Map recorded in Book 4 Pages 58- 61 inclusive of Official Maps of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County.
The West 200 feet of Lot 65A of Possessory Map recorded in Book 4 Page 75 of Official Maps of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County.
10. Rezone from C- 2 to A- 1: Parcels 16, 29, and 32 of Licensed Surveyors Map, recorded in Book 14 Page 32 of Maps of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County.
11. Rezone from A- 1 to M- I: Commencing at the northeast corner of Tract 17517 recorded in Map Book 438 Pages 1 and 2; thence weeterly along the north boundary of said tract a distance of 738. 40 feet with a uniform depth of 225 feet; thence westerly along the Irwindale City boundary 525 feet with a uniform depth of 50 feet; thence continuing west along the Irwindale City boundary 325 feet with a uniform depth of 16. 5 feet.
12. Rezone from A- 1 to M- 1: Commencing 618 feet southerly of the southeast corner of Azusa Canyon Road and Arrow Highway; thence southerly along the east line of Azusa Canyon Road with a uniform depth of 170 feet from the centerline of Azusa Canyon Road to a line 171 feet north of the centerline of Olive Street.
13. Rezone from A- 1 to M- 2: Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Orange Belt Tract recorded in Book 37 Pages 6667 inclusive of Miscellaneous Records of the County Recorder of the County of Los Angeles.
14. Rezone from C- 2 and A- 1 to C- 3: Parcels 3, 4, 5, 6 of Licensed Surveyors Map, recorded in Book 14 Page 32 of Maps of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County.
That land between Arrow Highway and Parcels 7 and 8 of said Licensed Surveyors Map.
Parcels 12, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23 and 24 of Possessory Map recorded in Book 4 Pages 58- 61 inclusive of Official Maps of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County.
COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDING
5050 NORTH IRWINDALE AVENUE
IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY
JANUARY 17, 1967
7 30 O' CLOCK P M
The City Council of the City of Irwindale met in regular session at the above time and place
Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of our
Country, the meeting was opened with an invocation by Edwin T Powell, City Manager
ROLL CALL Present Councilmen Breceda,
Barbosa, and Pat Miranda
Absent Councilmen Diaz and M Miranda
Also present City Manager Edwin T Powell, City Attorney Robert Flandrick, City Engineer W J Lockman, City Clerk Margaret S Barbosa, Adm Sec T Werderman, Chief of Police Ernest Aguirre APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3 The minutes of January 3, 1967,
OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS regular meeting, were presented for approval
Councilman Barbosa moved, seconded by Councilman Breceda to waive reading Carried unanimously
Councilman Breceda requested the following correction on
Councilman Breceda stated that the other commissioner under consideration had made statements before this council that if the Council was to change a certain ordinance, relating to the functions of the Planning Commission, that the Planning Commission should be disbanded Councilman Breceda wondered if this commissioner still felt the same or if he would still be willing to serve " Councilman Barbosa moved, seconded by Councilman Breceda to approve minutes as corrected Carried unanimously
COUNCILMAN DIAZ ARRIVED AT 7 36 O' CLOCK P M
APPROVAL OF WARRANTS 10 Warrant Register No 147 for the AND DEMANDS month of January, 1967, was
presented for approval
Upon question from Councilman Barbosa, the City Manager explained the charges on Warrant # 9176, made payable to the Los Angeles County Road Department
COUNCILMAN MIKE MIRANDA ARRIVED AT 7 40 O' CLOCK P M
Councilman Breceda moved, seconded by Councilman Barbosa to approve as presented Carried unanimously
PAYROLL REGISTER Payroll Register No 148, for the
RATIFICATION / month of December, 1966, was presented
for ratification
Councilman Diaz moved, seconded by Councilman Breceda to approve as presented Carried unanimously
PUBLIC HEARING
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS
2 APPLICABLE TO QUARRY AND f
ALLIED USES
Certificate of posting
The City Attorney sworn
The City Attorney advised the Council
that this was a continuation of the
Public Hearing to consider amendments
to the Zoning Ordinance applicable
to Quarry and Allied uses
notice was received and filed
in all persons wishing to speak
183 ATTACHMENT "I"
Regular Council Meeting
H R Stokes
1215 Oaklawn Road
Arcadia
again, therefore problems
Councilman Mike
to table public hearing to
January 17, 1967
PROPONENTS
Mr Stokes stated that the committee
which had been appointed to meet
with councilmembers to discuss
problems had not gotten together
had not been resolved
Miranda moved, seconded by Councilman Breceda
February 21, 1967 Carried unanimously
PUBLIC HEARING
CONSIDERATION OF CHANGES OF The City Engineer stated that this ZONE RECOMMENDED BY THE was the time and place set by the PLANNING COMMISSION Council to consider changes on the
zoning map within the community
The fourteen( 14) changes as recommended by the Planning Commission, culminated 12 months of study
Affidavit of posting notice of public hearing was received and filed
