HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/13/2008MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
HOUSING ELEMENT WORKSHOP OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 13, 2008
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, CA 91765.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Jack
Shah and Vice Chairman Tony Torng, Chairman Steve Nelson
Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Greg
Gubman, Planning Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Greg Kovacevich,
Assistant City Attorney; Anthony Santos, Management Analyst; and Stella Marquez,
Senior Administrative Assistant.
A DRAFT 2008 HOUSING ELEMENT PRESENTATION:
John Douglas, Planning Consultant, presented staff's report contained in the
handouts. He stated that the updates to the Housing Element are required by state
law and has a due date of June 2008. The Housing Element is unique among all
General Plan elements because the State has a strong role in its process. The
timeframe for the update is from now through 2014. Under state law every
jurisdiction is required to submit their Housing Element to the state for review and
HCD will provide a response letter to the jurisdiction indicating whether it believes
the jurisdiction has complied with state law and therefore certifies the element. He
outlined the requirements of the Housing Element using a slide presentation.
C/Nolan asked if the element referred to new construction or available housing and
Mr. Douglas responded "new construction' with one exception that under some
circumstances a jurisdiction can account for up to a quarter of its construction needs
through the rehabilitation of existing housing or by providing financial guarantees.
CDD/Fong stated that staff appealed the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) number with SCAG because Diamond Bar is built out and does not have
land available for development. Land that is available is constrained by slopes and
sensitive habitat. Staff attempted to convince SCAG that it would not be able to
achieve the RHNA number of 1,090 units. However, the City's appeal was denied.
Therefore, the City is trapped with the 1,090 units. Staff used that figure as the
basis for identifying suitable land area for building new units. The Tres Hermanos
MAY 13, 2008 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
area is about 720 acres and is owned by the City of Industry and may provide the
City an opportunity to satisfy the required number of units. Site D may offer an
opportunity for additional new housing units. Staff identified other smaller parcels
that have opportunities for new housing. Altogether the City may be able to achieve
the RHNA number.
VC/Torng thought it was not fair that Chino Hills and Diamond Bar had the same
number. CDD/Fong said she included Chino Hills as part of the comparison.
VC/Torng asked what would happen if the City could not meet the numbers.
Mr. Douglas said he would address that question as he continued with his
presentation. In short, if there is not enough land some type of action can be taken
to increase the capacity. CDD/Fong said the key is that when the City submits the
Housing Element to the state it must demonstrate that even if there are not enough
sites now that the City has an action program that within a year or two the City will
relook at sites to determine potential zoning changes to allow for more density, etc.
C/Nolan asked if group homes were included in the unit count. Mr. Douglas
responded that group homes are discussed in Chapter of the Housing Elements.
The Housing Element is required to look at the City's regulations regarding density
bonus, secondary residential units, emergency shelters, group homes, etc.
CDD/Fong said that local control of residential group homes are pre-empted so in
most residential districts you are allowed to have group homes. An opportunity is to
include emergency shelters as part of the group homes.
Mr. Douglas responded to C/Lee that the state law focuses on the things that cities
have control over and that is zoning standards, processing fees, etc., i.e., the land,
allowable densities and so forth. There are very serious consequences if a
jurisdiction does not apply enough land at appropriate densities. At the other end of
the spectrum of what actually happens, since cities do not build housing they have
much less control over what actually happens. Cities can zone properties the
correct way, offer incentives, and density bonuses and still not get the desired
results. Generally speaking, cities are not penalized for that. But they are expected
to look at what has happened and analyze whether anything could have been done
differently and determine whether there were any constraints in the city's regulations
that impeded development of affordable housing and at that point cities are required
to make adjustments to make it easier for affordable housing to be built. Many
cities do not achieve their target numbers. Affordable housing is difficult because it
requires a lot of money and effort. C/Lee asked if the state was required to provide
matching funds in order to help cities achieve their goals. Mr. Douglas said if there
were grant funds the cities would have to apply for them and a lot of grants are very
competitive. The bottom line is, has the city zoned properly for high density and if
MAY 13, 2008 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
not, the Housing Element will not be certified. Although state certification of the
Housing Element is the goal, there is no automatic consequence for not receive
state certification.
CDD/Fong said if the City cannot make the case that grant funds are consistent with
the General Plan the City will not be able to get a grant so it is important for the City
to have a certified Housing Element.
Mr. Douglas responded to C/Lee that the focus is on the availability of the land more
so than the house. CDD/Fong responded to C/Lee that if land is owned by another
jurisdiction, Diamond Bar cannot arbitrarily annex it. However, in the unincorporated
area Diamond Bar must first establish a sphere of influence and then annex the
property. There may be opportunities for Diamond Bar to proceed with this type of
plan with respect to the AERA proposal.
Mr. Douglas said he would be back in two weeks to answer any question during the
second Housing Element Workshop.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning
Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned the Housing Element Workshop at
6:58 p.m.
