Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/28/2009MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR WORKSHOP OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 2009 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Torng called the workshop to order at 6:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Room CC -8, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners, Kathy Nolan, Jack Shah and Chairman Tony Torng. Absent: Commissioner Kwang Ho Lee and Vice Chairman Steve Nelson were excused. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Brad Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. REVIEWING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS: CCD/Gubman reviewed the contents and individual components of an EIR. With respect to the Site D EIR, if the goal is to provide for housing opportunities that are not currently provided for in the City then that would be one of the objectives. When looking at alternatives to the project, we look at those alternatives in terms of how well they meet those objectives. Staff will establish for the Commission what further environmental impacts can be considered less than significant to impacts that will have a significant negative effect on the environment. The contents reviewed in some detail were 1) Introduction/Executive Summary; 2) Project Description; 3) Project Objectives; 4) Thresholds of Significance; 5) Impact Analysis; 6) Mitigation Measures; 7) Ultimate Impact after Mitigation; 8) Cumulative Impacts and 9) Alternatives. There is a 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR and Technical appendices after which the Final EIR is prepared that includes the Draft EIR, Technical Appendices and Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR. The Cumulative Impacts is the combined impact of the proposed project in combination with other projects that produce similar impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). The Draft EIR for Site D will be the first notice to the public and includes all of the individual parts of the EIR in the contract and opens the document for public review for 45 -days. With respect to the Final EIR comments and responses to comments, every comment that raises environmental issues must receive a written response (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). CEQA requires the decision-making agency (Statement of Overriding Considerations) to balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal outweigh the unavoidable adverse JULY 28, 2009 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." C/Shah asked if after review of the Draft EIR the mitigation measures would be changed and updated or return to the original mitigation measures and amend them. CDD/Gubman answered that when staff is responding to the contents if it warrants further analysis staff would be allowed to deal more specifically with those concerns such as public concerns and the Draft EIR could deal with those issues. CDD/Gubman reminded the Commissioners that they should not look for all of the answers in the EIR because economic and social information may be included in the EIR or, it may be presented in any other form (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131). CDD/Gubman stated there will be comments in the EIR that are not necessarily raising environmental issues. Responses might be "comment noted." C/Nolan asked if there was a requirement for all comments and responses to be done within the 45 -day public comment period or is there a different time limit on the responses. CDD/Gubman responded that the decision-making body has one year from the time the application is completed if they require that an EIR is needed. CDD/Gubman further stated that once the process is completed and the EIR is done and certified then whether it includes mitigation or impacts that cannot be mitigated that conclusion stands. The next step for the decision -makers is on whether or not to approve the project and whether to use the CEQA determinations as one of the decision-making factors. If the EIR says that there is one impact that cannot be mitigated to a lower level of significance, the decision-making body must deny the project. However, if the unmitigable impact is balanced against other project benefits and the benefits outweigh the impact then the decision-making body is able to adopt a statement of overriding considerations whereby it acknowledges that there will be a significant impact but by doing so the project would provide the community or other beneficiaries a benefit that would outweigh the cost. CDD/Gubman cautioned the Commissioners to not look for all of the answers in the EIR because economic and social impacts are not necessarily environmental impacts unless these impacts would lead to environmental deterioration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131). CDD/Gubman provided a tabletop exercise to the Commissioners on how to navigate through the Site "D" Draft EIR in an efficient manner. If one does not have time to read the entire document he explained how one should quickly look at the JULY 28, 2009 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP environmental concerns and what the document proposes to do to relieve those impacts. Chapter 4.5.3 Impact Analysis irkcludes each impact topic in similar formats. Those sections are the headings and under each heading is the same breakdown. The Executive Summary provides a comprehensive synopsis of the analysis and conclusions that follow in the Draft EIR and should be read word for word. Chapter 2 is the Project Description and includes the Project Objectives. Chapter 3 talks about related project and cumulative