The City Attorney swore in all persons wishing to speak There was some discussion among the council whether the Public Hearing should be held at this time
After lengthy discussion, the Mayor asked that the Council proceed with the public hearing
MIKE MARTINEZ, Mr Martinez appeared and stated
16042 Central St that his request was not included
in the hearing, however, he would
like to know if his request could be considered as stated in his letter dated January 12, 1967, copies which had been submitted to the Council
Councilman Diaz moved, seconded by Councilman Mike Miranda to set his request for public hearing on February 7, 1967 There was confusion among council since they felt Mr
Martinez was out of order, and they were not sure of what was needed After discussion, Councilman Diaz amended his motion and Councilman Miranda amended his second, to have the council initiate a public hearing to be heard before the Planning Commission Carried by the following vote of the Council
Ayes Councilmen Diaz, M Miranda and P Miranda
Noes Councilmen Breceda and Barbosa
Absent Councilmen None
Anthony Ortuno Mr Ortuno asked to be heard at this
346 N Azusa Avenue time since he had another meeting to Azusa attend He stated that he owned
property at 4842 Azusa Canyon Road
in the City of Irwindale and referred to # 12 of Exhibit " A" and stated that he was one of the first ones to sign the petition in favor of M- 2 zoning He concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Commission for an M- 1 zone, however, he would prefer M- 2, if possible, but would accept M- 1 as recommended by the Planning Commission
The City Engineer proceeded to explain the changes
recommended by the Planning Commission on Exhibit " A" and the map on the wall, which was as follows
r
A*4
185
Regular Council Meeting
1) Rezone from A- 1 to M- 2 That property
lying northerly of Foothill Boulevard
No opponents or proponents
2) Rezone from R- 3 to M- 1 That property
fronting Central Avenue and presently
No opponents or proponents
3) Rezone from R- 1 to M- 2 That property
fronting Central Avenue and presently
No opponents or proponents
January 17, 1967
in the City of Irwindale
and presently zoned A- 1
in the City of Irwindale
zoned R- 3
in the City of Irwindale
zoned R- 1
4) Rezone from R- 2 to M- 1 Blocks 10, 11 and 12 of the Davis Addition to Duarte as recorded in Book 11 Page 72 of
Miscellaneous Records
No opponents or proponents
5) Rezone from A- 1 to C- 3 Beginning at the intersection of Mountain Avenue and Van Meter Street on the east side of Mountain Avenue designated the southwest corner of Lot 10, J R Loftus Tract No 1, Map Book 11, Page 170 and extending north of the northwest corner of Lot 11, Tract 4675, Map Book 99, Page 34, a uniform depth of 200 feet and beginning on the southwest corner of Lot 6 of said Tract 4675, and extending north to the northwest corner of Lot 1 of said Tract 4675, with a uniform depth of 150 feet Also including those properties fronting Meridian Street from Mountain Avenue to Citrusview Avenue
PROPONENTS
Mr. & Mrs Binard Mrs Binard stated that she was
1848 Loma Alta owner of property on the east of
Altadena Mountain Avenue and fronting
Meridian Street from Mountain
Avenue and stated that they concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to rezone their property from A- 1 to C- 3 Mr Binard appeared and stated that he concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and what was stated by his wife
Richard L Diaz Mr Diaz stated that he concurred
2408 Mountain Avenue with the recommendation of the
Planning Commission
6) Rezone from A- 1 to M- 1 All that property in the City of Irwindale lying east of Mountain Avenue between Van Meter Street and t^ Meridian Street presently zoned A- 1, excepting therefrom that property to be rezoned C- 3
PROPONENTS
Mr Rod Harbough Mr Harbough, representing Rahn
136 S Sepulveda Bros , Los Angeles, appeared and
Los Angeles stated that he was very much in
favor of changing the zone from
A- 1 to M- 1 since this zone would be better use of the land Mr & Mrs Binard Mr & Mrs Binard were in favor
1848 Loma Alta of this change also
Altadena
186
Regular Council Meeting January 17, 1967
7) Rezone from A- 1 to M- 1 Lots 135 - 138 inclusive and Lots 2267- 2272 inclusive of the Chicago Park Tract recorded in
Miscellaneous Records, Book 30 Page 100
No proponents or opponents
8) Rezone from A- 1 to M- 1 Commencing at the southeast corner of Lot 12, Tract 4316, thence East 66 feet with a uniform depth of 500 feet
No proponents or opponents
PUBLIC HEARING William LeZich, 400 Fisher,
INTERRUPTED Glendale, appeared and requested
that the Council consider his
property at the time Mr Mike Martinez' property is considered 9) Rezone from A- 1 and C- 2 to C- 3 Parcels 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, 30, and 31 of Licensed Surveyors Map, recorded in Book 14 Page 32 of Maps of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County
Parcels 1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, West 123 46 feet of 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, West 140 10 feet of 55, 56, 66, 68, 71 and West 187 68 feet of 75 of Possessory Map recorded in Book 4 Pages 58- 61 inclusive of Official Maps of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County The West 200 Feet of Lot 65A of Possessory Map recorded in Book 4 Page 75 of Official Maps of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County
