Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/25/2017 PC MinutesMINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 25, 2017 CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Wolfe called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chair Mok led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Naila Barlas, Frank Farago, Vice Chairperson Ken Mok, and Chairperson Raymond Wolfe Absent: Commissioner Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke was excused. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; May Nakajima, Associate Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 27, 2017: C/Farago moved, VC/Mok seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 27, 2017, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Farago, VC/Mok, Chair/Wolfe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mahlke 4.2 Public Convenience or Necessity Finding No. PL2017-39 — Make a finding for a `Type 20" (Off -Sale Beer and Wine) license for Sprouts Farmers Market located at 239 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard. JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Barlas moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve Public Convenience or Necessity Finding No. PL2017-39. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: a a NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS None None PUBLIC HEARING(S): Barlas, Farago, VC/Mok, Chair/Wolfe None Mahlke 7.1 Development Review No. PL2017-11 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval to construct a 1,372 square foot addition and a 71 square foot balcony to an existing 1,881 square foot single family residence on a 0.16 gross acre (6,899 gross square foot) lot. The subject property is zoned Low/Medium Density Residential (RLM) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT: 23303 Gold Rush Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Sai A. Myint 23303 Gold Rush Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 George V. Wong 516 N. Moore Avenue #E Monterey Park, CA 91754 Chair/Wolf waived reading of stafrs report and staff's recommendation for Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2017-11, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in the Resolution. Chair/Wolfe opened the public hearing. JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION George Wong, applicant, proposed the addition of a 71 square foot balcony to an existing 1,881 square foot residence. Chair/Wolfe closed the public hearing. VC/Mok commented on the enhanced view the addition will provide. C/Farago moved, VC/Mok seconded to approve Development Review No. PL2017-11, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Farago, VC/Mok Chair//Wolfe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mahlke 7.2 General Plan Amendment, Zone Chanqe and Development Review No. PL2015-253 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.70, the applicant and property owner requested a General Plan Amendment to modify the existing General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential (RM) to Low Density Residential (RL); a Zone Change to modify the existing zoning district from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Low Density Residential (RL); and, approval of Development Review application to construct a new 3,932 square foot, three-story single family residence measuring approximately 31 feet high on an 11,225 square foot (0.26 acre) undeveloped vacant lot. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1111 N. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: James Chin Chou 1359 Bentley Court West Covina, A 91791 APPLICANT: JWL Associates 1221 S. Hacienda Boulevard Hacienda Heights, CA 91745 CDD/Gubman stated that for this item, the Planning Commission is serving as an advisory body to the City Council meaning that, instead of making the final decision to approve or deny the request, when acting in an advisory capacity, the Commission is making a recommendation to the City Council JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION whether to approve or deny, and the City Council is the final decision- making body. The Planning Commission is being asked to forward two key recommendations to the City Council, the first being on how to resolve an existing inconsistency between the project site's General Plan designation and its zoning designation. Currently, the project has a Residential General Plan designation, whereas, the zoning which is intended to implement that General Plan, has a Commercial designation. That inconsistency cannot remain in place so the Commission will review this item and determine whether the zoning needs to be consistent with the General Plan, or if the General Plan designation should be amended to reflect what the zoning designation is. The second recommendation that will be forwarded to the City Council will be based on its review of the actual project proposed, which is a three-story single family residence, and to determine whether or not the project design is appropriate based on the Development Review Findings that are set forth in Section 22.48.040 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code. SP/Lee presented staff's report and acknowledged receipt of written communications and attachments on this item from the following individuals: Photo submitted by Ms. Debra Long; Douglas Barcon; Gregory Fulton, 1165 Flintlock Road; An unnamed "deeply concerned Diamond Bar Citizen'; Sally Guillen, 941 Reno Ridge Lane; and Lee Paulson Staff recommended Planning Commission adoption of Resolutions recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Development Review No. PL2015-253, based on the findings of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48.040 and 22.70.050, subject to conditions of approval therein. Chair/Wolfe asked if it was a correct assumption that the drainage easement is not developable to which SP/Lee responded that Chair/Wolfe's assumption was correct. Chair/Wolfe asked if the parcel was the only developable parcel in this area and SP/Lee said that Chair/Wolfe was correct. C/Farago asked the average height of structures within the adjacent neighborhoods (townhomes and houses). SP/Lee responded that the townhomes are one and two-story floor plans and the single family homes along Flintlock are one and two-story units. JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Wolfe opened the public hearing. Peter Wang, Engineer and Architect for the proposed project, stated that the project commenced in about 2008/09 at which time they were trying to build an office building because the site was designated C-1 and because there is a General Plan conflict for medium density residential. During the neighborhood meeting they realized there was a' difficulty in accommodating a commercial designation