impacts and includes a summary of projections, reasonably anticipated probably future projects and ambient (surrounding) growth. Chapter 4 talks about impact analysis —threshold of significant criteria (Section 4.x.2) and impact analysis (Section 4.x.3) Chapter 5 talks about significant irreversible changes and Chapter 6 provides alternatives analysis. There will be reviewers who are going to be focusing on their respective issues and would be looking at the entire document with a more critical eye. All interested parties are invited to comment. CDD/Gubman stated that air quality is already considered to be at an unacceptable level and anything that the City does would not make it better. There will be construction impacts that will be mitigated but there is no way to lessen the impacts of the unacceptable level. The objectives for Side D are to require new development to be compatible with the surrounding land uses as called out in the City's General Plan. There will be some loss of habitat but there will be an effort to build character into the development. The School District wants the disposition of the school property to yield the maximum return to the District for the benefit of its constituents and its education mission. The School District is looking for a way to dispose of the property that will earn them the greatest financial return with the property being developed in the most environmental sensitive manner. The School District would prefer to develop the property or turn it over to a developer that would develop the property as 100 percent residential. The City would prefer to have big box retail and hotels on the site in order to generate more tax revenue. So the compromise is that 50 percent be developed residential and 50 percent be developed as commercial. The final objective is to establish a specific plan so that the ultimate developer would build according to that established criteria. The developer would need to figure out how to develop the improvements in accordance with the Specific Plan. Chair/Torng asked if there was time to have a Specific Plan and Tentative Parcel Map approval by September because the EIR is not finished. CDD/Gubman responded probably not. He has never been involved in a project that met its target dates. CDD/Gubman responded to C/Nolan that a Specific Plan is a blueprint for how the developer wants to build out the site and it is the phasing and planning of the JULY 28, 2009 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP blueprint for the build out. In this instance the City does not know who might purchase the site and what the ultimate configuration of the site might be. As the owners, the City has the power to prescribe its expectations for the site. CDD/Gubman continued that Chapter 3 has to do with all of the related projects that the City knows about and projects that the City may reasonably anticipate to occur in the future and it is reasonable to assume there will be some rate of growth that will burden the system. The threshold of significance was discussed in the Table of Contents. Chapter 5 talks about significant irreversible changes such as the land will no longer be undeveloped. Chapter 6 gets into the alternatives. There are five project alternatives to be considered. Alternative 1 is no project at all. Alternative 2 is public facilities and given that this is currently school property and was intended to be a school, another alternative is that the district can sell it to a private institution to build a church or school. Alternative 3 is Community Commercial wherein the entire 30 -acres would consist of commercial development. Alternative 4 is Low -Density Residential so that the entire 30 -acres would be built as single family homes. Alternative 5 is High -Density Residential which would be multiple family residential units. Chapter 6 shows a comparison table of what the significant impacts are under the project compared to the alternatives. CDD/Gubman responded to Chair/Torng that the August 3 community meeting is not a public hearing but an opportunity for the public to ask questions, make comments and prepare to provide written comments. Chair/Torng asked when CDD/Gubman believed this item would come to the Commission for consideration and CDD/Gubman responded possibly September/October. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned to the regular meeting at 7:07 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 25th day of August, 2009. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Acting Community Development Director ony Torg, Chairman MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 28, 2009 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Nolan led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kathy Nolan, Jack Shah, and Chairman Tony Torng. Absent: Commissioner Kwang Ho Lee and Vice Chairman Steve Nelson were excused Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Brad Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Katherine Laufenburger, Senior Planner; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician; and, Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1.1 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes of June 23, 2009 C/Shah moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve the Workshop Minutes of June 23, 2009, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Shah, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, VC/Nelson JULY 28, 2009 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 4.1.2 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes of June 23, 2009. C/Nolan moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of June 23, 2009, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS None None 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Nolan, Shah, Chair/Torng None Lee, VC/Nelson 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-03 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.58, Vision 21 Art submitted a request to provide art tutoring, art consultation and private art classes for college preparatory courses in conjunction with a retail art supply store. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 2040 Brea Canyon Road, Suites 161 & 170 Diamond bar, CA 91765 Plaza Diamond Bar Partners, LLC 3029 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 202 Santa Monica, CA 90403 APPLICANT: Vision 21 Art 3700 Wilshire Boulevard #1050 Los Angeles, CA 90010 SP/Laufenburger presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-03, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. There were no ex parte disclosures. JULY 28, 2009 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. Daniel Cho, Executive Vice President, Vision 21, said he was present to answer questions. With no other person wishing to speak on the matter, Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Nolan moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-03, 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: Nolan, Shah, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, VC/Nelson 8. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 8.1 Variance No. 2009-01 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Section 22.54, the applicant requested a variance to allow a 33 percent reduction in the required front setback from 30 feet to 20 feet in order to construct a new 10,738 square foot single family residence on a 43,273 square foot Rural Residential (RR) zoned parcel of land with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 22878 Canyon View Drive (Tract 42589, Lot 29 APN 8713-024-013) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Billy Chung 17764 La Pasaita Court Rowland Heights, CA 91748 APPLICANT: Masum Azizi, AIA 1470 Jamboree Road, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 SP/Laufenburger presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Variance No. 2009-01, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. JULY 28, 2009 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Torng commented that the Planning Director has the option of approving a 20 percent reduction and he asked if the applicant might consider a 20 percent reduction in the front setback (i.e., 24 feet) and a reduction in the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 21 feet. SP/Laufenburger stated that the applicant cannot build in the 25 foot area. It is a no -build easement and this option would reduce the back yard area. Chair/Torng stated that he was not intending to suggest this was a good option, only a potential option. There were no ex parte disclosures. Masum Azizi, AIA, stated that the reason for requesting the setback was to make the building as pleasing as possible to the neighbors and for the neighborhood by breaking up the mass by projecting the garage toward the street and setting the center of the building 10 feet back both for aesthetic purposes and to please the owner's design vision. In addition, with the avoidance of garage doors facing the street, he added details to make it possible for the owners to put in some green and colorful plants to maintain a more appealing streetscape. Chair/Torng asked if the applicant preferred the original 20 -foot option. Mr. Azizi responded yes, because the 24 feet option would increase the cost of construction because they would have to work with the slope to push the pool, etc. back. Mr. Azizi said the applicant tried to comply with the Planning Department's requirements to maintain the setback from the slope easement. SP/Laufenburger pointed out that the homes that were starred on the overhead were in opposition to the project's variance because the homeowners feel that because they have had to comply with the setback standards that the applicant should have to comply as well and do not feel that it is right to allow this home to encroach into the setback. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. Steve, resident at 22888 Canyon View Drive, said his neighbors asked him to speak about this issue and convey to the Planning Commission that they welcome their new neighbor and want to preserve the harmony and integrity of the building site for the entire community. He and his neighbors like the project but do not want the massive building intruding into the street area. His neighbors spoke to Jerry Yeh who designed the 13 lots and said the houses were intended to be set back 40 to 70 feet. Mr. Yeh said the JULY 28, 2009 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION construction should be harmonious and parallel to preserve the architecture of the area. Steve reiterated that he and his neighbors have great respect for this beautiful design and would like for the Commission to carefully consider the setback issue for the good of the neighborhood. Chair/Torng asked SP/Laufenburger show the chart once again because the speaker referred to a 40-70 foot setback and asked her to once again explain the 34 and 20 foot issue. SP/Laufenburger pointed out on the drawing where the varying setbacks lie as measured from the edge of curb/street to the front of the house. The reason the setbacks vary so much is not because the applicant wanted a deep setback, it is because the applicant was forced into that setback because of where the building pad was located on the lot. And, the applicant can only build within the building pad envelope. So for example, the home with the 140 