Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/23/2010MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:00 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 Nolan led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Steve Nelson, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Kathy Nolan, and Chairman Tony Torng. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Lauren B. Feldman, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; 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 the Regular Meeting of March 9, 2010. C/Nelson moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 9, 2010, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nelson, Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng None None 4.2 Development Review No. 2007-06: Minor Change to 2502 Razzak Circle. C/Lee moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2007-06: Minor Change to 2502 Razzak Circle. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nelson, Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng None None MARCH 23, 2010 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: Review of possible City acquisition of office building and associated property for conformance with the City's General Plan. SP/Lee presented staffs report and recommended that Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution finding that the possible acquisition of the office building and associated real property is in conformance with the City's General Plan. C/Nelson asked what the square footage was of the current City Hall space. SP/Lee responded approximately 12,000 square feet. C/Nelson asked if the City Council Chambers would be at the new location. CDD/Gubman responded that that decision has not yet been made. There is a significant amount of costly construction and infrastructure needed to produce a Council Chamber so staff is considering retaining the use of the AQMD Auditorium for the Council Chambers until an evaluation can be completed to determine which would be the more cost- effective approach. C/Nelson asked if the City is crowded in its current location and CDD/Gubman responded that staff is overcrowded in the current location. In addition to having staff grow into a very confined space, staff has found it necessary to rent off-site storage units for files, archives, etc., therefore, not operating as efficiently as it could be with the appropriate space. VC/Nolan asked if there was an option to lease the space. She questioned if this was a good time to purchase space. CDD/Gubman said that the City would not be looking to lease the property. The property is on the market and given the historic lows in property values and interest rates this would be the opportune time for the City to make a purchase. At this time staff is considering purchasing the building or renewing the current leased space. VC/Nolan asked if this purchase was pertinent to better serving the community and CDD/Gubman responded that he would not be able to answer that question until staff completes its due diligence. However, there are several indications that this would be a prudent purchase decision at this time and would provide the City the opportunity to do such things as relocate the Diamond Bar branch of the Los Angeles County Library to a much larger facility within the new building. Also, there is the possibility of providing a senior center under the same roof. There are many potential opportunities to serve the community more effectively than the current situation provides. C/Shah asked about the cost benefit analysis; whether the building has been tested for seismic design and energy efficiency; and, whether a new traffic analysis was completed. CDD/Gubman responded that the cost benefit analysis is underway. Staff is undergoing a thorough investigation of the building for seismic stability as well as, the electrical and mechanical systems. Staff found that the building has been meticulously maintained and is in excellent condition. The building was built a little over 10 years ago and is up to current seismic standards. Staff is also looking MARCH 23, 2010 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION at establishing a permanent emergency operations center at the new building so in order to do that the building would need to meet the structural requirements. One consideration for having the library locate on the second story of the structure would require load capacity analysis. Staff has decided that its preference would be to put the library on the first floor should the library choose to be a tenant. Energy efficiency is a good point and there is an opportunity to do some retrofits to the building and incorporate sustainable development practices through current technologies. Staff has had preliminary discussions with architects and engineers and found that this may be one of the criteria that staff includes when this project goes out to bid for tenant and other site improvements. In terms of the traffic analysis, the site would not be subject to any CEQA requirement for traffic analysis. The trip generation for City Hall is going to be the same and in terms of trip distribution, the only change is that the trips are going to be disbursed from one side of the street to the opposite side of the street. The building has 300 parking spaces and was a call center for Allstate Insurance so the parking demand was much higher than the City would anticipate. If a library goes in, there would be some off- peak parking demand that would ameliorate some of the traffic issues that would be present if another administrative office tenant occupied 100 percent of the building with am/pm peak hours found in other tenants in the business park. At this time, staff does not believe it is warranted for further traffic analysis. C/Lee asked how much the City was willing to spend to procure this building and CDD/Gubman said he did not have that information. Chair/Torng said he toured the building and it is a nice building and very large. He felt it would be a great site for the County Library and would be a great site for the City. VC/Nolan asked if the Commission was supposed to be considering purchase cost versus lease costs at this point. CDD/Gubman said that staff was only asking that the Commission make a finding of General Plan consistency. There is reference to fiscal responsibility in the General Plan and that is being studied and will drive the decision-making for this project. To that extent, the information staff is providing the Commission about the due diligence process is the basis for the Commission to make its General Plan consistency finding. There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter. C/Shah moved, Chair/Torng seconded, to find the possible acquisition of the office building located at 21810 Copley Drive to be consistentwith the City's General Plan. