Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/13/2010MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C/Shah led the Pledge of Allegiance_ 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Steve Nelson, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Kathy Nolan, and Chairman Tony Torng. Absent: Commissioner Kwang Ho Lee was excused. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Brad Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; David Alvarez, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. Consultants: Mark Rogers and JoAnne Sturges, TRG Land; Peter Lewandowski, Environmental Impact Sciences. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. 5 CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 23, 2010. C/Nelson moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 23, 2010, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None Nelson, Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng None Lee APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Site "D" Specific Pian — Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act; Title 21 — City's Subdivision Ordinance; and Title 22 — Development Code Sections 22.60 and 22.70, the proposed project is to recommend approval of the following to the City Council: General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 — A request to change the land use designations from Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan (SP). Zone Change No. 2007-04 — A request to change the zoning districts from Low Density Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan (SP). Specific Plan No. 2007-01— A request to adopt the Site D Specific Plan for approximately 30.36 -acre site for the construction of 202 residential dwelling units at a density of 20 units per acre; 153,985 gross square feet of commercial use at 10.35 floor area ratio; and approximately 10 acres of open space areas, easements and rights-of-way. Tentative Tract Map No. 70687 — A request to establish separate residential, commercial, and open space parcels; create an internal circulation system and common open space areas; and establish easements and other rights-of-way for utility and other purposes. Environmental Impact Report No. 2007-02 — A request to certify the Final EIR which provides a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the Specific Plan area. Project Address: Site comprised of approximately 30.36 -acres located at the southeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard (Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8714-002-900, 8714-002- 901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002,093, and 8714-015-001.) Applicant: Walnut Valley Unified School District and City of Diamond Bar Lead Agency: City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department C/Nelson said he would recuse himself from deliberation on this matter because the company he works for, PCR Services Corporation provided the archaeological and biological assessments for the project and he was personally involved in the project. APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Torng laid out the ground rules for the meeting protocol and public speaking. CDD/Gubman presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive public testimony regarding the staff El and all land use entitlements, and continue the public hearing to the April 27, 2010, meeting. Mark Rogers provided a history of the site and details of the proposed Site D Specific Plan that included lower level commercial stepping up to residential pads adjoining existing single-family residences. He described the planning principles that have been incorporated into the Specific Plan and supplemented his presentation with a PowerPoint presentation and display boards. Nancy Lyons, 22536 Ridge Line Road and President, Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD) Board of Directors, stated that the original intent was to develop the site as a school. At this point, the district has enough school sites with a declining number of students. WVUSD needs money instead of another school because the district has received less money every year for the past three years with a total enrollment decrease of 20 percent. This substantial decrease in income has led to drastic cuts in programs, teacher layoffs, cancellation of programs including elementary music, etc. The district hopes to get the property entitled and sell it to provide the district with additional funds. She asked the Commission to recommend City Council approval. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. Donald Daneault, 3154 Castle Rock Road, asked where students living in the 200 units this project would attend school. The school district says student enrollment is declining; however, the elementary school on Castle Rock Road is overcrowded. He was very concerned about additional student drop off and pickup congestion close to his home because he finds it very difficult to get to his house under the current conditions. John Martin, 1249 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard #432, felt that since this project was on an entrance to the City, everyone in the City should have been provided the Notice of Public Hearing. He said he did not know who had been noticed but with the number of residents present at tonight's meeting, it seemed important to him that for the next meeting that everyone in Diamond Bar should be noticed and given an opportunity to learn about the plans. This is the same plan that was presented previously as well as, a APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION time prior. Nothing has been changed. It is obvious to him that the City and the school district want the most money possible from the sale of this land. The best way to get money for a property is to have commercial and residential property. However, if the commercial is eliminated, the berm with the 100 year old trees is kept in place, and the homes are set back about 135 feet from the street, it would solve many problems including elimination of neon lights from the commercial area. As stated in the report, the purpose