HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/27/2010MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 27, 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: C/Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Kathy
Nolan, and Chairman Tony Torng.
Absent: Commissioner Steve Nelson was excused.
Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Brad Wohlenberg,
Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Rick Yee, Senior Engineer, and Stella
Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant.
Consultants: Mark Rogers and JoAnne Sturges, TRG Land; Peter Lewandowski,
Environmental Impact Sciences, Steve Sasaki, Sasaki Transportation Services.
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 April 13, 2010.
C/Shah moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
April 13, 2010, as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng
None
Lee
Nelson
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 Site "D" Specific Plan — 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. (Continued from April 13, 2010)
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;
153,985 gross square feet of commercial use; and approximately 10. 11 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. The EIR includes mitigation
measures for the project, addresses project alternatives, identifies the
environmentally superior project alternative, and adopts a statement of overriding
considerations.
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
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
ACA/Wohlenberg explained that at its last meeting on April 13, 2010, the
Commission closed the public hearing following the public comment period. There
is a procedure for reopening public hearings during the same meeting. If the public
hearing is reopened at a different meeting it would require that the item be officially
re -noticed and continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. This
procedure is not just for the benefit of those present this evening that would like to
speak; if it were known that there would be additional opportunity for public
comment there may have been others who would have appeared at tonight's
meeting to speak but did not do so because they believed there was no
opportunity for further public comment. It would require action of the Commission
to direct staff to re -notice the hearing so that it could be reopened at the next
meeting.
C/Shah said he would recommend the public hearing not be reopened and that the
Commission move forward as scheduled to receive responses to comments and
that the Commission continue with its deliberation as scheduled.
C/Lee concurred stating that he listened to the tapes of the last meeting and was
prepared to move forward.
VC/Nolan moved to continue the item to May 11, 2010, and direct staff to re -notice
the meeting to allow for further public comment. The motion died for lack of a
second.
C/Lee confirmed to Chair/Torng that he had listened to the entire taped meeting
and was prepared to move forward to deliberation.
Chair/Torng advised the public that the Planning Commission was acting in an
advisory capacity to the City Council and that following staff's responses to the
public comments received during the public hearing on April 13, 2010, the
Commissioners would deliberate and the Commission would make its
recommendation to City Council. The City Council is the final authority on the
matter and the public will be notified of future public hearings if and when the
matter goes to the City Council for deliberation.
Chair/Torng acknowledged receipt of letters from Lee Paulson, Melony Paulson,
Mary Rodriquez and Christopher Chung. Emails were received from Mary
Rodriquez, John Yang, David Dorsey, Julie Leung and Christopher Chung.
CDD/Gubman presented staff's report and addressed questions and comments
raised by audience prior to close of the public hearing followed by response to
Commissioner's questions after which the Commission will determine the next
steps. CDD/Gubman said that rather than respond to the questions and
comments item by item, he would address them collectively by topic.
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
CDD/Gubman said that staff understands that this project has garnered a great
deal of opposition from the community and there has been a great deal of criticism
of staff for not making any fundamental changes to the parameters of the Specific
Plan. While the criticism is well received, he clarified that the cornerstone for this
Specific Plan is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was crafted
between the City and the Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD), the
premise of which was that staff was to develop a Specific Plan that consisted of 50
percent residential and 50 percent commercial. The plan that staff crafted and
worked on is based on those fundamentals. Accordingly, the City's consultant
TGR Land studied the property and developed a physical plan that established the
land form that would be appropriate for accommodating a commercial
development and residential development. The physical plan that has been
presented demonstrates how that land form has been envisioned for this site
based on technical analysis and existing conditions of the site as well as, access
points to the project.
CDD/Gubman stated that the Specific Plan is characterized as an "umbrella" or
framework plan for this site. As stated at the first meeting, there is a range of
planning tools that could be used to set forth the long range development
objectives for the site, one of which could simply be rezoning the property.
