Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/28/1996MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 28, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Goldenberg called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. at the South Coast Air_ Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by VC/Ruzicka and dedicated to the 221st November birthday anniversary of the United States Marine Corps. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Goldenberg, Vice Chairman Ruzicka, and Commissioners, McManus and Schad Commissioner Fong arrived, at 7:10 p.m. Als?,,Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano, Senior Planner Catherine Johnson, Assistant Planner Ann Lungu and Assistant City Attorney Robin Harris. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of October 14, 1996. VC/Ruzicka made a motion, seconded by C/Schad to approve the minutes of October 14, 1996 as corrected. The motion was approved 4-0 with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: OLD BUSINESS - None PUBLIC HEARING: VC/Ruzicka, Schad, McManus, Chair/Goldenberg None Fong 1. Development Review No. 94-2(1). A request for a one year Extension of Time (pursuant to Code Section 22.72.160.A.) for a project approved on January 23, 1995. The extension would allow additional time to begin the construction of a 17,867 square foot two-story professional office building. OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Property Address: 21008 Lycoming Street, Diamond Bar 1 Owner/Applicant: G. Miller Development Co., P.O. Box 46812, Diamond Bar, CDD/DeStefano read the staff report into the record. He indicated that the project previously underwent two Public Hearings and was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. Due to circumstances beyond his control,the applicant is requesting a one year extension of time for the development of the project. The, extension request is allocated within the City's rules and regulations. He stated the project conforms to the City's current General Plan philosophy and Development Code rules and regulations. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 94-2(1) for one year extension of time, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. Chair/Goldenberg opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one who wished to speak, Chair/Goldenberg closed the Public Hearing. Commission Fong arrived at 7:10 p.m. CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Schad that there is a lot lune adjustment and future access road agreement between the applicant and Walnut Valley Trailer. Walnut Valley Trailer was notified of tonight's Public Hearing. VC/Ruzicka moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve Development Review No. 94-2(1) for a one year extension of time, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the resolution. The motion was carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS: 1.- Presentation on the Basics of Redevelopment, Selection of the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area, and Approval of the Preliminary Plan formulated for the Diamond Bar, Economic Revitalization Area. CDD/DeStefano stated that in accordance with California Redevelopment Law, the Redevelopment Agency Board has directed the Planning Commission to select a Redevelopment Project Area from within the boundaries of the previously approved survey area and to approve a Preliminary Plan for ,the selected project area.�` J Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive' a presentation on redevelopment, adopt a resolution selecting the boundaries of the project area, and approve the y r� OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Preliminary Plan formulated for the redevelopment of the project area. CDD/DeStefano responded to C/McManus that the Agency Board has sent the Planning Commission a study area for purposes of consideration of a project area. The Board has requested that the Planning Commission select a project area from within the boundaries provided. The Planning Commission may reduce the size of the project area. If the Planning Commission wishes to expand the project area by adding property that is not presently within the study area, the project will need to go back to the Agency Board for the City Council to amend its study area to include the proposed area. The project will be referred back to the Planning Commission to adopt a new Preliminary Plan and a new Project Area Map, which may delay the process for up to one month. CDD/DeStefano suggested that the Commissioners list for discussion the,properties they feel should or should not be part of the project: - CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Fong that the project area is the same area shown on Exhibit A. Responding to C/Schad, CDD/DeStefano stated the granny flat issue is discussed in the City -s 'current regulations. This ._, issue will be discussed by the Planning Commission during the single family zoning phase of the Development Code adoption process. He indicated there is no prohibition with respect to granny flats on adjacent properties. The restrictions would be based upon the lot size, setbacks between dwelling units, parking requirements, etc. Feiise Acosta, Rosenow, Spivacek Group, Inc., presented an overview of basic redevelopment and presented the specific Redevelopment Project -- Area and Preliminary Plan. Redevelopment is provided for by the Health and Safety Code Community Redevelopment Law Section 33000. It provides for the creation of Redevelopment Agencies and the implementation of redevelopment through the adoption of Redevelopment Plans. Redevelopment agencies can be formed by legislative bodies (cities or counties) in a number of different ways. The City Council can appoint themselves as the Redevelopment Board. The City Council may appoint a separate body as the Redevelopment Board which makes recommendations to the City Council for final action. The City can create an Economic Development or Community Development Commission which acts as a Redevelopment Agency Board and a Housing Commission. In Diamond Bar, the Redevelopment Agency is the City Council which is the most common form of Agency throughout California. The purpose of a Redevelopment Agency, according to law, is to assist the community in redeveloping adverse and unhealthful or blighted areas. In addition, the Agency provides necessary tools to create economic development to insure the community functions economically, and provide needed services to insure OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION V W',Irr' public infrastructure is intact and that adverse conditions do not develop. Ms. Acosta stated a Redevelopment Agency functions through the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan is the legal document that sets forth what powers an Agency has or does not have within a Project Area and what powers it has for financing redevelopment. Ms. Acosta responded to VC/Ruzicka that with respect to adopting a new Project Area or amending a Project Area, all existing Redevelopment Agencies must adhere to the new standards of AB 1290. She explained that in many cases, AB 1290 effects both old and new Redevelopment Agencies. In some respects, new Project Areas,have certain limitations. Ms. Acosta continued stating a. Redevelopment Plan is notl a land use document. A Redevelopment Plan is a legalese document that sets forth the goals and objectives of the Project Area, what type's of powers the Agency has, the land uses, the Agency's obligations,in terms of affording owners and tenants the right to participate, and an Agency's obligation to provide relocation assistance where applicable. The Redevelopment Plan also contains `a Projects List, which is a list of public improvement projects the Agency anticipates it wishes to accomplish over the term of the plan. Ms. Acosta reviewed the Tax Increment Revenue. Ms. Acosta explained to C/Schad and VC/Ruzicka that the tax base of an assessed home addition would be the same whetheri,or not a.Redevelopment Agency existed. However, the tax benefit resulting from the addition would be shared differently if the Redevelopment Agency existed. The Agency does not tax property. Ms: Acosta reviewed the nine month to one year Redevelopment Agency Plan adoption process. The goal is 'to complete the adoption process by the targeted June date in order for the City to capture the 1996-1997 tax base year. This would enable the agency to begin collecting tax increments in Fiscal Year 1998-1999. C/Schad asked how cornercial building tenants can remain,in business during a redevelopment project. Ms. Acosta responded that the majority of corimercial Redevelopment Agency projects are accomplished without displacing existing tenants. Displacement generally occurs as a result of increased rent related to the property upgrade.' The Agency assists the building owner in structuring programs that do not adversely effect existing tenants. Chair/ Goldenberg asked Ms. Acosta to comment on an Agency Board member's statement that "redevelopment will raise taxes OCTOBER 28, 1996 1PAGE 5.1= - PLANNING COMMISSION and cut public services". Ms. Acosta responded she has never been confronted with a situation where redevelopment has cut services. Redevelopment Agencies do not have the power to raise taxes. CDD/DeStefano responded to Chair/Goldenberg that the project area's recoverable taxation will be used by the City to improve and increase services. Responding to C/McManus, CDD/DeStefano stated the purpose of redevelopment project area revenue generation is to help promote further economic redevelopment activities within the project area. The money does not go to the City's general fund. Ms. Acosta commented that by carefully investing redevelopment funds,cities are able to create economic development opportunities by attracting users and businesses that generate additional revenue to the general fund. Additionally, cities are able to use redevelopment 'funds for infrastructure and other improvements that would have been funded out of the general funds. Instead of creating a losing revenue situation for cities, the opposite is true. Most Agencies work hand in hand with their city general funds to maximize general fund revenues-. Ms. Acosta responded to Chair,/Goldenberg that she has never seen that a Redevelopment Agency results in less police and fire protection to cities. City's have the power to invoke Eminent Domain for public purposes. She indicated that in her experience, she has never experienced a City condemning anything and everything they wish as a result of establishing a Redevelopment Agency. C/McManus asked Ms. Acosta to comment on concerns of some local business people that a Redevelopment Agency might displace their business by bringing competing businesses into the City. Ms. Acosta stated that many Redevelopment Agencies have economic development as a goal. Therefore, there may be instances when new businesses will compete with existing businesses and instances when new businesses compliment existing businesses. Ms. Acosta explained the goal of Diamond Bar's Redevelopment Agency is to evaluate the situation and determine whether redevelopment is appropriate for the City and whether or, not the proposed boundaries will be the ultimate boundaries that are adopted and what kinds of project +, implementation the Agency may wish to pursue. The Redevelopment Agency sets policy for determining what kinds of businesses it may wish to pursue to locate in the City. Such a policy is primarily market driven. Ms. Acosta responded to C/Fong that having ones property condemned is a very emotional issue whether it is for a OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION freeway, street or a redevelopment project. She stated that in her 20 plus years of experience in running a redevelopment agency and consulting, agencies go to great lengths to make businesses and individuals whole when they acquire property. The law is very heavy handed on the side of the property owner to insure that they are treated fairly. An. agency, by law, must pay fair market value.for. the property. The property's value is based upon two independent appraisals. In addition, the property owner has a right to go to court for jury trial. The property owner is compensated for any loss of goodwill to the business and awarded relocation benefits. These items pan result in significant amounts of money to the property own,0r. C/McManus questioned why there are conflicting census numbers throughout the Prospect for Economic Development in the City of Diamond Bar report. CDD/DeStefano stated that 56,000 population figure is the most recent number received from the State Department of Finance. The reference to 63,100 is a number that has been projected to represent the future by the private company Urban Decision Systems (UDS). The population figure of 58,427 (Table 6-1) in the year 2020 was prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments using growth projections based on prior City