of commercial is to have it at street level which would be an eyesore at a City entrance. The EIR contains one potentially significant impact; however, he counted eleven. The expectations he has for living in Diamond Bar is that it is a beautiful City and the City of Diamond Bar and WVUSD is saying it wants to put a commercial area at the heart and entrance of the City which in his opinion, was the wrong thing to do. He asked that the City consider some alternative to this Specific Plan because the DEIR states that of all of the alternatives, this plan is the worst environmental alternative. Christopher Chung, 21470 Cold Spring Lane, said he saw two different desires and alternatives. He wondered if the motive and intent of a public hearing was to actually get public input or to do the minimal legal obligations the City is required to perform under CEQA. He felt the documents and reports this evening were telling in that normally a scoping meeting takes place prior to issuing of an EIR or any document and is intended to be a time for input from the community. In this case the document was prepared first and then the City asked for input. It is telling him that the applicant indicates its purpose is to make money. He understands development. He has 20 years in this business and understands EIR's, traffic studies, etc., and he is pro -development and pro this project. If his concerns were addressed he would not be speaking tonight. His concerns include a flawed, inconsistent and outdated traffic report that does not include impacts of the stadium in Industry, cumulative impact from tenants at the H -Mart shopping center; and impacts at school intersections like Cold Spring Place and Brea Canyon Road or Cold Spring Lane and Castle Rock. Anyone who drops their kids off in the morning knows there is a 10-15 minute wait. If 202 units are being added, there will be additional impact that has not been analyzed. He understood there was an applicant that had a desire and fully believe that people who own property have the right to develop their property as they see fit but they need to do it in such a way that it does not adversely impact everyone else. In addition, he saw no traffic analysis of ingress/egress from the site. Projects are market-driven and actual analysis cannot be done until the site has'an actual development plan so there should be a project first before determining the impact of import/export of dirt, for example. Also, in his opinion, certain assumptions about daily trips are incorrect. Under CEQA, the document needs to indicate that the mitigation measures will actually happen. The City cannot just say it will put money in a pot. APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations versus City of Los Angeles has declared an EIR similar to the EIR for this project to be in violation of a CEQA mandate because the City did not include those mitigation measures. Chair/Torng asked the speaker to put his concerns in writing and present them to staff. Mr. Chung said he did not believe the Commission had sufficient information to move this project forward and should send the plan back to staff for further research. Michael Hasegawa, 21502 Cold Spring Lane, felt there were a lot of questions that needed to be answered including the availability of mass transit to handle the increased demand and whether the trees and water canal would be retained. These questions are guidelines, and residents do not know whether the developer will follow these guidelines because this project is market driven. It seems to him that this is a very haphazard plan because he sees no guarantees for the people who live in the area. What will happen with the screening, for example. If the schools are over packed now, why not keep the site for future school use. He knows the City is down $20 million; however, commercial real estate is not a sure thing. The large movie theater on Diamond Bar Boulevard is large commercial property that has not yet been purchased. There is no assurance anyone will buy this property. He was told by his Realtor when he purchased his home that the view was worth an additional $40,000. Will the home values decline in the area once there is a commercial development and the views are gone? His grandfather was a planner for Los Angeles County and helped to design Rowland Heights and surrounding communities including Diamond Bar. He says that the planning was based on population feasibility studies in designated commercial and residential zoning. Has there been an analysis of how this plan would affect those studies. Judy Leung, 21175 Running Branch Road, said that according to what she understood, proceeds of the sale of this land could be used for capital improvements only, therefore, would not help the district with operating expenses. There have been no public information meetings on the EIR and the plan, and its details, and she feels the City and school district owe it to the residents to explain this plan in greater detail. Only the residents living within 1000 feet of the site receive meeting notices and the people she has spoken with who live across the street from the project did not receive notices. Only 200 residents received the notice. She believed that many more residents would have come to the meeting tonight to express their feelings if they knew about this project. She wants to know why this project has been kept a secret. The consultant forgot to mention the 1991 DBIA Resolution about this plan that was discussed and declined. The EIR is a large document that requires a college degree to understand and comprehend. She is just an ordinary resident and three week's notice about APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION this meeting is not a sufficient amount of time to try and understand a 1000 page document. Again, where is the public information meeting that should have explained more in depth about what this proposed project is all about. Section 7.0 of the Specific Plan (General Plan Consistency Analysis) states that "this specific plan provides a site specific detailed description of regulations, standards and guidelines for