However, a Specific Plan is a tool in which much more rigorous land use
strategies, requirements and other specifications tailored to the particular
characteristics of this property can be employed. As memorialized in the MOU,
staff opted to do a Specific Plan, the intent of which was not to create a detailed
development plan. There are no developers that are lined up, signed up or even
in talks to develop this property. So, there is not a development plan that staff can
base a document on, but instead staff formulated some planning principles and
created a document of what the City's vision for this site is based on the
commercial/residential makeup of the property and specify in diagrams, graphics
and words what the physical and land use characteristics of this site should be at
build -out. By creating this plan and conducting the environmental analysis, the
strategy is to have an entitlement or vested approval in place to put this property
out to market. Having an entitlement in place adds value to the property and
removes many of the unknowns about what can or cannot be developed on this
site. By eliminating those uncertainties, the value of the land is increased. At the
same time, it is very clear how many units are the maximum that may be
developed and possibly fewer units can be developed. However, 202 units would
be the maximum under what is being proposed with this site plan, along with about
154,000 square feet of commercial development. This plan also specifies where
those land uses will be organized on the site and outlines the physical envelopes
for those physical components, along with the access, backbone road and
provisions for pedestrian interaction between the commercial and residential
components. The plan for residential is based on the General Plan Consistency
Analysis and promotes several General Plan Goals and Objectives as well, and
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
staff has presented its recommendations for making those findings in the Specific
Plan. This public hearing process provides an opportunity for the Commission to
consider opposing viewpoints that have been presented by the public. Staff is
confident that the project is furthering several development General Plan goals
and objectives to provide housing in the community, to diversify the housing stock
and staff believes that it has formulated a plan that is compatible with the
surrounding areas to preserve the integrity of the neighboring land uses. Again,
that is a matter for the Planning Commission to deliberate and in doing so,
consider all of the testimony, and determine whether to concur with staff's
recommendation.
CDD/Gubman stated that if the objective was for the City to help the school district
maximize its return (get the most money for its property) the City would be
presenting a plan comprised of 100 percent residential; however, the City is
looking at this site with other community needs in mind to create a balanced
community, to provide a range of services for the community and to provide a
sustainable revenue opportunity given that the site is located at a major
intersection in the City. The part of the plan that introduces the commercial was
the City's contribution to the MOU. The City did not view 100 percent residential
as the best long-range plan for this site understanding that market conditions are
really a snapshot in time and a market study done two years ago would look
nothing like a market study done today and looking into the long-term horizon for
the City, would the community be better served by additional commercial or a
neighborhood serving commercial uses. The City contributed this component to
the MOU that provided this. Is the tax revenue generation or the potential to
generate tax revenue the sole driving factor? While it is certainly one of the driving
factors it is certainly not the only driving factor. Again, if the City was solely
motivated toward tax revenue it would not necessarily be looking at a commercial
component that would only accommodate a neighborhood serving commercial use
because the amount of sales tax generated from that component would not make
or break the City. It certainly helps to diversify and enhance the City's revenue
portfolio but it is not something that is the only factor that the City feels is a
justification to propose commercial at this site — it is the opportunity to take a
corner at an arterial and to seize the opportunity to add additional commercial
services for the community. Staff understands that there is not support from those
who have participated in this process with their oral and written comments;
however, that is the reason why the City holds the hearing process.
CDD/Gubman said that staff takes exception to the comments that the public input
was ignored or disregarded or treated flippantly. There was a scoping meeting
prior to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) preparation and there was a public
comment meeting to provide an opportunity for the public to speak on the aspects
of the EIR. Staff explained that those were not the times for the City to debate or
deliberate on the merits of the plan itself but to focus on the environmental issues
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
that need to be analyzed, and if the analysis was thorough and sufficiently fleshed
out to enable the Commission to feel that it has been disclosed and apprised of all
facts that go into the entirety of this decision — not only the environmental, but the
appropriateness of the proposed land uses in the Specific Plan document as a
whole. Staff certainly did not preclude people from speaking on the merits of the
plan and voice their opposition to the project itself, to bring up the 1991 Resolution
by the DBIA to develop the site as a park, etc. All of those comments are in the
record and they have all been published and presented to the Commission in the
Draft and Final EIR. All comments received have been recorded. Now that the
decision making process begins through the Planning Commission and City
Council hearings it is the time to consider the appropriateness, the merits and the
benefit to the community of this Specific Plan in its entirety. Staff believes that it
made a genuine effort to facilitate government to include all comments and to
provide the public the opportunity to express theirviews. Staff's responses through
the EIR process were only to the environmental issues and for that reason in the
response to comments of the EIR there are numerous occasions that repeat "this
comment is acknowledged" because it is not a CEQA issue but another issue.
Nevertheless, those comments are acknowledged and published and they are
disclosed to the Commission. In addition to the public hearing process opened
last meeting (April 13, 2010) there is a very detailed and extensive record of where
those members of who have taken the time to participate in this process stand on
the matter. He hopes with that said that there is some consideration for staff's
effort to provide the Commission with that information. This process was not a
municipal or park or public improvement project where a neighborhood charette
would have been used to solicit public input. This was a development proposal
with staff acting as the applicant. This process did not provide the format for the
type of participation that a community project would.