No proponents and opponents
RECESS Recess was called at 9 00 P M
Meeting reconvened at 9 14 P M ,
with all councilmembers present
10) Rezone from C- 2 to A- 1 Parcels 16, 29, and 32 of Licensed surveyors map, recorded in Book 14 Page 32 of Maps of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County
No proponents and opponents
11) Rezone from A- 1 to M- 1 Commencing at the northeast corner of Tract 17517 recorded in Map Book 438 Pages 1 and 2, thence westerly along the north boundary of said tract a distance of 738 40 feet with a uniform depth of 225 feet, thence westerly along the Irwindale City boundary 525 feet with a uniform depth of 50 feet, thence continuing west along the Irwindale City boundary 325 feet with a uniform depth of 16 5 feet
No proponents and opponents
12) Rezone from A- 1 to M- 1 Commencing 618 feet southerly of the southeast corner of Azusa Canyon Road and Arrow Highway, thence t southerly along the east line of Azusa Canyon Road with a uniform depth of 170 feet from the centerline of Azusa Canyon Road to a line 171 feet north of the centerline of Olive St No proponents
The City Engineer stated that the Planning Commission had received a petition to rezone the property now zoned M- 1 and A- 1 to M- 2, however, the Planning Commission had recommended that this property be zoned M- 1
OPPONENTS
Mrs Bashem Mrs Bashem appeared and stated that
4829 Azusa Canyon Road she was opposed to this change at Baldwin Park this time, but would not be opposed
at a later time, since her property
was zoned C - M and had been for 3 years
187
Regular Council Meeting January 17, 1967
The City Manager stated that property owners on the Irwindale side were in favor of this change
H R Stokes Mr Stokes appeared as representative
1215 Oaklawn Road of Con Rock and stated that all
Arcadia property owners had been confronted
along Azusa Canyon Road and they were
in favor of M- 2
Mr Chaffee Mr Chaffee, representing O' Kelley
4122 Via Verde Eccles, stated that he had signed
Claremont the petition requesting M- 2 and
felt this zone was very compatible
for that area He stated that he property had been purchased in 1948, which was in County at the time, and was under impression that their f property was zoned M- 2, however, later found out that it was actually M- 1, therefore, they were a non -conforming use He felt this property should be M- 2
13) Rezone from A- 1 to M- 2 Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Orange Belt Tract recorded in Book 37 Pages 66- 67 inclusive of Miscellaneous Records of the County Recorder of the County of Los Angeles
PROPONENTS
G H Weber Mr Weber, representing Con Rock,
1435 E Thackery stated that he had appeared before
West Covina the Planning Commission requesting
an M- 2 Zone
14) Rezone from C- 2 and A- 1 to C- 3 Parcels 3, 4, 5, 6, of Licensed Surveyors Map, recorded in Book 14 Page 32 of Maps of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County
That Land between Arrow Highway and Parcels 7 and 8 of said Licensed Surveyors Map
Parcels 12, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23 and 24 of Possessory Map recorded in Book 4 Pages 58- 61 inclusive of Official Maps of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County
No Proponents and opponents
Councilman Mike Miranda asked why the property where the church is located on Cypress Avenue was not being considered by the Planning Commission for a zone change
The City Attorney stated that this property required a
conditional use permit for a church under the existing regulations and r" only the council could initiate a conditional use permit Councilman Diaz moved, seconded by Councilman Mike Miranda to have this hearing continued until February 7, 1967 Carried unanimously
REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE 2I Councilman Diaz moved, seconded by FROM MR MIKE MARTINEZ - i Councilman Mike Miranda to have the PEPPER TREE LANE Council initiate a zone change on
properties on the north side of
Pepper Tree Lane and/ or a variance on Mr Martinez' property and have the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on all properties Carried unanimously
Councilman Mike Miranda moved that the property where the Catholic Church is located on Cypress be considered
No action taken
188
Regular Council Meeting January 17, 1967
COMMISSION CONSIDERATION
PLANNING COMMISSION ( The minutes of December 22, 1966, MINUTES \ which were presented for information,
were received and filed
COMMUNICATIONS EXTERNAL
REQUEST TO PERMIT GAMES S
A letter dated January 5, 1967,
OF SKILL FROM IRWINDALE from Blattel Klein, attorneys at SPORTSMEN CLUB law, for the Irwindale Sportsmen
Club, was presented
Councilman Diaz moved, seconded by Councilman Mike Miranda that this letter be received and filed and no action taken Councilman Barbosa requested that the proponents of this request please rise so that the Council would know who they were $ Mr Richard Kline, Attorney, 360 Bedford Drive, Beverly
Hills, appeared and introduced Mr Roban and John Parker, officers of the corporation, and requested that a correction be made on page 3 of the monthly gross revenue schedule