due to traffic and speed on Diamond Bar Boulevard. After his firm received input from the neighbors, he went back to the owner and recommended that they first resolve the conflict between the General Plan and zoning. He believes that the proposal before the Commission this evening will downgrade the General Plan and zoning to the bare minimum which is Low Density Residential. Further, he believes that the downgrade will also provide conformity with the neighborhood. The reason that they decided to use the contemporary Japanese style was the architectural structure can bring a very soothing and comfortable Zen kind of feeling. The design was inspired by the movie Life as a House so that people driving the SR57 can see a bit of light shining. The architecture brings out the lighting with most of the windows facing the freeway which will give the feeling of a "pearl' in that area. Also, when one is doing Asian architecture the roofline is staggered, which was the inspiration for the design. In terms of the view, the overall height the top of the roof is still way below the ground of the adjacent neighborhood. In other words, the eyesight is higher than the top of the roof. The upper right portion is a duplicate of a famous Japanese Temple which overlooks the canyon and the valley and again on the right hand side, at night there will be a little light in the sky. Every time he drives the SR57 he imagines this house and sees the light shining and in the morning he sees the Cherry tree in front of the Oriental type of structure which gives it a special feeling. He believes they are trying their best to build their piece on this property. It is not easy to design for this odd shaped property because of the front and rear setbacks which cut down the small triangle upon which they can build. He very much appreciates working with SP/Lee who displayed such patience with them because it was difficult to design for that piece of property. He can build any type of style to make money but he does not believe the owner wants a house to sell because he emphasized that he wanted something built to symbolize a place that can be appreciated. Each floor area will have a lot of open space and everything they have designed was designed to be remarkable and be a landmark in the area. They understand that many residents would like to see that piece of property remain vacant and he does not object to their wishes, but he believes that the land owner has a right to develop that piece of property according to what is legal and permissible. JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION They hope by downgrading the zoning and making sure that peoples' views are not blocked due to height and elevation that the project would be meet approval with the neighboring community. The rendering is somewhat exaggerated because they cannot put three dimensional objects in a two dimensional picture so there is an offset. Again, he really appreciates CDD/Gubman and SP/Lee spending so much time with them and SP/Lee displays a lot of patience guiding him through the process even when he feels frustrated. He thanked the Commission forgiving him the opportunity to speak and hoped he could see his design implemented and materialize. VC/Mok said he appreciated Chair/Wolfe's concern about whether the drainage easement was developable. He asked if in the future there could be a change in that and CDD/Gubman said he believed the likelihood was remote. That is a detention basin which is accepting runoff from all of the upstream properties and it needs to have the capacity to accept storm water from a hundred -year flood event should that occur, which in his opinion, makes it crucial for the drainage structure to remain where it is. VC/Mok asked if the owner was present and Mr. Wang responded that he was not. VC/Mok asked for confirmation that the property line ends at the top of the slope and Mr. Wang confirmed that was true. VC/Mok said he asked that question because normally, when an applicant wants to build a, three-level house they would generally put the lower level below -grade and the second and third above. VC/Mok said it is nice to know that the engineer kept three levels below what the standard is. He noticed that there was no gate in the driveway and wondered if there was a plan to do that in the future. Mr. Wang said that even if they wanted to build a gate it would have to be set back at least 20 feet. However, at this time there is no plan to install a gate in the driveway. VC/Mok said the reason he asked if because in the event a utility truck needed to access the property or a huge refuse truck needed to come in to pick up the bins he wondered if they would be driving into the driveway into the spot between the two extra spaces and the two -car garage and whether it would be able to fit and make a three-point turn and Mr. Wang responded that it definitely would accommodate those types of vehicles and turns because there is a huge backup space in front of the garage and two designated guest parking spots. The hardscape would actually accommodate three to four guest parking spots. VC/Mok asked how many cars would fit in the open space between the two areas and Mr. Wang responded at least seven cars. VC/Mok said he asked that question because there is no parking on Diamond Bar Boulevard and in the event the owner had a big party it could accommodate only a certain JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION number of cars and he wondered where other guests would park their cars. Mr. Wang said the owner would most likely come up with a solution for accommodating his guests. C/Barlas asked why the owner wanted three stories because most of the homes in the area are two-story. Mr. Wang said the reason is architecture. The third floor is only 600 square feet and emphasizes the architectural style. With Asian architecture the eaves extend out and the roofline is staggered. One does not see the first floor. Facing the freeway and Diamond Bar Boulevard the second floor has a lot of windows and the third floor also has a lot of windows which will show the lighting toward the freeway at night. The lighting will be behind the trees so that it is not overwhelming. C/Farago said he was concerned about the massing and asked if there was any consideration given to putting the 600 square feet (third floor) below or at ground level. The design intent was to create a monument which he believes is directly opposed to what the community and residents in the area would like to see. He believes the third level really creates a monument type feel. Was there consideration to reducing the structure to two levels? ,Mr. Wang said there are really only two stories and the upper portion is meant only to convey a Pagoda type of feeling. He does not believe there is room to extend the first