CDD/Gubman stated that there are numerous factual errors contained in the letter
from Christopher Chung that need to be addressed on the record. First comment
is that the Specific Plan is inadequate, inconsistent and does not meet statutory
requirements. With that statement the contention is that the Specific Plan does
not prescribe architectural and landscape details or specify other criteria in greater
detail. Section 65451 of the California Government Code specifies the required
content of the Specific Plan and that level of detail is not mandated. In fact, the
Governor's Office of Planning and Research has a publication entitled The
Planner's Guide to Specific Plans which states in its opening paragraph "a Specific
Plan may be as general as setting forth broad policy concepts or as detailed as
providing direction to every facet of the development from the type, location and
intensity of uses, to the design and capacity of infrastructure, from the resources
used to the financed public improvements, to the design guidelines of the
subdivision." The Draft Specific Plan the City is presenting fits within these very
broad parameters. Moreover, the Site D Specific Plan is very similar in format to
the Specific Plan that was prepared for the Target/ Brookfield/Calvary Chapel site,
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
which was adopted and approved. The second point raised is "the City cannot use
Site D as justification to meet regional housing needs assessment housing needs
or to meet RHNA numbers" and this is simply untrue. The City is obligated to
accommodate 1,098 new housing units during the current RHNA cycle. Part of
that obligation is to designate 15.6 acres for residential development at a density
of 30 units per acre to accommodate lower income housing needs for 466 units.
Site D is not one of the several sites being studied to accommodate that need.
Site D would help fulfill the City's obligation to provide the 632 market rate units
under the current RHNA allocation. The third comment that is factually incorrect is
that the EIR scoping meeting was conducted after the Draft EIR was released.
This is incorrect. The scoping meeting was conducted on February 21, 2008. The
Neighborhood Forum held on August 3, 2009, was during the Draft EIR public
comment period and was provided as an additional opportunity for the public to
ask questions and provide oral and written comments regarding the adequacy of
the EIR. Unlike the previous scoping meeting, the August 3, 2009, meeting was
not mandated under CEQA but the City scheduled the meeting in an effort to
inform the public and to solicit comments. The fourth comment is that the EIR was
not completed by an objective third party independent consultant t[Tat has no prior
relationship with the WVUSD. For the record, TRG Land did not prepare the EIR
and does not provide environmental services. The City selected the firm
Environmental Impact Sciences to prepare the EIR. The fifth comment stated in
effect that the traffic mitigation in the form of fair -share fees is inadequate and
violates case law set forth under Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associates v.
the City of Los Angeles. The EIR's mitigation reporting and monitoring program
that is part of the EIR document requires the specific improvements or fair -share
contributions shall be provided prior to the recording of the final Tract Map. This is
not a violation of FHCA v. Los Angeles. FHCA v. Los Angeles did not deem the
payment of fair -share fees to be invalid. What the case law cited determined was
that although the City of Los Angeles adopted mitigation measures for its General
Plan framework program, it failed to require that they be implemented as a
condition of development. The Site D EIR does not make that error in that the
improvements or fair -share contributions are required to be paid or completed
upon recordation of the final Map. In fact, going further, he pointed out that the
court decision went on to state that it found no fault with Los Angeles's certification
of that EIR but only with the failure to show substantial evidence in the record to
support a finding that the mitigation measures had been required or incorporated
into the planning document. The sixth statement was a comment that it is the
responsibility of the lead agency to consider all viable project alternatives. This is
untrue. Under Goleta Valley vs. The Board of Supervisors, it was determined that
an EIR must discuss a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to the
proposed project. Staff believes that the Site D EIR has indeed discussed a
reasonable range of project alternatives. Finally, there is a statement that the City
of Diamond Bar's noticing radius is 700 feet from property lines and the City
arbitrarily increased the radius to 1000 feet, therefore, should extend the
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
notification range even farther out. This is untrue. In fact, Section 22.72.020
requires a 1000 -foot notification radius for the Site D Specific Plan.
CDD/Gubman asked if the Commissioners had any questions. C/Lee said he
heard the same story last time and he believes that the public hearing process is
not a lecturing process. He listened to the two and one-half hour tapes of the last
meeting and heard many residents voice their concerns as well as their wishes.