Councilman Barbosa directed questions to Mr Kline and
Mr Roban concerning his association with an annexation that had been considered for the City of Irwindale Since Mr Roban had been opposed to this annexation because a Pepsi Cola Plant was proposed to be constructed on this property Councilman Barbosa felt this request was unreasonable and detrimental to the people of the City of Irwindale He instructed Mr Roban to take it back to his own City
Councilman Breceda made the following statement for the record
Mr Chairman, I want the record to show, that personally I do not believe that our people needs profits derived from gambling At the present time we have one of the best recreation facilities in the county We also have the revenue with which to improve it If I could get the support or majority of the City Council, we could approve a real recreation program for our city Gambling profits can stay in Las Vegas and Gardena as far as I' m concerned I repeat, we do not need gambling profits to give our children the best recreation program in the state I also repeat that I am voicing my personal views, and I do not pretend to know what the wishes of the people of Irwindale are in this matter, but I do hope that if this matter goes to a vote of the people, that the majority will share my views "
Motion to receive and file letter, carried unanimously
HUNTINGTON BEACH 10 A letter dated January 4, 1967,
FREEWAY ROUTE , from the City of Covina relative
to the Huntington Beach Freeway
Route, which was presented by Mayor Pat Miranda, was received and filed
JUVENILE LOITERING LAW - Vr,\ Mayor Miranda presented a letter L. A COUNTY DELINQUENCY V dated January 5, 1967, from the AND CRIME COMMISSION Los Angeles County Delinquency
and Crime Commission requesting
that the City Council adopt a new ordinance similar to County Ordinance, a Juvenile Loitering Law
Councilman Mike Miranda moved to place this item in the next agenda Carried unanimously
M
Regular Council Meeting January 17, 1967
APPEAL ON PLANNING COMMISSION Letters dated January 13, 1967, from DECISION - OUTDOOR ADVERTISING Foster & Kleiser and Pacific Outdoor Advertising Co appealing the
decision of the Planning Commission on Resolution # 60( 67) were presented Said resolution denied proposed amendments to the zoning regulations of the City of Irwindale which would permit outdoor advertising structures in commercial or industrial zones Councilman Diaz moved, seconded by Councilman Mike Miranda that this appeal be placed for public hearing on February 21, 1967 Carried unanimously
MEETING
The following meeting was noted
a Jan 18, 1967 U
Calif Contract Cities Assoc
Host Cities Rosemead & Temple City
T & J Restaurant, 8526 Valley Blvd
Rosemead - 6 30 P M
CITY OF IRWINDALE 5 The City Manager advised the City
CO - HOSTING CALIF CONTRACT Council that the California Contract CITIES ASSOC , MEETING Cities Association meeting in March JOINTLY WITH CITY OF DUARTE would be co -hosted by the Cities of Duarte and Irwindale
EXAMINATION RESULTS FOR The Chief of Police advised the City PATROLMAN Council of the results of the
Police Officer examination He
advised the City Council that four reserves had taken the exam, however, no one received a passing grade, therefore, he would proceed to advertise outside the department
GENTLEMEN FROM THE { Mayor Miranda acknowledged Mssrs
PRESS ACKNOWLEDGED r Alwell, Bortin and Devereaux, members of the press
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
r
The following departmental reports for the month of
December, 1966, were received and filed
va City Administrative Office
1 Absence Record of all employees
b Library,
vc Park & Recreation Department,
P d General Government Building & Grounds,
e Public Works Department,
f Police Department,
g
Equipment Maintenance Department, and
h Fire Department
CITY MANAGER
APPOINTMENT FOR PLANNING The City Council adjourned to a COMMISSION VACANCIES 2i personnel session to discuss these vacancies at 10 19 O' Clock P M
Reconvened at 11 25 O' Clock P M , with all councilmembers present
Mayor Pat Miranda moved, seconded by Councilman Mike
Miranda to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and appoint Hardie Lee and Elias Ornelas to the Planning Commission
190
Regular Council Meeting January 17, 1967
Motion failed by the following vote of the Council
Ayes Councilmen Mike and Pat Miranda
Noes Councilmen Breceda, Diaz and Barbosa
Councilman Mike Miranda moved, seconded by Councilman Barbosa to reappoint Elias Ornelas and appoint Ben Aguayo to fill vacancies in the Planning Commission
Councilman Diaz stated that the Commissions were comprised of only one or two factions, however, he meant no reflection on the people being considered for appointment
Councilman Mike Miranda made the following statement for the Record
The two names mentioned are not related to me in any way, shape or form "
Councilman Breceda agreed with Councilman Diaz that other names should be considered for these vacancies
Motion carried by the following vote of the Council
Ayes Councilmen Mike Miranda, Barbosa, & P Miranda
Noes Councilmen Breceda and Diaz
Absent Councilmen none
RESOLUTION COMMENDING Councilman Diaz moved, seconded by HARDIE LEE FOR HAVING Councilman Mike Miranda to instruct SERVED IN THE P/ C the City Attorney to prepare a
resolution commending Hardie Lee