or second floor because of the lot restrictions. If the only choice is to eliminate the third floor, the lights will not be seen from the freeway. C/Farago said his concern gets to consistency with other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Wang said he and the owner did not intend to build the same style as other homes in the neighborhood because this home and property would be away from any neighborhood. He does not really see that conformity has anything to do with his project because it is far away from other properties. As an architect, they have their wish and passion and this home was designed to be a standalone symbol. It was not designed to be a home to sell. He can design any type of home the Commissioners wish but he would hope that the Commissioners be open minded about this being an architectural creation. Susan Mullins, 1123 Flintlock Road said she was deeply concerned and dismayed about this project. This man knew when he purchased this property that it would impact everyone behind him and everyone near and dear to Diamond Bar. To the right of Diamond Bar Boulevard as one comes down the hill from Temple Avenue, there is one of the most beautiful expanses of land and scenery that Diamond Bar or any community in the area has to offer. The view is exquisite and it has been there for thousands and thousands of years for people to enjoy. Many people who bought JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION property on the hill overlooking this view paid more for their property as a result. The people who purchased this property intended to make money when they sold the property. The cost of the structure is entirely too dear. Three stories is not a house, it is a mansion (4,000 square feet) and it is directly in the view of surrounding residences. The site is in the neighborhood and he isn't just taking "a" view, he (the property owner) is taking "our" view that residents have had for many years. People who drive down Diamond Bar Boulevard from Temple Avenue have a small window of opportunity to look to their right and see the current, beautiful expanse which is important to the area, but with the structure, that opportunity is lost. Her other concern is the traffic problem on Diamond Bar Boulevard. The staff report says it is not impactful which is an inconsistency because in fact, it is very impactful — not just to families on the hill but to all visitors, people who live in Diamond Bar and to the expanse which is the only such expanse in north Diamond Bar. The report says there is no impact on the habitat. Ms. Mullins assured the Commission that when Chou leveled the property he eliminated a quarter acre of brush that housed skunks, raccoons, possums and squirrels who had burrows with babies in them he plowed over which destroyed the habitats. Even a one-story house would impact this neighborhood, this area, this view and this expanse. A three-story house is unthinkable. This project will impact people spiritually, emotionally, physically and financially and she hopes that the Commission is sensitive to these issues during its deliberation. Donna Earnhardt, 23379 Golden Springs Drive, said she comes with her Feng Shui upset at the prospect of this "mansion" being put on a drive that she has so appreciated for years in Diamond Bar. The General Plan contains an update from 2013 that declares "there is a need to protect the character of existing neighborhoods from incompatible land uses." And she wondered what this means and how it is implemented if the City allows zone changes to accommodate a project of this magnitude. Mansionization is becoming an issue and it has a negative impact on communities. It can reduce property values by $50-$100,000. Some well-known Real Estate Agencies say that the ultimate impact of out -of -scale housing built by speculation causes "affluent blight" and she wonders why anyone would consider building on this particular parcel. As a result, she researched the matter and found that in 2013, the owner requested a General Plan and Zone Change and that was appealed. It appears that zone changes serve to benefit the applicant and not the community in general and she wondered why the City would allow this consideration. Is the Planning Department favoring developers at the expense of the residents who live in Diamond Bar and support the community? The cities of Los Angeles and Arcadia recently established anti-mansionization ordinances in April 2017 and she JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION wondered if Diamond Bar would be interested in doing the same. If not, why not? Does Diamond Bar recognize economic and land use damage that mansionization causes to communities? What is Diamond Bar's present position on the matter? And she is curious to know how much it costs to achieve a General Plan Amendment or a Zone Change and who pays for it, the developer or the City's taxpayers? Realtors have told her that the City has a pretty high percentage of vacant and non -owner occupied luxury housing which are offered for short term rentals and those are connected with foreign investment companies. Ethical realtors told her they will not engage with investors who engage in growing businesses because of real estate fraud. And all of this has a negative impact on the economy and she wants to know what the City's awareness and attitude about the economic impact of speculative foreign real estate investments are in the City in general. In attempting to determine how much was paid for the land, she tried to determine who owned this parcel prior to 2006 because it shows that it is a Caltrans buffer and in 2007 the present owner appears on a title, deed and history and she wonders how this out -of -place parcel ever got sold in the first place. Robin Smith commended SP/Lee who was so gracious about answering her questions. SP/Lee's patience is immeasurable. This whole project reminds her of her next door neighbor. She had the most beautiful Asian contemporary home next door to her built by the Aihama Building Company (Toshi Aihama, owner). It is a gorgeous 2300 square foot two-story home and she loves it. She lives in a cul-de-sac and can only hope that this project would represent a similar vibe. She is very concerned about this project for a number of reasons. First, it is so large. For example, one thing she found very gracious about Mr. Aihama was that he came to all of his neighbors before he built the house and showed his plans so that all of the neighbors knew what was coming prior to staff getting the plans for the project. She is sure he would welcome anyone to come by and see his home — it is really gorgeous. What is interesting about this house is that it is really a destination and reminds her of the most lavish short-term rental that is perfect for local business clients