He understands residents clearly expressed their thoughts; he understands this
project and its relative impact to the community. But on the agenda it states a
Finding of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and implementation
with the identified economic and social benefits. He said he understood the
economic benefit but did not understand the social benefit. CDD/Gubman
explained that it is adding to the diversity of Diamond Bar's housing stock and
providing additional housing opportunities. C/Lee asked if "housing stock is a
social benefit" and CDD/Gubman responded "yes." C/Lee said there is maybe
sociality? But a social benefit is not that. Maybe housing stock is a benefit but not
a social benefit. He asked for a better explanation of "social benefit."
ACA/Wohlenberg explained that there is an underlying thought in California Land
Use law and in Housing law that there should be a community that has a variety of
housing types and pricing available. And something that Diamond Bar hears as a
comment from the State of California in the review of its Housing Element is that
so much of Diamond Bar's housing is focused on the higher economic spectrum.
So in order to seek out that benefit of having diverse housing choices within the
City, that is part of what this project is aimed at providing — not the high end
housing that Diamond Bar has so much of but mid-range housing units that
Diamond Bar needs (another 632 units) under its RHNA obligation. C/Lee argued
that the statement should be "housing stock benefits" and not social benefits.
Mark Rogers stated that in addition to the aforementioned benefits, the project
seeks to do a number of things. First, the project is using both commercial and
residential land uses in an area that as he understands, has a need for
neighborhood commercial services. The idea today and what is seen as handed
down by the State of California is that it is looking for projects where there is a
blend of land uses to cut down vehicle miles traveled and place uses where there
is a pedestrian trail that connects the adjoining neighborhood on the south end of
the project into a plaza -like feature anticipated with a commercial side of the
project. In that instance, this project meets social standards from the state's
standards in providing a mixed land use with both residential and commercial. He
hopes that he is not stretching when he also states that the benefit of this project
monetarily to the WVUSD and maybe secondarily to the City, has tremendous
social benefit. The values that he sees in this community are born out of the great
education that the children get from their school systems. This is a timely project
from the standpoint of providing needed fund for the district and that, he believes,
has tremendous and long -reaching social benefit.
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
C/Lee said the report mentions this project would be convenient for people but can
he talk about social benefit as common sense. This project will be good for
families, education involvement. He heard many negative comments from
residents because there is no social benefit. So he wants to understand clearly
what social benefit is. But Mr. Rogers's understanding is a convenience of more
houses so there is a contradiction. This comment should be changed to "more
housing stock or more convenience for shopping but not social benefit because
people can misunderstand about this project. C/Lee asked how this project
building more houses and building more commercial areas is related to education,
and CDD/Gubman responded "in that the sale of the property benefits the school
district." C/Lee asked if that is why it helps people and kids grow up in this
community. He thought it was totally irrelevant explanation about this project with
respect to education. C/Lee asked for clarification of "social benefit" and asked if it
could be changed "housing stock benefit or convenient to the people or shoppers."
CDD/Gubman responded yes, that the changes can be made so that his concerns
are addressed.
VC/Nolan asked if socialize meant how it socially benefits the community at large.
CDD/Gubman said that when the document addresses social benefit it refers to
the entire palette of elements that enhance the society. ACA/Wohlenberg said
that when making a statement of overriding considerations it simply discusses the
economic and social benefits that would occur from deciding to move forward even
though there is unmitigated significant impact. To him that is sort of "catch-all"
language that the legislature adopted. There are economic benefits and social
benefits and everything falls into one of those two categories.
C/Shah asked what could be built under the land use designation of Public Facility
and General Commercial if nothing is done to change the land use to Specific
Plan. CDD/Gubman responded that currently there is a fundamental inconsistency
between the General Plan and the zoning. The General Plan designation is Public
Facility which would suggest a school or park. The zoning that is overlaid on that
is residential and commercial so there is a General Plan zoning inconsistency that
would have to be resolved to enable the property to be developed in some fashion.
Chair/Torng asked for a response to Mr. Chung's statement on Page 1 of his letter
that refers to "the proposed high-density residential land use is incompatible with
adjacent land use and inconsistent with the General Plan." CDD/Gubman said that
was a fair argument. Staff's position is that this housing type is compatible with
the surrounding uses. It is not located within a local neighborhood street
completely encircled by single family detached residences. This property does
have its back turned on the single family neighborhood and faces a major arterial.
Based on that context an attached housing product on this site would be
appropriate and if one looks throughout the City, one will see similar land use
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
relationships between those housing types that co -exist under similar contexts and
disagreed that it is an inconsistent land use.
Chair/Torng asked about Mr. Chung's statement on Page 6: "The consultant
provided a representation that the development of the housing would be of high
quality for moderate income families." The inconsistency is that this should be low
income. CDD/Gubman said that the first thing he needs to clarify is that high
density would be for 30 -units to the acre. This residential project proposed at 20 -
unit per acre on the development pads is exclusive of the slopes front and back.