statistics. The City's General Plan project 62,000 to 63,000 in the year 2020. Each organization has incorporated their individuals methods of projecting future numbers. C/McManus asked why Diamond Bar's rental space is projected' at 90 cents per square foot compared to higher per square foot costs in surrounding areas. CDD/DeStefano responded that the author may be suggesting that the per square foot rental rates in Diamond Bar have not been reduced to compensate for the high vacancy level. In addition, it is sometimes more prudent for a landlord to maintain the current rental rates rather than lower the rates in an effort to fill vacant space. C/McManus asked for further clarification of the apparent inconsistencies in the report. Ms. Acosta stated the map includes a study area whlich encompasses all of the commercial/ industrial areas of the City. An attempt was made to exclude all existing residential. In addition, many "opportunity locations" have been included to effectuate their development in a manner acceptable to the City and provide for up front capital to the Agency. Responding to C/Schad, Ms. Acosta stated that the undeveloped Arciero property presented a real opportunity, to the Agency. Inclusion of the Arciero property in the project area would give the City and the Agency more controls over the property as well as, an opportunity for revenue generation. C/Schad asked for consideration to include the area west of the corner of Brea Canyon Road on Golden Springs Drive r OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION adjacent to the SR 57/60. CDD/DeStefano responded that the area is considered to be part of the Redevelopment Project Area. CDD/DeStefano responded to C/McManus that with respect to the two residences located within the project area, one is located at the intersection of Washington Street at Brea Canyon Road and the other is located at the terminus of Via Sorella. C/McManus moved, VC/Ruzicka seconded, to adopt Resolution 96.19, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar selecting the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area and approving a preliminary plan formulated for the redevelopment of the Project Area. CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Fong that all of the City's commercial and industrial properties, some of the parks and two residences are included in the Project Area Map. Ms. Acosta responded to C/Fong that all vacant City properties were considered. However, because of the 80/24 law, many of - the vacant properties were eliminated. She stated that in her F opinion, the map, as presented, incorporates the maximum amount of vacant properties. She recommended that the project "e J area should not include any additional vacant properties. With respect to the Sandstone Canyon area, an elementary school and administrative center is included in the project area that is adjacent to industrial and it may be feasible to relocate the facilities to the school district's Sand Canyon area. She further stated that the Brea Canyon Road at Diamond Bar Boulevard school district property was included as an opportunity area. CDD/DeStefano responded to Chair/Goldenberg that the Planning Commission will revisit the details of the Redevelopment Plan, comment on the draft EIR and determine conformity with the City's General Plan on March 24, 1997. Any properties determined not to be appropriate through further detail studies would most likely be eliminated from the presentation. Ms. Acosta stated that prior to final adoption, any changes to the Project Area Map would, by necessity, be reviewed by the Planning Commission. CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Schad that project area vacant property will have a base value_ The property will not change in value because it is included in a project area. C/McManus reiterated his request for redevelopment information in a PERT chart form and for a critical path analysis.. Responding to C/Fong, Ms. Acosta reiterated her recommendation not to include any additional vacant. land in the proposed OCTOBER 28, 1996 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION project area. Once the project is adopted, the Agency has the power to amend the boundaries, and to add or delete territory. Any changes require the same nine to twelve month ,process. Ms. Acosta and CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Schad that they have not entered into any redevelopment discussions with the Walnut''Vailey School District regarding Site D and Sandstone Canyon. In response to C/Fong, Ms. Acosta stated her agency has not had contact with any businesses included in the project area. The businesses will be contacted during the detail studies period. Chair/ Goldenberg called for the question on the motion to Adopt Resolution 96.19, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar selecting the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area and approving a Preliminalry Plan formulated for the redevelopment of the Project Area. The motion was carried with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, VC/Ruzicka, C/Fong, Chair/Goldenberg NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Chair/Goldenberg thanked Ms. Acosta for her presentation. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: C/Schad emphasized his desire to preserve Diamond Bar's open spaces for the pleasure and education of its children. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: CDD/DeStefano reminded the Commission about the Saturday, November 2, Town Hall Parks Master Plan meeting at Heritage Park from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. He asked the Commissioners to complete and return the Parks Master Plan survey form to Community Services Director Bob Rose prior to the meeting. CDD/DeStefano stated that with respect to VC/Ruzicka's question regarding CalPers building homes in Diamond Bar, CalPers is a funding arm of the State California retirement fund which funds home loans and development efforts. CalPers funded a 75 unit project at the corner of Brea Canyon Cutoff and the SR 57. R OCTOBER -28, 1996 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: At 9:00 p.m., there being no furtherbusinessto come before the Planning Commission, C/Schad moved, VC/Ruzicka seconded, to adjourn the meeting to November 25, 1996. -There being no objections, Chair/Goldenberg adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, J des DeStefano ' Community Develop ent Director -.—Attest: Michael Golnberg Chairman