implementing General Plan goals and policies. To achieve this, the specific plan must be in conformance with and be consistent with the General Plan. The California government code states that a specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the General Plan and further, that it may not be adopted and amended unless found to be consistent with the General Plan." The vision statement under land use reads "It is the overall goal of the land use element to ensure that the land uses and development decisions of Diamond Bar maintain and enhance the quality of life for its residents." Does anyone actually believe that this project will enhance the quality of life? If so, she and others would not be here. Residents are trying to let the Commissioners know that this particular plan is going to decrease and lower the residents' quality of life. With very limited notice to the residents, everyone cannot be present tonight to let the Commissioners know how they really feel and this is very, very sad. She said she hoped the response from the City about public comments would not be a comment that the response was "acknowledged" only, because that will serve no purpose. Mary Rodriguez, 3419 Pasado Drive, said she would like to know about the 1991 DBIA Resolution as well and would like to see alternative plans that would not include destruction of 100 year old California Walnut trees. At the August 2009 meeting she asked about Copper Canyon not showing up in the traffic report and it is not included in this report. Since 1991 it seems like the Commission and Council are not listening to the people. Members of the public speak up and no one pays attention because the same plans continue to be presented with no alternative plan to save the area. David Busse, 21455 Ambushers Street, owns commercial property in the San Gabriel Valley and wanted to warn the Commission that the commercial real estate business is no place for a school board or a City Council to be messing around at this time. The WVSUD Public Hearing Site D report from March 11, 1991, when there was an attempt to build homes in the area, the timing of the school board speculating on that land was so bad that if that had gone through the school board would have lost a great deal of money. He asked that the WVUSD Site D Public Hearing report from March 11, 1991, be entered into the record which clearly indicates that people in the neighborhood wanted this property used for public use. Politics is the art of compromise and he has not seen any compromise on this plan or in discussions. The EIR is impressive but full of errors. The traffic study is APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION flawed. One can hire a traffic engineer to say anything they want him to say. Common sense tells one that 220 units of housing traffic cannot be made better by using a bunch of stoplights. Section 4.9 of the EIR, page 4.9-12, the Angeles National Forest is a national forest under the US Department of Agriculture, not the National Parks Service (Department of the Interior). When he opened the EIR to the first page and saw that mistake he wondered how many others were included in the report that he did not know about. Every time one drives the SR60 and experiences the debacle at the SR57/60 they should remember that a registered professional traffic engineer signed off on that project. Traffic is a nightmare and the concept of putting more cars on the street and saying that everything will be fine, it has not been addressed in this EIR and it makes no sense. There needs to be a lot more thought put into the project and more importantly, from the property owner and the developers and everyone else, he wants to see plan alternatives. He understands the schools need money. Kids live in the neighborhood already and there needs to be a lot more thought given to what is being proposed other than making the most money possible. He has served on jury duty many times and he has always been impressed by others who serve at their ability to use common sense to solve complex problems. Don't be fooled by a bunch of material in an EIR compiled by people who allegedly know what they are talking about. He urged the Commissioners to look for themselves and ask themselves if this proposal makes sense and is it for the betterment of the community. Mary Hasegawa, 21502 Cold Spring Lane, said she has a beautiful view from her home and does not want to wake up every morning to look at a development. And to think the area will be filled with apartments is disheartening. She said she intended to die in her home and will most likely be killed by the smog. Where are the animals going to go? She gardens on her hill and it is like sand. The earth comes down and what assurance is there that when a developer starts grading the hill, those houses won't tumble down? When she bought her home there was apparently a disclosure about Site D which she never bothered to read because she was enthusiastic about her house. She would not have bought her house if she had taken a minute to read the disclosure. She walks every day and she has to go very early or very late because of the smog. It is dangerous at night and she wants to feel safe and secure walking in her neighborhood. Jeff Leighton, 3703 Crooked Creek, said when he was before the Commission a year ago he saw the same presentation and agreed that no one was listening to the residents. He agreed that there are fewer people present tonight because fewer people were notified. He sent a letter to CDD/Gubman after the last meeting and was told he would be notified of tonight's meeting. However, he did not receive a notice about tonight's APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION meeting. He said he was concerned about the increase in traffic generated by this proposed high density housing and commercial use plan. In essence, Diamond Bar is a single traffic thoroughfare City. Because of its geography, the City will always be in this condition. The added congestion that will be generated on the south end of town will dominate the southern gateway to the City. The proposed 202 plus units and