Therefore, the effective density is closer to 17 -units per acre. The 30 -unit per acre
density requirement that staff is studying for locations elsewhere in the City is
considered a default density for affordable housing so the state views a
development at 30 -units per acre as probably accommodating affordable housing,
at least in this region given the property values and existing levels of urbanization.
Thirty units per acre in Manhattan would be extremely low density for example, so
it is all relative. Site D would be attached housing probably similar to the
Brookfield development above Target which is market rate housing.
Chair/Torng said he raised a concern about Page 15 of Mr. Chung's letter - the
grubbing and grading near the homes toward the channel to ensure that insects
and rodents are driven away from homes. This should have been a mitigation
measure but nothing has come up about it. Is there any way this can be
mitigated? CDD/Gubman responded that there is a standard requirement in the
issuance of grading plans that rodent barriers be installed around the perimeter of
a project. Staff believes that would be a more effective means of containing the
rodent population within the project site to effectively be decimated by
development activity. The prospect of grubbing at the edge of the site or at the
center is somewhat speculative in the belief that that is going to drive the rodent
population inward. He said he did not see how that was something the City could
guarantee unless there is one solid line of machinery that moves contiguously and
together toward the center. The City's grading permit requirements include a
rodent barrier to imbed into the ground and prevent the offsite migration in order to
more effectively achieve that goal. Chair/Torng said, so in other words, staff
already considered that and CDD/Gubman responded "yes," although it should be
noted that specific discussion of rodent barriers was not included in the EIR
response to comments.
CDD/Gubman responded to Chair/Torng that 7:00 a.m. (not 8:00 a.m.) is the
citywide noise regulation standard for construction activity.
VC/Nolan asked if the City had the resources of a buyer to purchase green space
for a recreational facility. CDD/Gubman explained that Site D is not included in the
Parks Master Plan and since the MOU expressly states that the Specific Plan
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION
should be prepared to accommodate 50 percent residential and 50 percent
commercial, the response would be "no" at this point.
Mark Rogers, TRG Land, pointed out that one of the terms the Commissioners
should keep in mind for the purposes of this process is "predictable outcome." It is
a term he uses a lot speaking about development and the experiences he has had
with development. In an effort to ensure what the Commission deliberates on and
what the Council will deliberate on and make a decision on is truly what can
happen as a built project. This project, like many projects he has had an
opportunity to work with, focus on ensuring that the property is mapped, set
forward design parameters and a regulatory envelope so that at the end of the day
as deliberated and conceived can be built. TRG has done an extraordinary
amount of scientific work to ensure public safety in this project. A lot of what would
normally be required in a process like this to ensure this is a quality built site.
These are two public bodies that are working together to bring a project before its
constituents and what is so interesting about that is that he and his colleagues sat
around brainstorming the project working with things everyone has experienced in
an attempt to provide a framework that TRG Land feels meets the concerns and
issues they deal with on a daily basis.
Mr. Rogers stated that in the absence of a more elaborate graphic, he focused his
PowerPoint presentation on the edges of the project because this is a two-step
process. This attempts to build an envelope or umbrella within which a project of
merit can be built. So he has focused on the edges of the project to ensure
adequate setbacks and spaces that meet the intent. Along Brea Canyon, the
street grade is about 10 feet below pad grade. His firm ensures that from the back
or right-of-way to anything within this project there is a minimum of 35 feet. In
addition, there may be an area for cars to butt right up against that setback so an
additional space was allocated so that car bumpers are setback well behind that
area which offers a minimum setback from top of slope of an additional five feet
beyond the 35 -foot setback. At the corner of the project, the vision was at that the
corner of Brea Canyon and Diamond Bar Boulevard create something like an
arrival/plaza space in the project.