because it is within 15 minutes of Disneyland and Los Angeles. She and her husband know all of the commute routes and everyone here enjoys being close to everything — the mountains, downtown LA and so forth. And so, it is very troubling to her to think that a house that is so out in the open — exposed in this area is going to be possibly used as a business because personally, she cannot see a family living there in this most beautiful home with the sound of the freeway being so close. It is in a buffer zone near the major boulevard and the 57 freeway. She lives in a hillside home and she looks at this property (the proposed project) and it is located off of Featherwood and that hillside that JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION is next to the 60 freeway has burned in the past. Every time somebody throws a cigarette butt out of the car — she thinks a couple of years ago there was a backfire or a vehicle malfunction that made the entire hillside burn. She showed a view from her backyard and said that the house on the top, the really big giant house, is farther away from the road than this 109 feet and it makes her really nervous because she has lived with watching the very impressive burns of this area — twenty firefighters on the hillside, helicopter, the whole thing. So the fire risk is very galvanizing in her mind. She lives with it because she has an acre hillside home. The other thing is, the geotechnical failure of our Puente formation soil. As the Commission knows, the new 2016 amendment to the October Building Code (Title 15), if you just look in Section 1 it has items 1 through 13 that describe the actual vulnerability and character of Diamond Bar soil. It says the hillsides in Diamond Bar are composed of Puente formation, similar weak geological materials and so forth. And bottom line, when we have the big earthquake we're all going to be in trouble which she thinks about when she reads this thing. So there is that. And then you have the 10 and 57 freeway hill failure that we had in 2010, if you remember, where the whole thing came down. So, she has a very sober, real-world understanding of movable soil because her property is on movable soil as well as, other things when she sees — that's the first thing she thinks is, how is that going to hold up. Just the natural character of the Diamond Bar soil is a problem and the new Building Code update says as much. And while she has all the faith in the world of the Planning Department and they are wonderful professional people. She knows PWD/Liu — he is a master engineer. It just makes her nervous that this strange property — I mean it's this house in this little postage stamp sized parcel where it is going to have runoff and it is going to receive runoff from the neighboring houses. So, it's a safety hazard and the massive windows, she wonders if they are going to cause a glare hazard for the drivers where the 6 o'clock sunset hits the windows. So all of those considerations she hopes the Commission will take into account when considering this particular plan. Victor Bermudez, 1129 Flintlock Road said other residents who spoke covered some of the things he was going to cover. He had a number of letters. He is unable to read all of them but all of the residents on his street who face Diamond Bar Boulevard are opposed to this project. While he appreciates Japanese architecture and structures he does not believe that belongs in this location. They are looking to build a monument and we don't need a monument in our neighborhood. It could be a distraction on the freeway, it causes accidents with people looking up. If they see shiny lights and are looking up and not paying attention it is going to cause accidents on the freeway. Was a geological survey done? As a previous resident JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION mentioned, it is right there on the edge of the freeway and right on the edge of the hill. The weight of this house is going to put undue stress on that hill. The other thing is, others spoke about mansionization and spot zoning to change one lot when everything else around it is zoned something else shouldn't be done unless it benefits the entire neighborhood. What he didn't hear is that the owner — he never heard anything about them moving in which brings up another concern .he has that is this going to be a property that is rented to people from out-of-state. When they show the pictures they just show the house and say look at this beautiful house. You can rent it for whatever amount of dollars and yeah, you're close to Disneyland and everything else, but nobody is really going to know where it is at until they finally get there. If somebody does move in and they have a party, where will people park? They are going to end up parking around his neighborhood because the bowling alley is too far down unless they shuttle people back and forth. People are going to be parking all over our neighborhood to go over to that house. Plus, there is no crosswalk there for people to cross the street which is also unsafe because the speed zone is 50 mph. The other concern he has is their landscaping. When they put the trees up, the trees are going to grow so the trees will eventually grow bigger and bigger and maybe even the trees will end up blocking their view — not to mention the house itself. And looking to the future, let's say they use it for rentals or whatever or say somebody does move in not knowing exactly where it's at. Eventually, somebody is going to not like it or whatever and they are going to move out. I mean, it's too big for the neighborhood so obviously they are not going to be able to sell it for an amount they want to get for it because all of the houses around it are smaller. So then, what happens is this house might end up vacant. If they can't make any money off of it, they can't sell it and they can't do anything with it, what happens? They abandon the house — they walk away. Now squatters, they see this great big place there and they start moving in, nobody knows and the place starts deteriorating, the plants start dying and now we've got an eyesore built there that everybody has to look at facing Diamond Bar Boulevard. He reiterated that everybody on Flintlock is opposed to this house. We don't need a monument and as he can appreciate the structure he thinks the house could be better built somewhere else. Douglas Barcon, N. Rock River Drive, said he is not within 1000 feet of this project but he is familiar with Diamond Bar for the last 30 years and he is constantly driving down Diamond Bar Boulevard from Temple Avenue or the Sunset Crossing area going north toward Temple and so forth, and what he noticed about this when he first thought about it was the fact that this house is going to be out -of -place for the surrounding area