for his services during his term of office in the Planning Commission for council adoption Carried unanimously
PUBLIC WORKS VACANCY (
I
The City Manager recommended in
view of filling a vacancy created
and also having the City of Irwindale assume sewer maintenance, that Ruben Burrola and Max Rodriquez be appointed
Councilman Diaz moved, seconded by Mayor Pat Miranda to consider two men, but not the ones mentioned, that Ruben Burrola be appointed now and Ismael Torres at the time the City purchases sewer maintenance equipment, and that $ 1, 000 be appropriated from General Fund to secure this equipment Mr Rodriquez to be left as next person to be hired Carried unanimously
REQUEST FROM CHIEF OF POLICE C
TO ATTEND ALL CHIEFS' AND ALL
COMMITTEE CONFERENCE IN PALO
ALTO
California , on February 2 and 3,
120
The City Manager presented a
request from the Chief of Police
to attend an all Committee
Conference and All Zones Chiefs'
and Sheriffs' meeting at Palo Alto,
1967, at a cost of approximately
Councilman Barbosa moved, seconded by Councilman Diaz that request be granted and the necessary funds be appropriated Carried unannmously
REQUEST FROM CITY MANAGER C The City Manager requested Council TO ATTEND CITY MANAGER' S permission to attend the Annual CONFERENCE Spring Meeting of the City Managers'
Department of the League of
California Cities Said meeting to be held in Palo Alto on February 8- 10, 1967 An advance of $ 100 was requested with the stipulation that only reasonable and necessary expenses be allowed
Councilman Barbosa moved, seconded by Councilman Diaz that request be granted and approve the advance funds as requested Carried unanimously
Any councilmember may attend, if they so desire
191
Regular Council Meeting January 17, 1967
ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE IRWINDALE g$ The City Attorney presented an MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING ordinance entitled, " AN ORDINANCE
TO SANITARY SEWERS AMENDING CERTAIN OF THE PROVISIONS
OF CHAPTER 2 OF ARTICLE V OF THE
IRWINDALE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO SANITARY SEWERS," and read same by title
The City Attorney advised the Council that the ordinance was being presented for adoption
The City Engineer explained the difference between the
existing ordinance and the one to be adopted, which was as follows 1) Five years to pay instead of 15 years,
2) Lump sum rather than front footage,
3) As right of appeal, city council had right to revise fees,
4) Payments to be made to city rather than the Tax
Collector
Councilman Diaz moved, seconded by Councilman Mike Miranda to adopt the ordinance on second reading
Carried by the following vote of the Council
Ayes Councilmen Breceda, Diaz, M Miranda, & Barbosa
Noes Councilmen Pat Miranda
Absent Councilmen None
Ordinance as adopted is No 186
MwelwWfIXI
APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE The City Attorney presented a PLANNING COMMISSION, 12S resolution entitled, " A RESOLUTION
ORNELAS AND AGUAYO) OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
IRWINDALE APPOINTING MEMBERS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF IRWINDALE", and read same by title Councilman Mike Miranda moved, seconded by Councilman
Barbosa to waive reading Carried unanimously
Councilman Mike Miranda moved, seconded by Councilman
Barbosa to adopt resolution as presented
Carried by the following vote of the Council
Ayes Councilmen Breceda, M Miranda, Barbosa, & Pat
Miranda
Noes Councilmen Diaz
Absent Councilmen None
Resolution as adopted is No 67- 1- 612
OTHER LEGAL MATTERS
REQUEST FROM CITY ATTORNEY jqj The City Attorney requested council TO FILE A SUPREME COURT permission to file a supreme court BRIEF, brief using the City' s name with
other cities to support the home
rule concept at a cost not to exceed
50 ( Broadway Association vs Board of Permit Appeals, 246 A C A 29)
Councilman Diaz moved, seconded by Councilman Mike Miranda to grant the City Attorneys' request Carried unanimously
C12
Regular Council Meeting January 17, 1967
COUNCILMEN ITEMS
SISTER CITY COMMITTEE' S 5 Councilman Diaz requested that in PERMANENT ADDRESS order to assist the Sister City
Committee, that the City Hall be
made their permanent address
Councilman Diaz moved, seconded by Mayor Miranda to approve request Carried unanimously
VARIANCE GRANTED BY THE Councilman Diaz requested discussion PLANNING COMMISSION TO y concerning Variance granted by the FRANK BARBOSA Planning Commission to Frank Barbosa
Councilman Diaz stated that the
Council should have knowledge of matters such as these and felt a public hearing should be heard before the City Council
Public Hearing set to be heard before the City Council
on February 7, 1967
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion, meeting was adjourned at 12 05 A M
Pat SZAirandd, Mayor
ATTEST
Mar ret S Barbosa, City Clerk
Minutes approved at the meeting held February 7, 1967
IRWINDALE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 22, 2025
5050 N. IRWINDALE AVENUE WEDNESDAY
IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA 91706 9:50 P.M.
The Irwindale SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE IRWINDALE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY met in regular session at the above time and place.
ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Albert F. Ambriz, Mark A. Breceda, Manuel R. Garcia, Mayor Larry G. Burrola
Absent: Mayor Pro Tem H. Manuel Ortiz
Also Present: Julian A. Miranda, City Manager; Adrian Guerra, City Attorney; Theresa Olivares, Assistant City Manager; Christopher Hofford, Chief of Police; Kambiz Borhani, Director of Finance / City Treasurer; Marilyn Simpson, Community Development Director; Eddie Chan, Director of Engineering / Building Official; Elizabeth Rodriguez, Public Services Director; Mary Hull, Human Resources Manager, and Laura Nieto, Chief Deputy City Clerk
AB 2449 DISCLOSURES None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION A motion was made by Councilmember Ambriz, seconded by Councilmember Breceda, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was unanimously approved, Mayor Pro Tem H. Manuel Ortiz absent.
ITEM NO. 27A WARRANTS / DEMANDS / PAYROLL
WARRANTS /
DEMANDS / The warrants / demands / payroll were approved.
PAYROLL
ITEM NO. 27B INVESTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT FOR FISCAL QUARTER INVESTMENT ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2024
QUARTERLY REPORT
FOR FISCAL QUARTER The Investment Quarterly Report for fiscal quarter ending ENDING December 31, 2024, was received and filed.
DECEMBER 31, 2024
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
SPONTANEOUS
COMMUNICATIONS There were no speakers.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 9:51 p.m.
________________________________
Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
City of Irwindale as Successor Agency to the
Irwindale Community Redevelopment Agency
Report Total (1 checks): 68.75
Check Date Check Amount
104395 ROSENO RSG Inc. 03/13/2025 68.75
Accounts Payable
Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number
Check No Vendor No Vendor Name
IRWINDALE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS FEBRUARY 26, 2025
5050 N. IRWINDALE AVENUE WEDNESDAY
IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA 91706 7:19 P.M.
The Irwindale HOUSING AUTHORITY met in regular session at the above time and place.
ROLL CALL: Present: Board Members Albert F. Ambriz, Mark A. Breceda, Manuel R. Garcia; Vice Chair H. Manuel Ortiz; Chair Larry G. Burrola Also present: Julian A. Miranda, Executive Director; Adrian Guerra, General Counsel; Theresa Olivares, Assistant Executive Director; Christopher Hofford, Chief of Police; Kambiz Borhani, Director of Finance / City Treasurer; Marilyn Simpson, Community Development Director; Elizabeth Rodriguez, Public Services Director; Eddie Chan, Director of Engineering / Building Official; Mary Hull, Human Resources Manager, and Laura Nieto, Chief Deputy City Clerk AB 2449 DISCLOSURES None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION A motion was made by Board Member Breceda, seconded by Vice Chair Ortiz, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was unanimously approved.
ITEM NO. 33A MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 12, MINUTES OF THE 2025
REGULAR MEETING
2025 HELD FEBRUARY The minutes of the regular meeting held February 12, 2025, were 12,2025 approved.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
SPONTANEOUS
COMMUNICATIONS There were no speakers.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
_________________________
Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Assistant Authority Secretary
IRWINDALE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MARCH 12, 2025
5050 N. IRWINDALE AVENUE WEDNESDAY
IRWINDALE, CALIFORNIA 91706 7:54 P.M.
The Irwindale HOUSING AUTHORITY met in regular session at the above time and place.
ROLL CALL: Present: Board Members Albert F. Ambriz, Mark A. Breceda, Manuel R. Garcia; Vice Chair H. Manuel Ortiz; Chair Larry G. Burrola Also present: Julian A. Miranda, Executive Director; Adrian Guerra, General Counsel; Theresa Olivares, Assistant Executive Director; Christopher Hofford, Chief of Police; Kambiz Borhani, Director of Finance / City Treasurer; Marilyn Simpson, Community Development Director; Elizabeth Rodriguez, Public Services Director; Eddie Chan, Director of Engineering / Building Official; Mary Hull, Human Resources Manager, and Laura Nieto, Chief Deputy City Clerk AB 2449 DISCLOSURES None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION A motion was made by Board Member Breceda, seconded by Board Member Ambriz, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was unanimously approved; Board Member Breceda abstaining on Item No. 33B.
ITEM NO. 33A AWARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR ANNUAL
AWARD AUDIT SERVICES
PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES CONTRACT The extension of the existing contract with LSL, LLP, to provide annual FOR ANNUAL AUDIT audit services for an additional five years was approved.
SERVICES
ITEM NO. 33B RESOLUTION NO. HA 2025-02-146, ENTITLED: “A RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION RE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE IRWINDALE HOUSING USE OF 10-ACRE SITE AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE USE OF THE ON ALLEN DRIVE FOR 10-ACRE SITE ON ALLEN DRIVE, ASSESSOR’S PARCEL THE JULY 4, 2025, NUMBER 8417-34-912, FOR THE CITY OF IRWINDALE’S JULY 4, FIREWORKS DISPLAY 2025, FIREWORKS DISPLAY SPECTACTULAR EVENT,” RESOLUTION NO Resolution No. HA 2025-02-146, entitled:
HA 2025-02-146
ADOPTED “A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
IRWINDALE HOUSING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING AND
APPROVING THE USE OF THE 10-ACRE SITE ON ALLEN DRIVE,
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER 8417-34-912, FOR THE CITY OF
IRWINDALE’S JULY 4, 2025, FIREWORKS DISPLAY
SPECTACULAR EVENT,” was adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
HOUSING AUTHORITY MINUTES MARCH 12, 2025
REGULAR MEETING PAGE 2
SPONTANEOUS
COMMUNICATIONS There were no speakers.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m.