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: MARCH 23, 2010 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Lee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Development Code Amendment No. PL2010-78 —An Ordinance of the City of Diamond Bar amending the zoning regulations governing group residential uses in residential zones and amending the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, and providing reasonable accommodation provisions for the disabled, pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(d). APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar CDD/Gubman presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Development Code Amendment No. PL 2010-78. C/Shah asked if a small residential care facility of less than six people could house parolee's. CDD/Gubman responded that parolee housing would not apply. ACA/Feldman stated that one would be looking at the primary reason the person was placed in the home so yes, it is possible that a parolee could also be a recovering alcoholic but one is to look at the primary reason the group of people are living together and if they are living together because they were recently released from prison and they need a place to live as opposed to people who live together because they want a community environment where they can be sober together, that will be the criteria by which category the residents would fall in. C/Shah asked if sex offenders for example, could be living in these kinds of homes if they were recovering alcoholics. ACA/Feldman responded yes; however, state law governs where registered sex offenders can live. C/Shah asked how distances of/4 mile, etc., were arrived at and CDD/Gubman responded that staff studied various separation distances for these uses and the intent was to make the distance separation requirements as large as possible without getting to the point that the ordinance would objectively ban everything from the City. Using the map, he pointed out quarter mile buffers from schools, parks, and the library. Staff also generated the maps with 500 foot, 700 foot, 1000 foot, half mile and one mile buffers. What staff found is that if the separation is up to a half mile everything would be zoned out of the City. Therefore, a quarter -mile is as large as the City can extend the buffer and avoid excluding these homes altogether. The large green circles (Referring to a map) indicate parolee housing. Should a parolee home be located anywhere other than the MARCH 23, 2010 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION extreme points, the maximum number is reduced. If there is a group home within a quarter mile which would draw another red circle in a certain area, that would preclude the area from providing parolee housing. C/Shah asked if there was a legal requirement for the City to have a certain number of facilities. ACA/Feldman responded that parolee and probationer homes are not licensed by the state and she was not aware of any Case law that requires cities to provide ample spaces for them in the same way that the City must provide space for adult businesses, for example. However, to ban them from the City would effectively banish parolee's from the City which may suffer a challenge. So, by drafting this very restrictive set of regulations the City would provide one, two or three opportunities for a parolee house to open in a multi -family zone and those facilities would be required to secure a Conditional Use Permit before opening which would provide the City an opportunity to further condition the facility in order to be consistent and compatible with the neighborhood. CDD/Gubman further responded to C/Shah that there is a requirement for 24/7 onsite supervision for parolee homes. C/Shah recommended staff consider a greater distance for parolee homes because 1320 feet appears to be too small a distance and, he would like to see a security requirement included. C/Nelson said he was not hearing that this was the most restrictive ordinance the City could write and still meet the law. Could the City write a more restrictive ordinance that had the distance between the parolee houses so great that only one could ever exist in Diamond Bar and if so, what would it be? ACA/Feldman said she did not know if one was possible given all of the combination of distancing requirements. If parolee homes could not be within a certain distance of other group homes there is a possibility the number could be zero so the way that it is written there is a potential for three but it is highly unlikely that there would be more than a maximum of two which is, in her opinion, the most legally sound way to draft the ordinance. If the map showed only one possible location there is a possibility the number could be zero due to the other distancing requirements and that would be an effective ban so she believes it has to be more than one. Chair/Torng asked what the maximum distance was that would be allowed instead of 5,000 feet. If the maximum is 10,000 feet perhaps there would be one only. CDD/Gubman again referred to the map in an effort to explain the principal of 5,000 feet and reiterated that if the maximum were increased it would not make a difference. C/Nelson said it was difficult for him to buy the argument that certain things would not happen. There are a lot of prisoners that may be eligible for parolee homes. Fifty-two percent of those released are returned to jail and why would the Commission, a decision-making body attempting to do the MARCH 23, 2010 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION best for the community, consider anything that was less than the absolute most restrictive guidelines for these types of facilities in this City. He said he would like to see an ordinance that meets the absolute minimum requirements of the law and is the most restrictive in terms of allowing these facilities in the City. C/Shah said he agreed with C/Nelson 100 percent that the ordinance should be as restrictive as possible without stepping on the law. VC/Nolan asked if it was correct that there could not be a group home in the same red area as a sober living home. ACA/Feldman responded that a group residential cannot be 300 feet from any other group home. If the group is there first, the sober living home cannot be excluded. If the sober living home is there first, a group residential home cannot be within 300 feet of the sober living home. C/Shah reiterated that he would like to see the ordinance as