Attest:
Respectfully Submitted,
Nancy Fong, Com nity Development Director
eve Nelson, Chairman
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 13, 2008
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
CA 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Jack
Shah, Vice Chairman Tony Torng and Chairman Steve Nelson.
Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Greg
Gubman, Planning Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; David Meyer, Planning
Consultant; Greg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney; Anthony Santos,
Management Analyst; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant.
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 22, 2008.
VC/Torng moved, C/Shah seconded to approve the April 22, 2008, Minutes as
presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng, Shah, Lee, Nolan, Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS:
6.1 Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2007-01 — Under the authority of
Development Code Section 22.36, the applicant requested approval of a
comprehensive sign program
MAY 13, 2008 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
7
Project Address: 1196 Diamond Bar Boulevard
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Property Owner: Bank of America
3424 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30326
Applicant: Coast Sign
1500 W. Embassy Street
Anaheim, CA 92802
AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning
Commission approval of Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2007-01,
findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.
C/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Comprehensive Sign Program
No. 2007-01, Findings of Fact, and subject to conditions of approval as listed
within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Shah, VC/Torng,
Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 Development Review No. 2007-06 — Under the authority of Development
Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a
new three-story 7,888 square foot single-family residence with attached 6 -car
1440 square foot garage. The proposed project included the removal of
twelve (12) mature trees. The subject property is zoned RR (R-1 20,000)
and contains 73,120 gross square feet of land area (1.67 acres).
Project Address: 2502 Razzak Circle
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Project Owner: Wasif Siddique
11076 Venture Drive
Mira Loma, CA 91752
MAY 13, 2008 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
Applicant: Bob Larivee
Award Winning Designs
17 Rue Du Chateau
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
PC/Meyer presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission
approval of Development Review No. 2007-06, Findings of Fact, and
conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.
PC/Meyer reiterated to Chair/Nelson clarification on a possible second unit in
the future. With respect to replacement trees, the protected trees will be
replaced in-kind and the remaining trees would have to comply with the fire
department's fuel modification plan that restricts certain types of trees such
as Eucalyptus trees.
VC/Torng questioned the 60 feet by 28 feet architectural modification.
PC/Meyer explained that staff was reluctant to act as "designers" of the
project. Staffs intent was to motivate the architect to use his architectural
ability to improve the appearance of the wall unless the Planning
Commission likes the design and feels it is consistent with the City's design
guidelines.
Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing.
Bob Larivee, architect, stated that he was available to respond to questions
and concerns.
C/Nolan asked if the applicant had agreed to not include the cooking facility
in the second unit. Mr. Larivee responded that in response to staff the area
was termed "snack bar" and not a second unit. C/Nolan asked if the
applicant agreed to omit the ability to cook and he responded that he was
fine with that requirement — that it was a non -issue.
Chair/Nelson asked Mr. Larivee if he had difficulty with any of the other
conditions. Mr. Larivee responded that he was concerned about the
architectural elevation. Mr. Larivee hesitates to modify the design per staffs
suggestion because it changes it to a different style and architecture. There
may be some possibility of change but doubts it and is satisfied with the
design. Mr. Larivee responded that reducing the driveway width from 24 ft.
MAY 13, 2008 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
to 14 ft. is not a problem. Mr. Larivee reviewed the landscape plans with
staff and completed the tree permit application and has no objection to the
tree replacement or requirements.
Steve Sohus, General Manager of The Country Estates refers to a letter
submitted to the Commission claiming that The Country Estates
Homeowners Association has an easement for roadway and slope
maintenance purposes at the rear of the subject property. PC/Meyer
explained the project does not impact the slope easement. Itis not within the
area.
ACA/Kovacevich explained that the claims regarding the easement were a
civil matter between the property owner and the homeowners association.
Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing.
C/Shah comments that the condition to add a design element to the side wall
would have no aesthetic value. He recommends that the condition be
removed.
Chair/Nelson recommends that language be included to Item A.5 to read "in
kind or of the same species to be removed subject to L.A. County Fire
Department fuel modification requirements."
C/Nolan moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve Development Review
No. 2007-06, Finding of Facts and conditions of approval as listed within the
resolution, with the recommendation to remove Condition 10 and include
additional language regarding the tree requirements in Item 5.
Chair/Nelson asked C/Shah to clarify his recommendation to remove
Item 10. C/Shah responded that the design modification is not a requirement
and is an architecture privilege of the designer. There is no requirement to
do otherwise and it is only a case of personal opinion.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Shah, VC/Torng,
Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None
8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
MAY 13, 2008 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects.
CDD/Fong announced that Ann Lungu would retire the end of May.
10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in tonight's agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission,
Chairman Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Attest:
Respectfully Submitted,
Nan4 Fong, C mmunit Development Director
tteve'Nelson, Chairman