_________________________
Laura M. Nieto, MMC
Chief Assistant Authority Secretary
Item #33.B.
Date: March 26, 2025
To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Housing Authority Board From: Julian A. Miranda, Executive Director
Issue: (1) Consideration of Consent to Assignment and Assumption of Affordable Housing Agreement and Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions Between Sandra Keyner formerly known as Sandra Rose Gonzales and Jing Hu with Respect to 2445 Alice Rodriquez Circle and Related Loan Documents; and (2) Consideration of Approval of Request for Subordination of Low Income Home Purchase Loan Regarding 2445 Alice Rodriquez Circle Executive Director's Recommendation:
Receive and file this report or provide other direction.
Administrative Action:
Prepared / Submitted by:
Robert J. Lee, Assistant Authority Counsel Electronically Approved Reviewed by:
Adrian R. Guerra, Authority Counsel
Approved by:
Julian A. Miranda, Executive Director
Background and Analysis:
Assignment and Assumption:
Sandra Rose Gonzales now known as Sandra Keyner (“Seller”) and the former Irwindale Community Redevelopment Agency (“Former RDA”) entered into that certain Affordable Housing Agreement and Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions dated December 11, 2006 (“Affordable Housing Agreement”), whereby the Former RDA agreed to provide Seller financial assistance in the form of a $291,000.00 loan (“Agency Loan”) which partially enabled Seller to purchase the real property located at 2445 Alice Rodriguez Circle, Irwindale, California (“Property”), as part of a Low
Income program operating under the State’s affordable housing laws. The Agency Loan, which is to be forgiven after 20 years (i.e., December 10, 2026) was evidenced by a promissory note secured by a deed of trust (together, “Loan Documents”). In exchange for such financial assistance, Seller agreed to permit the Property to become subject to affordability restrictions for a period of 45 years as part of the Former RDA’s program to create long-term affordable housing units in the City of Irwindale pursuant to Sections 50052.5, 50093, and 33000, et. seq. (Community Redevelopment Law) of the Health and Safety Code.
Seller now seeks to sell the Property to Jing Hu (“Buyer”), who is a qualified Low Income buyer under the Affordable Housing Agreement and State housing laws referenced therein. The proposed sale price is $231,000 and Buyer will be taking out a private loan for the amount of $155,700 (“New Loan”) from a private lender (“New Lender”).
The Affordable Housing Agreement requires that Seller and Buyer enter into an Assignment and Assumption Agreement (“Assignment and Assumption”) with consent to be provide by the Former RDA. Once escrow closes on Buyer’s purchase of the Property, the Assignment and Assumption will effect an assignment and transfer of Seller’s rights and obligations under the Affordable Housing Agreement along with the Loan Documents to Buyer, and Buyer will assume all such rights and obligations. Affordability restrictions under the Affordable Housing Agreement will continue until expiration of the original 45-year period established under the Affordable Housing Agreement (i.e., January 4, 2052). This means that like Buyer, all subsequent owners must both income-qualify and occupy the unit as their primary residence.
As successor to the Former RDA, the Irwindale Housing Authority (“Authority”) is being asked to provide its consent to the required Assignment and Assumption.
Subordination:
To finance purchase of the Property, in addition to the Agency Loan, Seller also obtained a mortgage from a private lender. The private loan, which will be fully repaid upon close of escrow, was secured by a recorded deed of trust and is in first lien position in the event of a foreclosure; the Agency Loan is in second lien position. Buyer is taking out the New Loan in connection with purchase of the Property and now the New Lender is requiring, as a condition to making the loan to Buyer, that the Authority subordinate the Agency Loan to the New Loan thereby placing the New Loan in first position and maintaining the Agency Loan in second.
Any subordination of the Agency Loan to the New Loan will require the Authority lien to be ranked behind the New Loan for purposes of collecting repayment from a debtor, and this would be effectuated via the attached Subordination Agreement. The priority of debts is significant when the property owner defaults on payments or declares bankruptcy, as the Authority’s debt will be collected when and if the first lien has been fully satisfied in the event of foreclosure and liquidation and only if there are monies left over. Therefore, when an affordable homeowner requests the Authority to subordinate its loan to a new loan, the Authority, if it agrees to subordinate, will be assuming the risk of not being repaid either partly or in full.
However, as discussed above, Authority’s approval to subordinate the Agency Loan to the New Loan will merely maintain its current second lien position.
It is proposed that the Executive Director approve and execute the Assignment and Assumption and Subordination Agreement.