foot setback has a building pad that is set that far back from the street and the driveway is actually within a "no build" easement area. The building pads were placed within the existing grading to adapt to that issue which made some of the individual setbacks. The homes with the very large setbacks are a result of where the building sites were located. Of the 13 lots, this project has one of the only building pads that have a frontage that is right up against the street — there is no setback at all. The lot is only 105 feet deep so that when the 30 -foot front setback and the 25 foot rear setback are subtracted, the applicant is left with a 50 foot deep building envelope. Chair/Torng asked SP/Laufenburger to explain the calculation chart. SP/Laufenburger explained that the yellow line is the edge of the street/back of the curb; the green line is the white rail fencing that runs across all of the properties in "The Country Estates;" and the red line is the right-of-way easement. The measurement is taken from the right of way (red line) back 30 feet to the edge of building so that the house is set far enough away from the right-of-way line. Many of the homes in the area are not that far back from the right-of-way line because the measurement was previously made from the street and not the right-of-way line. While it is 20 feet, it is actually 34 feet from the edge of curb back. Chair/Torng asked Steve if he had an understanding of the chart. Steve asked the square footage of the buildable site for this lot. It is not 40,000 square foot buildable site; it is roughly a 12,000 square foot buildable site. The contractor told him that the building should not exceed more than 10,000 square foot because the buildable site is about 12,000 square feet. The contractor said the home was to have been about 8,000 square feet which would meet the community's design. Chair/Torng asked if the speaker JULY 28, 2009 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION understood the key points about the setback. Steve responded he understood but that it was an apples and oranges comparison because he did not care whether the setback was 34 feet or 10 or 20 feet, there should be a judgment about what the setback should be. Chair/Torng said that some of the setbacks are deeper but some houses are 36 and 38 so this project is based on the same formula as those houses. The speaker's house, according to the chart, has a 46 foot setback so this house is not much different from the 36 and 38 foot setbacks. Chair/Torng asked SP/Laufenburgerto again show the chart to Steve. Chair/Torng pointed out that staff used the same formula. From the street to the entry door it is about 50 feet. Chair/Torng asked SP/Laufenburger to show the chart again and pointed out that from the street to the front door it is about 54 feet. SP/Laufenburger responded to Chair/Torng that the numbers were measured from the GIS and the measurement was from the edge of the street to the portion of the structure nearest the street. When that was measured it went from the cul-de-sac bulb that starts the curve back to the front of the nearest portion of the house so it would be a much smaller setback than what it would actually appear to be because staff is using the shortest distance from the street to the house, not going to where the front door is or to the big wide portion of the front lawn. In viewing the home neighbors will see the big 40 -foot setback rather than the two smaller areas because the massing of most of the home sits further back. Chair/Torng asked Steve if he understood how staff is charting the measurements. From the data presented it appears to be correct. The key thing is that Steve understands how the City measures the setback and the difference is that this house (variance) is that this house would be setback 34 feet compared to the home that has a 36 foot setback. These are the figures that the Planning Commission will base its decision on and he hoped that Steve understood the calculations. He again explained the calculations using the slide to prove that the house is setback 34 feet — not 20 feet from the street to the closest point of the structure. Steve suggested that the Commission physically go to the property and measure the site. CDD/Gubman explained that GIS is the computerized mapping and geographic information program that staff uses at City Hall. The GIS aerials in the system are scalable so that by using the aerial photo measurements can be made from one point to another the actual distance. It is not as accurate as using a tape measure so he could only conclude that the measurements would have some margin for error. Steve was not convinced that the measurement was correct and was still concerned that the original contractor said the setback distance should be 40 to 70 feet. JULY 28, 2009 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Shang, 22868 Canyon View Drive, wanted to be sure the project was following the rules and he would be more comfortable with a larger setback but the house is beautiful. Mr. Azizi stated that the owner hired a professional survey engineer to conduct a survey and confirm the location of the centerline of the street and all of the setbacks. Chair/Torng asked if Mr. Azizi was saying that staff's measurements were accurate and Mr. Azizi responded that they were. The survey map was presented to the. City and confirms the exact locations and measurements. The survey map was used to lay out the building on the site. Steve wanted the site measured for accuracy before the Commission made its decision. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Shah said the issue was the site lines and how the building would look in the neighborhood. This project is on the cul-de-sac and the buildings are not in one straight line. The issue is whether this building will be aesthetically pleasing. In order to accomplish that goal a few things need to be considered —the building pad and the setbacks. In this case the owner has asked for a variance. When one views a building it is viewed from the street. In this case he noticed that some of the homes, because of the building pad, vary in length from the street. This house happens to be 34 feet from the street. When one stands on a sidewalk and tries to guess at the appearance of two feet it is difficult. He understood the neighbors' concerns. Given the information provided by staff, he did not believe that aesthetically, the structure would look bad. The footprint of the house is very well designed by the architect and it is 40 feet six inches deep from the face of the curb to the front side. Only a portion of the house comes out and if the City were to ask the applicant to move the house as little as two feet, it would be a very expensive proposition. When the designer laid out the ,footing and foundation he considered the grade and contours and worked with the terrain. He asked the Commission to consider not asking the owner to move the structure because it would not make any difference aesthetically. If the Commission is legally allowed to approve a variance he highly recommended this variance be approved because he saw nothing that would preclude staff's recommendation. Aesthetics is not a problem, irregular view is not a problem and there is no visual impact. JULY 28, 2009 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Torng agreed with C/Shah. He hoped the neighbors would understand how the measurements were derived and felt it would be unfair and costly to ask the homeowner to move the home back because this home is on a cul- de-sac and the setback is actually 34 feet to the front entry. C/Nolan moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve Variance No. 2009-01, 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: Nolan, Shah, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, VC/Nelson Chair/Torng read the statement regarding appeal rights to the City Council. 8.2 Development Review No. 2009-02 — Under the authority of DBMC Section 22.48, Sanchez Recycling submitted a request to establish and construct an email collections recycling facility. Small collections facilities provide household recycling services. The proposed facility operated by an on-site attendance, and will only accept glass, metal or plastic containers, paper and reusable items which are stored in large containers. The containers are rolled away to be emptied and are replaced by empty containers. The subject property is zoned C-2 (Community Commercial) with an underlying General Plan designation of General Commercial. Approval of a Development Review is required to establish email collections recycling facilities uses in a C-2 zone. PROJECT ADDRESS: 21080 Golden Springs Drive (Diamond Creek Village) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Lakeview Village Corporation 12901 Harbor Boulevard, Suite A-5 Garden Grove, CA 92840-5830 APPLICANT: Sanchez Recycling 1138 South Shawnee Drive Santa Ana, CA 2704 PT/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2009-02, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. JULY 28, 2009 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Torng asked which location would provide a safer location and PT/Tobon responded that the green location has parking spaces that are closer to the location. She routed plans to the Sheriff's Dept. for review and both locations would be acceptable from a security standpoint. C/Nolan said she drove by the site, drove around the back and found that with location 2 it was a loading dock area and asked if there were any concerns about safety regarding truck traffic. PT/Tobon responded that there are no trucks that currently load in that area. C/Nolan pointed out that there is a truck in the photo presently being viewed. C/Shah felt Location 1 was closer to the street and more convenient to in and out traffic. Location 2 has a potential conflict with truck traffic. C/Nolan disclosed that she drove by both sites. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Shah moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2009-02 for Location 1, 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: Nolan, Shah, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, VC/Nelson 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Shah congratulated staff on a very good job on these projects tonight, especially with respect to Item 8.1. Chair/Torng agreed with C/Shah that staff did a very good job in presenting the projects tonight because without staff's analysis on Item 8.1 it might have been very difficult for the Commission to make its decision. He also thanked staff for tonight's study session EIR review of Site D. JULY 28, 2009 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future proiects. CDD/Gubman reminded the Commission that the Site D Public Forum was scheduled for Monday, August 3 in the Heritage Park Community Room. The Commissioners are invited to be in the audience. This is not a noticed meeting. There will be no public hearing and no decisions will be made. This is an opportunity for the public to provide comments in addition to sending their comments in writing. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 8:13 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 28th day of August, 2009. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Gre u an Community Development Director ony Torng, Chai an