and as further investigation proved, basically, by walking up there and shooting some JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION pictures. He emailed a letter and photos to SP/Lee. The one photo he shot which is the southerly looking one is apparently based on optical illusion of sorts. He was under the impression that the driveway that is currently on the site was the driveway for this house. He found out since then that it is not and it turns out that that entryway is also probably the easement to let vehicles down into that drainage area. So they are creating a new driveway further south from that point but the house itself sits about five feet (5') from that chain link fence that divides the drainage area from the new property. But back to the original thing about entering Diamond Bar is that that (house) will jump out at everybody coming into Diamond Bar — when they see that they'll go, what is that thing? And then they will notice it has the foreign look or the Japanese look to it and they'll go, we're not in Diamond Bar are we? And then he took a drive up the 57 (freeway) and realized it is noticeable on the northbound 57 if you look to the right and the southbound you can't miss it and this is going to jump out at people as basically pointed out tonight, a monument or a shrine. And it gives the impression that Diamond Bar is a foreign country of sorts. He doesn't think it is the impression that the Diamond Bar residents want people to have. Most of what he was going to say has already been said tonight by other people and he will cut this as short as possible, really. Cal Poly has got ownership rights currently to Lanterman. They are working on a plan to develop that and it may consist of perhaps 5,000 residences. We're not really sure what the number might be or whether they are not going to get that plan done and it is going to revert back to the state in September. It is hard to say at this point but they had it reviewed, they've got multiple plans. Agriculture may not be one of those plans — we can't tell yet, but from the maps they were showing, perhaps not. The buildings that are currently there are not considered "historic" but it is going to increase the traffic on Highland Valley and Diamond Bar Boulevard so the issue of safety is a concern for this house being there in an area where you have bicycles with the bicycle path there, no parking, refuse trucks, delivery trucks — whatever it may be entering that property potentially causing a traffic hazard. So looking at the prior history and the area from the Diamond Bar information from 2010 is what he found to the Planning Commission, in regard to the property and so forth, as Robin (Smith) pointed out, the hillsides in Diamond Bar are this Puente formation which are not stable — they are weak materials. So we don't know how well that's going to hold up over time. And then the other thing it looked at for planning is hazards and hazardous materials. Well, this site does pose a hazard to traffic and the other point here is, they are mentioning about significant traffic hazards and so forth. What is considered "significant?" Is that a traffic accident where somebody dies or a traffic accident where somebody is injured? We don't know. And as for the aesthetics part of it, it is also in the Planning Commission reports, this JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION building is highly visible from the 57. It will set the tone for the City of Diamond Bar and basically, that's what he's got for his comments tonight. Everything else is in his report which includes the photos and so forth, so refer back to that and go from there but to him, this is likely a foreign investment that is being done as speculation and people do not know where the money is coming from, but it is perhaps something that needs to be looked at. Felino Bautista, 1141 Flintlock Road, asked staff to display the elevation showing the Diamond Bar hillside of the proposed site and the drop off from the freeway. Using the map, he said he was trying to determine how far it was from the site to the on ramp and off ramp. Living close to a freeway is detrimental to one's health because of the emissions. Granted he saw in the handout that there was some sort of chemical analysis that says there is nothing there. He submitted that is not exactly factual and he would request that the Commissioners review that data and ascertain if it actually meets what the state mandates to buildings close to freeways. He is also a baby boomers and as boomers get older we tend to sell our houses. He has a 2000 square foot house and who is going to buy a 4000 square foot house, because the Millennials aren't. He knows his son cannot afford it and he is 32 or 33 and works for the studios. He knows his kids up in Oakland, their 1200 square foot house cost $675,000 in Piedmont. He cannot see that house (the project house) bought by someone. So, what does that leave you in terms of a revenue stream? How many bedrooms? Four bedrooms? Airbnb right there. So he submits that is an ill -placed house. He referred back to the plans and pointed out what he believed to be the driveway. In 2013 when neighborhood meetings were held the concern was for delivery trucks pulling into a small commercial area. Now we have four bedrooms and say there are three kids and a set of parents which could mean that five or six cars would be kept close to that structure. He felt that it was not well thought out, because he did not believe a DHL truck or an Amazon delivery guy would have room to go in, turn around and to come out of the driveway. As a former engineer, regarding the glare on the windows, there is a structure in Newport Beach that has multiple solar panels and is located on Bayside Drive. When the sun goes down the reflection from those windows can be seen in Balboa which is a good five miles as the crow flies. He submitted with that much glass area the energy bills to cool that will be substantial so who is going to buy it? He suspects the other gentleman that said it is going to be empty for a while is right. Paul Deibel, 23346 Wagon Trail Road, said he originally came this evening to hear about the previous item. But in listening to this item he has concerns he wants to pass on to the Commission. He objects to the General Plan JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION Amendment to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential. Diamond Bar has a tremendous over supply of low density, single family residential and mansions. What Diamond Bar needs and not just the City but the entire county and state is more affordable housing. This site on the General Plan is designated Medium Density Residential which is a scarce resource in Diamond Bar. He does not know how much vacant Medium Density Residential there