the 800-900 additional cars, 400 rush-hour cars, will likely occur at the same time that the commercial area may see the most traffic. Another concern is increased air pollution as pointed out on ES -11. Statements like "violation of air quality standards and considerable increase in criteria pollutants" are bone -chilling and should be enough to stop the Alternate 5 project plan now. How can the City that houses the AQMD facility consciously support a plan that increases bad air at a portion of the City that is already severely affected by a parallel freeway a block away from the proposed site? Again, it can only be assumed that the intent is to maximize sale price and I think that fact has been made apparent tonight. The northerly view on Diamond Bar Boulevard will change dramatically from the country living atmosphere present today. The proposed plan for Site D calls for abrupt changes at the southern gateway to the City. In order to accommodate a large commercial area on the south tip of the site, the hills must be reduced to street level in order to achieve this and still maintain the maximum area above the strip mall for housing. This plan must call for huge retaining walls as shown on the plans. The plan must call for a huge retaining wall behind the commercial buildings similar to the midtown Target location. Although the Target wall is somewhat camouflaged and set back from the street it is still unsightly and an eyesore. The wall that will need to be planned for Site D will be much less pleasing and more of a focal point than the Target wall. The site of it will be the first thing seen by people entering the City from the south. In addition, the plan calls for removal of 75 100 -year old trees that border Site D. In all, it would be a horrific sight and give a lasting impression of how Diamond Bar chooses to represent itself to its residents and visitors. In summary, the residents understand the need for progress but the City must remember that it needs to take into account the need to give preference to the residents who live in Diamond Bar, pay their taxes and elect the officials who are supposed to represent them. A short-sighted plan to maximize revenue generated at the expense of the residents as voiced by every speaker here tonight and also by speakers who spoke a year ago is an indication of the disdain felt by the residents who will most be affected by the proposed project. The City needs to take another look, please. Gregory Shockley, 3711 Crooked Creek, said it is pretty bad when a City throws out CEQA in order to accommodate the goal of obtaining money. Over the years the school district has had its ups and downs and the student population increases and decreases. The school district will continue to APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION survive and will continue to be a good school district with or without the sale of this property because of the teachers and administrators. If people want to live in a place that looks like Irvine they can move there. Other cities like Anaheim and Brea seem to be following suit. People who live here want open space. He does not see where the consultants tried to minimize anything. The Commission does not have to recommend that this be approved by the City Council. In fact, he believes it is the Commission's responsibility not to recommend approval. He has heard it said that if this master plan is not accepted 2200 homes will be built on the site. He said he felt it was the Commission's responsibility was to decline this plan. This is land designated for general public use and no one can put anything on the land without the Council's approval. He believed the City could develop a plan that met the intent of the General Plan and meet the CEQA requirements. The seller may not get as much money for the property but at least it would be more user-friendly to Diamond Bar. I think the City can do a better job. Robert Velasquez, 24336 Seagreen Drive, said the Planning Commission and City Council have done a lot of good things for Diamond Bar. It is a safe place to live; there are nice trails and a brand new recreation center and he believes residents appreciate the City's efforts. Diamond Bar was based on a country living style with more open space and reduction of traffic and the trend of more building is disturbing. The NFL Stadium will affect the City and he believed that the City should have a long term goal of what it wants to look like 10 years from now and he believed it was the job of the Planning Commission to plan ahead. Walnut was up in arms about the NFL Stadium and they should understand that the residents of Diamond Bar will be left to the consequences of a project like this proposal. Christopher Chung returned to the podium to state that the mitigation monitoring report must, when approved, include all mitigation measures that are required of the project. What he stated previously about not including the mitigation measures, if those are not included in the document and more mitigation measures are found the document will have to be re -circulated: He said he truly believed that the document is very full of holes and is easily challenged. Residents do not want to have to challenge this project and hope that the Commissioners determine that the document poorly considers all of the ramifications. If all of the comments that were provided did not make it into the mitigation report, something is wrong. Mary Rodriguez returned to the podium to ask if the Commissioners had read all of the letters and comments that were submitted and Chair/Torng responded yes, that the document under consideration includes "response to comments on the DEIR Site D Specific Plan." Chair/Torng said that APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION Ms. Rodriquez's letter is in the document. VC/Nolan assured Mary Rodriguez that she read all public comments, emails and letters that have been provided to the Commission. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. RECESS: Chair/Torng recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Torng reconvened the meeting at 8:50 p.m. 8. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 8.1 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). (Continued from March 23, 2010) Applicant: City of Diamond Bar CDD/Gubman stated that at the March 23 meeting, the Commission expressed concerns primarily having to do with the "distance" criteria proposed for group homes and separately for parolee or probation housing. With respect to group homes, staff proposed that not only would a Conditional Use Permit be required for group residential and group homes for more than six clients, staff also limited zones for those uses to the multi- family districts and specified a 300 -foot minimum separation between such uses. The Commission was concerned with the 300 -foot distance in that it might facilitate an over -proliferation of such uses. Staff based the 300 -foot separation on state licensing criteria for group homes like daycare or adult daycare facilities licensed by the State Department of Social Services. The City is not bound by that criteria and looked at pushing the buffers wider. Staff is comfortable recommending that the distance separation be increased from 300 feet to 1320 feet which significantly reduces the overall number of group homes that would be potentially available for those uses. CDD/Gubman reported that the Commission's second issue was the recommended spacing of 5000 feet between parolee/probationer housing: Staff learned that with the additional requirement that such uses be located no closer than a quarter of a mile from schools, parks and the library, it effectively resulted in not being able to get them closer than 10,000 feet apart. As a result, staff changed the distance requirement from 5,000 to 10,000 feet and added a requirement that there shall be no more than two APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION (2) parolee/probationer housing facilities operating in the City at any one time. CDD/Gubman indicated that the third issue voiced by the Commission was that there was not any ongoing monitoring of group homes in the ordinance. Staff responded that conditions of approval could be included that would mandate ongoing monitoring. However, staff added a standard that states "these shall be subject to periodic monitoring" so all Conditional Use Permits will need to specify how frequently the facilities are monitored and what kind of reporting requirements would be included. Still left to the discretion of the Commission on a case by case basis is the matter of how frequently it would like a facility to be monitored. The fourth and final issue from the Commission was about the lack or absence of the requirement for onsite security at paroleelprobationer homes. The ordinance stipulates onsite supervision but not onsite security. After conferring with the City Attorney, staff believes that to require security for these facilities would detract from the residential character of the neighborhoods in which these facilities are located and staff is concerned that that perception of an unsecure environment that would require officers or security personnel would in themselves be a detriment to the community so staff would recommend that the standard previously endorsed for onsite supervision rather than security would be the most appropriate measure to be taken if the Commission elects to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a parolee/probationer home. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Development Code Amendment No. PL 2010-78 as presented this evening. C/Shah asked about the difference between onsite security and onsite supervision. CDD/Gubman likened supervision to a hall monitor or resident advisor in a dormitory to make sure everyone is accounted for and make certain all are following the rules of the house and to ensure that peace and order is maintained in the residence rather than having a "security guard" on the premises making sure that individuals are remaining on premises and not causing problems by venturing about unsupervised. C/Shah said he concurred with all recommendations as long as supervision be defined as 24/7 onsite supervision. VC/Nolan agreed with C/Shah that the intent of the Commissioners comments was not to provide armed guards. She felt staff did a great job of revising the numbers. APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION 9. 10 Chair/Torng asked if 10,000 was the maximum and CDD/Gubman said that he spent a lot of,time discussing this matter with the City Attorney's office and their advice is to go out farther than 10,000 feet would be reducing the likelihood to possibly zero that there would be any facility that could locate in the City. There might be a possibility for one; however, the City Attorney advised that it is somewhat risky to confine it down to one, especially when the one proposed location might not work given that a group home nearby would disqualify the site. Staff wanted to provide at least two possible sites that could accommodate a parolee/probationer facility and whether the City would ever actually get two such facilities would be questionable. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Shah moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to recommend City Council approval of Development Code Amendment No. PL 2010-78. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng None Lee, Nelson PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Shah complimented staff on its Site D documentation and report for the Site D Specific Plan. He appreciated the Planners Institute and wished there had been more for him to learn. VC/Nolan said she appreciated staff's report on the proposed Site D Specific Plan. She would like to have staff continue the public hearing as if there had not been a break so that the Commission would have an opportunity to ask staff questions. She said she would put her questions in writing prior to the next meeting. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 9:25 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 27th day of April, 2010. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gub Community Development Director 205`6-y Torng, C man