Chair/Torng asked if the lower legend side is people's view driving from Diamond
Bar Boulevard and the view on the right is the potential site elevation. He asked
about the triangle. Mr. Rogers responded that is the condition he is describing —
the arrival/plaza space. The first section is the section going toward Diamond Bar
Boulevard and Brea Canyon so that it shows on the right hand side the upslope to
the project. When he spoke two weeks ago he said the project was "at grade." In
fact, it is as close as possible. It is still above the street. One of the corners was
that drivers would see it as asphalt and that is not true. He said he would later
show similar projects and how they are monumented. The second section is
driving down Diamond Bar Boulevard in the direction of Grand Avenue away from
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION
Brea Canyon. This shows a very strong setback of 35 -feet to a monument feature
with a very strong community gathering type of spot such as an outdoor eating
area or loggia located at the corner to monument the corner. As one moves closer
to the entry at Cherrydale driving down Diamond Bar Boulevard toward Grand
Avenue, the project is much closer to grade and the building setback from back of
right-of-way is a minimum of 35 -feet. These are very healthy setbacks well above
most minimum standards for most typical zoning. Sections along the project
edges such as mid -point locations, Section 4 is cut from Diamond Bar Boulevard
with the uphill section showing the project considerably elevated above the street.
Again, this area ensures adequate setbacks without allowing any buildings closer
than 15 feet to the top of slope. In this case, at a minimum will be set back
125 feet away from Diamond Bar Boulevard. The slope planting incorporates
indigenous, low water, drought tolerant plants as well as plants that will mitigate for
the reduction of black walnut. Mr. Rogers responded to C/Shah that the elevation
difference between the houses and the street is roughly 60 feet. The next section
is the section cut along the edge of the project that joins Ambusher. The existing
housing is below grade to the site. In this case the grade is being lowered to
reduce some of the vertical between the two relationships. This is very unique to a
standard imbedded in a project like this because a minimum 85 foot setback will
exist along the edge to ensure adequate distance for buffering and landscape and
so that the buildings do not create an incompatible relationship to the adjoining
residential. One hundred twenty (120) feet of horizontal distance lies between the
houses and the buildings and landscape screening will be used to enhance the
edge. Again, these setbacks are above and beyond the normal setback
requirements in a project of this nature. Mr. Rogers responded to Chair/Torng that
there will be a fence between the trees. The upper south side neighborhood is
well above the project. Section 6 at the midpoint of the project is well below that
neighborhood. There is a huge setback distance both horizontally (184 feet) and
vertically (60 feet) in this project relationship. The next section further up the street
(Section 7) shows an even greater vertical and horizontal relationship with 365 feet
between the existing residences and the project's buildings.
Mr. Rogers shared images of other projects that are similar to how he visualizes
some of the key elements in the commercial center for the Site D Specific Plan.
VC/Nolan asked if the ratio of black walnut replacement ratio is based on the
actual success rate or unsuccessful rate. CDD/Gubman responded that the ratio
is not related to any estimated success rates and is a code requirement found in
the Municipal Code that there be a 3:1 ratio for protected trees that are removed.
The applicant may also be required, as a condition of approval, to enter into a tree
maintenance agreement to warranty the survival of the replacement trees. For
example, the City may require the applicant to replace any tree that does not
survive during the first three years. VC/Nolan asked the ratio of successful
replacement tree plantings and CDD/Gubman said it would depend on the quality
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION
of the nursery stock. If the replacement tree is from a reputable nursery that
employs best practices for cultivating trees and offering guarantees, then the
likelihood of success should not be a concern.
Chair/Torng asked why the City would want to remove the 100 -year old Eucalyptus
trees and replace them with better trees. CDD/Gubman stated that the plan for
the site with the commercial component compels the commercial pad to be
lowered. The fact that the site is going to be graded necessitates removal of the
trees. The Tree Ordinance focuses on protected trees — trees that are indigenous
to this area. And what the City envisions is restoring the urban forest in the new
development with climate appropriate trees. The Eucalyptus tree is not within that
realm. Mr. Rogers further stated that if there were a way to realize the project
before the Commission for consideration and maintain those trees, the project
would probably have sought to do that. These trees have a life cycle and they are
reaching the end of that cycle where they will no longer be vital. In fact, they may
become more of a hazard overtime. More importantly, he has done a number of
projects wherein the Eucalyptus was retained and it is a tough task on flat ground
much less on a hillside environment. If the trees were live oak that had an
extended life period there may have been consideration for boxing and relocating
the trees to the project feature and if the trees could be retained in their present
location the project would have sought to do that. However, these trees are
nearing the end of their life cycle and over time will be more of a problem than a
benefit. This project attempts to implement current legislation to attempt to get a
carbon footprint down. A lot of things being done in terms of water harvesting,
plant selection, utilization of 50 percent solar, everything that is imbedded in
current technology for purposes of meeting these goals, is a part of this project.
He invited the district to use this project to measure the benefits of going in this
direction. This project will be state -of -the art and raises the bar for what projects
can be in terms of carbon footprints and meeting goals handed down by the state
today.