is but he would anticipate that it is very little. He questions the consistency of this item with the Housing Element of the General Plan. On a prior case he looked at the Housing Element of the General Plan and all he found was the Housing Element from 1995 which he assumes is out-of-date because he understands a Housing Element was adopted in 2013-14 timeframe and he could hot find it on the internet. He called the office and was advised that not only is it not available on the website, but that you have to come to the library and submit a request for "public documents request" and he is not sure he heard that right, exactly, but that is incredible to him that a citizen of Diamond Bar has to put in a government documents request to look at or get a copy of the General Plan. So his first point would be please, put the Housing Element on the website so people can see it and we need to have one in the library if it is not there. He wanted to raise a couple of questions for consideration by the Commission. First, he does not know if the City's General Plan is approved by the Housing Development of the state. He doesn't know that and he didn't have a chance to find out. He assumes that it is, but if not, he believes that is a serious problem, especially if he as a citizen is challenging the consistency of this project with the City's General Plan and the existing designation in the General Plan and changing that designation. Secondly, assuming that the Housing Element is adopted, he is curious how the City is doing with respect to meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) that presumably it has under the General Plan planning process for the region. And with respect back again on this particular site, if this is not a perfect location for Medium Density Residential Housing then he doesn't know where in Diamond Bar would be. You've seen the graphics that show how a larger structure can be very compatibly provided here, very compatibly designed for the neighborhood, and this would be a perfect location for some well-designed affordable housing that would be completely compatible with the neighborhood. The zone change from C-1, yes, normally you change your zoning to match the General Plan. You don't change the General Plan and the zoning. You went through a General Plan adoption process so he would advocate adhering to the General Plan (land use) designation on this site for Medium Density Residential and he challenges the finding of consistency with the General Plan which this body would have had to make to proceed this far with this case (project) he believes. And by the same token he questions that this JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION proposal is, in fact, exempt from CEQA because he thinks one could make a case that any change to the General Plan land use designation is significant under CEQA and should at least entail a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact that would look at the housing impact and the consistency of this project eliminating existing Medium Density Residential from your stock of land use in the City. He thinks it is not warranted. John Youssef, 1159 Flintlock Road said that the house in question would directly be in his view of site from his back yard. When they bought their house, one of the biggest reasons they bought it was for the view. We did pay extra, as one other resident mentioned, to get that view and if that house is built, our house value drops significantly. Not only that, there are also privacy issues. They mentioned that they want to build a three-story house which means they can see into his back yard and he can see into their third story, right? So that raises a privacy issue and he is not really okay with that. Also, the architect mentioned he wants to build a "landmark" — is it a landmark or is it a single family residence because landmarks are not the same as single family residences. He mentioned people want to see the light from the freeway and that sounds like a monument or temple to him which can also carry distractions on the freeway and cause accidents like the previous resident spoke about. He also mentioned he wants to plant trees so even if the house doesn't completely block the view, the trees will. Another thing to know, if this was truly important to the owner, why isn't he here speaking his case? And why is he just hearing about this (project) right now? So these are all concerns he has in regards to building this house. Not to mention other people did talk about the safety hazard, traffic, where the driveway is going to be located. There is a bike lane on that side of the street and there is also the bus stop right next to that house. So it does cause a lot of tension and lot of distraction to the people not only driving on Diamond Bar Boulevard but also the people driving on the freeway because of those large windows that may cause the reflection and people are not supposed to drive on the freeway to appreciate the large homes on the hillside — they are driving on the freeway to reach a certain destination they are going to. Mr. Youssef said he understands the owner wants to build something lavish but that is not the area to build it. Diamond Bar, specifically that parcel, is not the area to build it. If you want a large area, if you want a large house, go build it somewhere on the hillside rather than in the middle of a residential street. Also, in question to the parcel, how can we buy the parcel back because regardless of what they want to build on that parcel, every single time these people and he will be here to deny it so how can the City buy the parcel back because whatever it is they decide to build he personally will be against it and he is not sure his fellow residents will be against it, but like he said, he lives on Flintrock Road, his JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION house value will decrease $50,000 to $100,000 so he is not going to let that happen. Bernice Minnis, 23753 Decorah Road has been living in Diamond Bar since 1974 and she has four questions that can hopefully be answered tonight. 1) Would there be livable space on the third floor? 2) What is the family dimensions (dynamics) — is there a husband, wife, and children and how old are the children that are going to be staying there? If they are under 18 they will be there for a few years. If they are close to 18 they might be moving. That is a great big house for just a mom and dad left behind so that's very important to her. 3) How long will the family be living in this house before they move out? Are they planning to just be there long enough to see their children grow up or are they planning on staying a little longer? 