restrictive as possible. ACA/Feldman felt that even though the 300 number could be larger the point was that it could not be located around the protected homes if the boarding houses do not have federal and state protections. This number was meant to mirror the state's number. C/Lee asked if there was a probation home in the City and CDD/Gubman said he was not aware of any such facility operating in the City. C/Lee asked if the City would have to give an applicant approval to operate this type of facility and ACA/Feldman said an application would be the same as any other Conditional Use Permit application that came before the Commission. The Commission would look at the application, the compatibility, etc., and determine if it can be conditioned to be compatible with the neighborhood. Forgetting what type of application it is, it would be the same question that comes before the Commission with any CUP. The Commission has the ability to deny the project depending on its findings. Staff prepared a very protective ordinance while still allowing the minimum number of facilities. Parolee homes are not regulated under state law. VC/Nolan asked how the City becomes aware of group homes and how is the City not trumped by state law? ACA/Feldman explained that staff included a definition of a sober living home because they receive special protection and because they are protected under the Federal Fair Housing Act. Staff said that if the facility really is a sober living home and have a zero tolerance for alcohol and there is a list of operating requirements including such things as members attending AA meetings, all owners and managers and other supervisors on site are sober, etc., so if the sober living home wants that protection it must prove to the City that it is actually a sober living MARCH 23, 2010 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION home. If they are not, then they are subject to CUP requirements in the multi -family zone and the distancing requirements. VC/Nolan said that judging from past experience the City does not seem to know that such homes exist until things get out of hand. CDD/Gubman explained that there are instances where a use is established that under this ordinance the City provides a better list of definitions, standards and criteria for establishing uses. Still, a use can be illegally established. For example, on Sunset Crossing Road there was a Cal Poly chapter of a fraternity house that was operating and the City had to go through the City Prospector to discontinue that use. There is no guarantee that there will not be instances where use establishes itself illegally or they violate their conditions of approval and take advantage of all of the due process privileges they have in the City's efforts to remove them. What the City can do is define the uses and restrictions more precisely through these regulations so that the extrication process can be streamlines. ACA/Feldman further stated that the City has the nuisance procedures so that if the facility is creating a nuisance the City is not required to let that nuisance continue just because there is some state or federal law protections protecting a class of people. The City has its Code Enforcement procedures to ensure that the City is a safe and healthy place to live. Chair/Torng said that if a person suffers a handicap and is also a parolee he hopes that situation can be more clearly defined and that the monitoring can be more closely regulated. CDD/Gubman explained that those particulars can be written into the Conditional Use Permit. The ordinance does not prescribe to that level of detail. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. Commissioners reiterated their concerns and recommendations. C/Shah moved, C/Nelson seconded, to continue Development Code Amendment No. PL2010-78 to April 13, 2010, and direct staff to take the Commissioner's comments and recommendations under advisement and re- examine the distances, and come back to the Commission with a more restrictive but not illegal ordinance. VC/Nolan asked if the Commission was under a time restriction to act on this matter and CDD/Gubman responded that the moratorium would expire on July 9, 2010, so the City Council would have to adopt a new ordinance by June 9 or sooner. ACA/Feldman said the City Council would need to adopt the ordinance at their last meeting in May due to the meeting schedule. MARCH 23, 2010 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman explained that the second reading by the City Council would have to take place no later than June 1 with the first reading no later than May 18. City Council notice would have to be submitted by May 3. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Shah, Nelson, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 10. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Shah said he appreciated staff's diligence. He said he looked forward to the Planner's Institute in Monterey this week. C/Nelson said he has and always has had a lot of respect for staff as he has expressed in the past. Chair/Torng said he toured the building under consideration for purchase and felt it was a very good facility that could become a true City Center. 11. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 11.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman said he looked forward to spending a few days with VC/Nolan and C/Shah and Council Member Everett at the Planners Institute. He and SP/Lee will accompany the Commissioners and Council Member and hopefully provide debriefing assistance throughout the sessions. On Thursday, April 15 at 6:00 p.m. at the Diamond Bar Center AB1234 training will take place. City Attorney Mike Jenkins will conduct the mandatory ethics training session for all Council Members and Commissioners. If Commissioners are unable to attend the April 15 session, the Planners Institute will also conduct the training session. CDD/Gubman reminded the Commissioners that the public hearings for the Site D Specific Plan will be held on April 13. The Site D Final Environmental Impact Report has been posted on the City's website and will also be available at the Public Library and City Hall. Commissioners were provided this evening with a volume entitled Response to Comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. If Commissioners have questions please feel free to contact him or SP/Lee. MARCH 23, 2010 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION 12. 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 8:22 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 13th day of April, 2010. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director y Torng, man