Chair/Torng said he appreciated Mr. Roger's effort to create the site cross-sections
for clarity which he requested and believes it helps to clarify and provide a better
understanding of the project. He read a comment from Page 3 of the letter from
Melony Paulson. She said "Part of the site could be a park. It might not be as
large as some of us might like, but it would (be) better than acres of hot, desolate
pavement that is now being envisioned for the site." In the final paragraph she
said "Then, think about the plan I have suggested above. Think about an urban
city center, a living, shopping, park space set into the natural setting of Site 'D'."
So by looking at what has been shown on the plan, is there a possibility of
incorporating a small park. Mr. Rogers said that naturally, there is always the
possibility of doing a park feature. He liked the focus on an idea brought forward
by CM/DeStefano to have a plaza in the corner near the flood channel. Perhaps
the project could include a pedestrian corridor that reaches back to the main
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION
commercial structures from that location. Maybe a park of a different nature that
utilizes green space and canopy that extends a walkway system back from the
corner with the loggia concept, an urban gathering space, and maybe that loggia
concept is connected with the greenway that goes back to the main structures.
What was envisioned by a Council Member was the inclusion of a trail system from
Posado down to the back of the commercial structure. So what was envisioned in
the Specific Plan is a very similar type of feature as is called out on the corner at
the apex of the buildings where they join at the back of the property. And what
might be considered is those two being like an urban hub with a trellis or shaded
walkway system that connects those two hubs to one another as an urban park
setting, which might accommodate some of Ms. Paulson's concerns.
VC/Nolan said she believed the raised separate pad off of Cherrydale at Diamond
Bar Boulevard is potentially something that could be used for a restaurant. What
is the size of that pad and what is the potential for an actual park in that area and
perhaps 20-30 percent of the commercial area being removed and replaced by an
actual park facility. She stated that the Commission has heard the concerns from
the community again and again regarding a park and again, to speak to the social
aspect of this area. Mr. Rogers said that naturally, that is an opportunity that has
not been explored at this point. What is located in the corner is a water quality
feature/ambient open space. If there is a grassy swale that functions as a water
quality feature they usually like to associate it with other open space to get a
benefit from both being next to each other and the expanded idea. Corners are
important places in commercial projects in terms of locating restaurants or banks
on free standing pads. The more critical of those is probably at the intersection of
Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon. He believed that the concept as
discussed is imbedded in the plan but certainly this would make for an opportunity
to have a park feature that could be used by both residents outside and inside the
area. VC/Nolan asked how much area of the swale would be needed to make it a
designated park area in acreage off of the commercial portion. Mr. Rogers said it
was a pretty tough question to answer on the fly because it is a function of
programming. If it is seen as not having active uses but being a tot lot, seating
area, passive shade structure, etc., it might be a two -acre site. When one gets
into active facilities it begins to expand to five acres and certain municipalities
require different sizes for those uses because the City would usually be
responsible for the maintenance. A smaller venue that would be more appropriate
to the plan of residential/commercial features would accommodate a one or two
acre facility in that corner benefitted by the other adjacent features such as
setbacks and water quality elements that would help to expand the usable area.
Chair/Torng asked if the Commission could recommend inclusion of a park feature
and CDD/Gubman responded yes, if that is the direction the Commission wants to
go he would suggest that it be incorporated into the recommendation to the City
Council. Since there is a draft resolution prepared for the Commission and if the
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION
Commission is in agreement with that draft resolution with the additional provision
that a park element be incorporated staff could come back on May 11 with a
revised resolution for adoption. Or, the Commission could take a short recess and
craft language this evening if that is what the Commission would prefer.
RECESS: Chair/Torng recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
RECONVENE: Chair/Torng reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
SE/Yee and Consulting Traffic Engineer Steve Sasaki provided information in
response to questions and comments raised at the April 13 meeting, as well as
written questions and comments regarding traffic. SE/Yee stated that he would
collectively address the questions and comments by category.
SE/Yee responded to a comment raised regarding whether or not cumulative
impacts of the proposed project were adequately addressed in the traffic study.