4) Will this house be used for another purpose? Reverend O.L. Johnson, 1,135 Flintlock Road quoted from an article "Understanding Spot Zoning written by Robert C. Widner, Attorney at Law who wrote "a zoning decision that merely provides for individual benefit without a relationship to a public benefit cannot be legally supported." Reverend Johnson said that when he thinks about what Mr. Widner is saying, he can see from what has been said that the property owner will definitely benefit, but he is wondering what the benefit will be to the community. He listened to everyone who has spoken and has not heard anything that tells him a benefit to the community will be forthcoming. As was said earlier, he and his wife purchased their home which is directly across the street from the proposed house and as his wife likes to say, it is in their face and it it also in the face of the Bermudez family that lives next door and also in the face of the Batista family that lives next door and it does obstruct their view in spite of what has been heard today. They want to register their opposition to the zoning change and the house although he can see it is a beautiful house, but we are against it for all reasons that have been stated this evening. Clark Minnis said he read about this in the newspaper a few days ago and right away he got suspicious and he is still suspicious. Over 4,000 square feet, four bedrooms — great big rooms, he has a feeling it will be used as a "birthing" home. Big bedrooms with maybe five or six beds in each room. The person that wants to buy the property and build a house is not here. It is something to think about and it would not fit in Diamond Bar. He lives up Sunset Crossing with a nice view. So think about it. It looks rather suspicious to him and he hopes the Commission does not vote for them. JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Wolfe asked the applicant to return to the podium for rebuttal before returning the matter to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wang said he heard a lot of opposition and to solve their concerns he needs to think about how he might be able to do that. However, there was one thing that people talked about that was very offensive to him which was their reference to him and the property owner being "foreigners." Who is the foreigner? Just because his skin is different so definitely he is a foreigner and just because Mr. Chou has a last name of Chou which means he is a foreigner. Mr. Wang said his father worked for the US Navy for 20 years in Taiwan and received immigrant status in the United States when Mr. Wang was 23. Mr. Wang obtained his Master's Degree and served in the United States and LA County Government for 23 years from which he retired. He has taught at Cal State Fullerton for seven years and teaches all American kids. His sons are American. Mr. Chou is a very private person, it is not because he does not want to show up for the meeting. It is because he is a very, very shy person, a very private person, and is not used to public speaking which makes him nervous. For Mr. Wang, what he is trying to build is not a mansion for Diamond Bar because there are many mansions in The Country Estates. Compared to the structures in The Country Estates, this proposed project is a small building. As he stated earlier, this is a very unique piece of property and he wanted the challenge when he took on this job which he has been working on for almost ten years he did so because of its uniqueness in terms of its position and location. He approached the map and said that when the front and back yard setbacks are taken out the proposed location is the only location that can be built upon and the only location where a wide turning radius can be included. If there is enough landscaping he can provide more paved area for the vehicles. There is always anticipation of neighbors' concerns and many times when things are done to Code it is just for the minimum safety and conformance. In this case, he is attempting to conform to every possible standard and building a single family frame house is based on the recommendation by the residents at the neighborhood meeting. Now they do not think that is good so we agree and as a result, he downgraded the home to the minimum that can be built to resolve the inconsistency with the General Plan and the zoning. The property is a legal property. It was set and it was there and the owner wants to build on it. Regarding the question about the living space, family size and how long the family will live there and who will use the dwelling he believes that is a matter of privacy which he believes is a matter of the American standard that people respect other people's privacy and keep their privacy as well. This is something he has learned about American culture. Actually, he brings his culture to this continent and he learned a lot and that is what a great part of America is JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 18 PLANNING COMMISSION about because it is multi -cultural. In the 1980s Europe brought an impact to America and he believes the Asian brings an impact to America now which is what a great community and great country is about. Again showing the depiction of the house from the freeway, Mr. Wang said it was exaggerated, but one cannot really see too much of the building because it is far ahead and why they are trying to build this way because there is an attempt to make a comparison in the architecture. Basically, the first floor will not be viewable from the freeway and it will appear as a two-story only. He understands that this is a bit unusual for the neighborhood and it is not cheap to build this type of structure. The glass alone is very expensive and Japanese glass is really not really clear but is more obscure and non - reflective. They want to build this because it is a unique location and does not really touch any nearby neighbor. And why would we waste a visible spot that one can see from the freeway which brings in the uniqueness of that spot. We hope by building this expensive though unique style building we will bring up the surrounding property values. We do not want to lower the property values. This property will be significantly valued to the good because the owner will spend a lot of money to develop it. And we hope that because of its uniqueness and beautiful architecture will bring up the neighborhood property. We believe in the scope of the project which he believes staff and the Commissioners understand. They do not intend to disturb the habitat by having the fire department come in and brush the property. They have spent so many years doing this working on this project for which he has such great passion because it will present a philosophy, culture, uniqueness and beauty to the hillside. He hopes everyone can feel his passion regarding this building and while he is not Frank Lloyd Wright, he hopes people will stop in the area to