(1) California is a race notice state which means as a general rule, under California's race notice recording statute, a bona fide purchaser for value without notice who first records wins a priority dispute. Civ. Code § 1214. Because the Agency Loan Deed of Trust was recorded before the deed of trust that will be recorded to secure payment of the New Loan, the lender of the New Loan is requesting subordination of the Agency Loan Deed of Trust to the New Loan.
Fiscal Impact:
None because the Affordable Housing Agreement will be assumed and the existing rights and obligations will remain in place as applied to Buyer. For the subordination request, Authority will be maintaining the status quo with respect to its second lien position.
Attachments:
1. Assignment and Assumption 2445 Alice Rodriguez
2. Promissory Note - Sandra Gonzales
3. Deed of Trust - Sandra Gonzales
4. Subordination Agreement 2445 Alice Rodriguez
1 FREE RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Irwindale Housing Authority
5050 N. Irwindale Avenue
Irwindale, CA 91706
Attn: Executive Director
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION
OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS
THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AGREEMENT AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS (“Assignment and Assumption”) is dated as of __________________, 2025 (“Effective Date”), by and between Sandra Keyner, formerly known as Sandra Rose Gonzales, an individual (“Assignor”), and Jing Hu, an individual (“Assignee”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Assignor and the former Irwindale Community Redevelopment Agency (“Former RDA”) entered into that certain Affordable Housing Agreement and Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions dated December 11, 2006, recorded January 5, 2007 as Document No. 20070026143, Official Records of Los Angeles County (“Agreement”), a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit “A,” whereby the Former RDA agreed to provide Assignor financial assistance in the form of a $291,000.00 loan which partially enabled Assignor to purchase the real property located at 2445 Alice Rodriguez Circle, Irwindale, California (“Property”). The loan was evidenced by a promissory loan secured by a deed of trust (together, “Loan Documents”).
WHEREAS, in exchange for such financial assistance, Assignor agreed to permit the Property to become subject to affordability restrictions for a period of 45 years as part of the Former RDA’s program to create long-term affordable housing units in the City of Irwindale, as more particularly set forth in the Agreement.
WHEREAS, because California redevelopment agencies including the Former RDA, were dissolved in 2011, under applicable laws, the Irwindale Housing Authority (“Housing Authority”) assumed all of the Former RDA’s rights, powers, duties and obligations under the Agreement.
WHEREAS, Assignee now desires to purchase and Property from Assignor, and Assignor desires to sell the Property to Assignee, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth under the Agreement. The Agreement requires that in the event of such sale, (1) the parties to such transaction must enter into an assignment and assumption APN: 8533-016-026 (Space Above This Line for Recorder’s Office Use Only) (Exempt from Recording Fee per Gov. Code §6103)
2 agreement whereby the rights under the Agreement are assigned to and the obligations are assumed by the buyer of the Property; and (2) the assignee must assume the obligations under the Loan Documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1. Recitals. All of the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
2. Effective Date. This Assignment and Assumption shall be effective as of the Effective Date.
3. Assignment. Assignor hereby assigns, sells, conveys, and otherwise transfers to Assignee all of Assignor's interests, rights, indebtedness and obligations under the Agreement and Loan Documents. As of the Effective Date, Assignor shall have no further right or liability under the Agreement or Loan Documents except to the extent Assignor may have violated any terms or conditions of the Agreement or the Loan Documents prior to the Effective Date. If any such circumstances exist, Assignor shall not be released from corresponding liabilities and the Housing Authority retains all rights and remedies, both at law and in equity, to pursue such rights and remedies against Assignor.
4. Assumption. Assignee hereby assumes all of Assignor's interests, rights, indebtedness and obligations under the Agreement and Loan Documents and assumes and agrees to perform all of Assignor's corresponding obligations, terms, covenants, and conditions under the Agreement and Loan Documents accruing from, and after the Effective Date.
5. Governing Law. This Assignment and Assumption shall be construed according to the laws of the State of California.
6. Recordation. This Assignment and Assumption shall be recorded as soon as practicable following its mutual execution by the parties hereto. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment and Assumption effective as of the Effective Date.
ASSIGNOR: ASSIGNEE:
SANDRA KEYNER
__________________________
Sandra Keyner, in individual
CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT AND
ASSUMPTION:
IRWINDALE HOUSING AUTHORITY, a
public body, as Housing Successor to the
Irwindale Redevelopment Agency
_________________________________
Julian Miranda, Executive Director
ATTEST:
Laura M. Nieto, Authority Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP
Adrian Guerra, Authority Counsel
JING HU
_________________________
Jing Hu, in individual
1 EXHIBIT “A”
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS
SEE ATTACHED
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ____________ )
On _________________, 2025 before me, ___________________________, a notary public, personally appeared _______________________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
_________________________________________
Notary Public
SEAL:
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ____________ )
On _________________, 2025 before me, ___________________________, a notary public, personally appeared _______________________________________________ who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
_________________________________________
Notary Public
SEAL:
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.