look at this beautiful building in Diamond Bar. VC/Mok said he appreciated Mr. Wang's passion for this project which is very evident in his words and the way he spoke which he did very eloquently. The packet his firm sent the Commission is very well prepared and even the paper is high quality and expensive. VC/Mok said that while he does not know much about Japanese culture he does know that a lot of Japanese architecture requires pretty bold colors and the packet shows muted colors. He did not read about the owner or architect recommending any particular color palette for this project and wondered if the packet showed the final color palette or would there be something else in mind. Mr. Wang explained that this is contemporary Japanese inference. It is not 100 percent accurate but they are trying to adhere to any recommendation from the Commission because they are trying not to offend anyone and therefore intend to use very simple colors and straight lines. Japanese style is emphasized by natural lighting and natural ventilation. People who live JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION there will want to mix with natural surroundings and the rendering coincides with the landscaping plan, which includes Japanese maple trees and cherry trees. They want people who drive through to see beautiful architecture and nature and not weeds and grass and as they drive by everyday they can feel soothing and peaceful vibes coming from that building. Chair/Wolfe closed the public hearing. Chair/Wolfe said that regarding the fire risk and the hillside risk and fortunately or unfortunately that is an issue that many in Diamond Bar have to live with as part of living in the quasi -country environment that defines our beautiful community. He understands that risk which is prevalent throughout this community. He is very concerned with the driver expectation in this area. There is another driveway that serves utility vehicles getting in and out of the drainage easement area which is not widely used and has a different use than any other development at this location. In the past the applicant had proposed a small commercial building and a commercial building would obviously have much heavier traffic impacts as would a potential multiple family housing unit if it could be fit to the area that would have any real value. Even with a Low Density Residential Zone change, he is concerned that as one comes down from Temple Avenue and around that curve when some people may be looking at the viewshed and the new house that may end up being there at the lack of expectation because there hasn't been any vehicular activity exiting and entering Diamond Bar Boulevard in the area of the project. He knows that the traffic study done in 2012 really focused on level -of -service and looked at intersection analysis. He believes the Commission needs to take a look at the matter of more in-line with driver and line -of -site, etc., particularly when considering there will be some plantings fairly close to the driveway that could further impede the visual acuity of people entering and leaving the property as well as, people driving on Diamond Bar Boulevard. He is also concerned that there is a bike lane on that side of the street and he does not know if there is sufficient radius in the driveway area to turn around a FedEx truck or Waste Management truck or anything of that nature. Also, the larger vehicles would concern him as they are entering and exiting Diamond Bar Boulevard to access this property. In his opinion, before the Commission were to proceed with this matter, it would be prudent for the Commission to request via City staff that the applicant perform this analysis so that the Commission has data to support the direction this body may or may not go. His motion would be that the Commission send this back to staff for further analysis. JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 20 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Mok said he appreciated Chair/Wolfe touching on an important item he mentioned earlier in this meeting which was the ingress/egress of service vehicles within this property which would be a concern of his as well, especially since there is no left -turn pocket heading north on Diamond Bar Boulevard with access into this property. The only traffic would be heading southbound and the speed picks up quite a bit in that direction and for a big refuse truck to negotiate a right turn, pick up the trash and then jockey around in that pad to come out would seem to him to be sort of awkward and ultimately dangerous. Chair/Wolfe moved, VC/Mok seconded, to continue the Public Hearing and direct staff to bring back further traffic analysis. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Farago, VC/Mok Chair//Wolfe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Mahlke Chair/Wolfe thanked everyone for their time, comments and concerns regarding this item. CDD/Gubman explained to the audience that this matter is being continued to a date uncertain. Staff will have to go back and have a traffic analysis prepared and peer reviewed which will take a couple of months. In light of the fact this matter is not being continued to a specific date and staff cannot predict when this matter will come back to the Commission, staff will re - notice when the matter comes back before the Commission which includes posting the property, advertising in the newspaper and mailing notices to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project. 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman notified the Commission that the next Planning Commission meeting will take place on the regularly scheduled meeting date of August 8th with three items on the agenda with two residential additions. The big-ticket item on that agenda will be the tear down and rebuild of the McDonald's at the corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Gentle Springs Lane which will add to the construction activity at the Sprouts Center, should the Commission approve that project. JULY 25, 2017 PAGE 21 PLANNING COMMISSION Future meeting items for August 22 include the Commission's review of a proposed Habit Hamburger Grill drive-through restaurant in the Sprouts Center on the side of the entry drive opposite Chipotle and Coffee Bean. Chair/Wolfe said that he would plan to be at the August 8 meeting; however, he will be traveling back that day from northern California and may be delayed. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As posted in the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Wolfe adjourned the regular meeting at 8:56 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 8th day of August, 2017. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, .211 Greg Gubman Community Development Director Raymo Wolfe, Chairperson