The traffic study did indeed address several proposed projects listed including
residential development in The Country Estates, Diamond Hills Plaza (formerly the
Country Hills Towne Centre), the Industry Business Center/Stadium and the Aera
Energy planned community. Specifically, the resident raised an issue with respect
to the stadium and the traffic study for Site D began prior to when the stadium EIR
was approved. However, the traffic engineer who prepared the Site D study
assessed the current information available with respect to the stadium EIR and it
was determined that the appropriate approach would be to look at the prior
development proposed for the stadium site which is the Industry Business Center
and to look at the impact to the peak hour travel times. Ultimately, this resulted in
looking at the am/pm peak hour trip forecasts and the conservative approach is to
the use the Industry Business Center traffic forecast because it generated much
higher forecasts for the am/pm peak periods. Second, there was a concern about
the H -Mart. As previously mentioned, the H -Mart is part of Diamond Hills Plaza
and was addressed in the study with respect to trip generation forecasts for that
and other retail establishments in the plaza. Third, there was a comment
regarding school area circulation and Castle Rock Elementary access concerns
and wait times for student drop off and pick up. Essentially, this is a situation that
occurs throughout Diamond Bar and in fact, with many communities in Southern
California. The City experiences high levels of traffic during very specific
timeframes in the early morning and early afternoon hours. The City has
addressed this issue uniformly throughout the City by working closely with the
Sheriff's Department and school districts to monitor those situations and to
proactively address operational improvements that can help with circulation during
peak hour drop off and pick up. Chaparral Middle School is a good example of
collaboration among the City, Sheriff's Department and school. Staff was able to
establish one-way circulation routes; post additional regulatory signs, etc. Those
types of actions have proved successful with regard to addressing school area
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION
traffic. Fourth, there was a concern expressed about the general ingress/egress
because there is a proposal for 202 dwelling units and the comments contended
that there should be 404 trips associated with peak hours. However, the analysis
procedure that was followed in this traffic study is a procedure that is commonly
followed in the industry. The traffic engineer used the Trip Generation Handbook
published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers which is universally used for
assessing impacts and determining trip generation rates. These trip generation
rates are based on land uses and in this case, there was a component for the
residential portion and a separate trip generation forecast for the commercial/retail
component. As a result, 154 trips were considered to be the outbound A.M. peak
hour number of trips from the residential units. Staff is confident with the
methodology used in this study.
SENee said that several individuals commented on particular intersections that
were not studied in this report. One intersection referenced by two different
individuals who offered comments was Brea Canyon Road and Copper Canyon.
The report studied a total of 20 intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project
with the farthest intersection being Grand Avenue at Diamond Bar Boulevard.
The traffic engineer who prepared the study looked at several criteria for selecting
the intersections such as whether or not there would be more than 50 trips added
to a particular intersection as a result of the project; whether or not the
intersections were signalized, whether or not the intersection is an arterial to
arterial intersection, arterial to a collector road intersection, or a residential
intersection. All of those factors were considered and evaluated in determining
which intersections needed to be included. Based on the criteria, Copper Canyon
was deemed not necessary to be included in the study. Copper Canyon is a T -
Intersection between an arterial and a residential collector street, it is currently not
signalized, it is a single stop intersection and the intersection approach generally
serves right turns in and right turns out. There are mitigations recommended in
this study for the next intersection downstream from the project (Brea Canyon and
Silver Bullet), which is an intersection that requires a fair -share contribution by the
development to restripe and install an additional lane of traffic and to modify the
traffic signal to improve flow through the intersection as well as, general traffic flow
along Brea Canyon Road. That in combination with the determination to exclude
Copper Canyon from the study was felt to be appropriate that the downstream
mitigations would address any additional concerns. The last comment received
addressed the relevance of the Traffic Study data. There were several concerns
with the date of data collection versus present day. Data was collected in 2007
and much of this Traffic Study report, as with any traffic study report has impacts
and mitigations based on future forecasts. In this case the study was based on a
2030 year traffic forecast, the critical numbers used to determine ultimate
mitigation. Again, it was deemed appropriate to use the data that was collected
because the critical data and forecast were still relevant for determining mitigation
for this project. SENee addressed Chair/Torng's request for additional information
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION
related to the volumes for the project with and without the project by showing a
slide that showed actual traffic counts for AM/PM peak hours for the intersections.
There was also a question about fair -share contributions.
Steve Sasaki, Sasaki Transportation Services, highlighted a question about use of
fair -share as a mitigation practice. He confirmed that fair -share mitigation is an
accepted mitigation procedure which serves to create a firm nexus between the
project impacts and the required mitigations so that the City is able to offset the
project impacts through use of a fair -share vehicle. It is also a way to satisfy the
City's adopted Traffic Study Guideline procedure. Within the Traffic Study
Guideline there is a requirement for fair -share contributions and the fair -share
mitigation serves to satisfy the guidelines. Within the mitigation measures
themselves there is an opportunity to provide a fair -share or actual construction of
improvements and whichever method is selected, would need to be done to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Within those parameters the City has a very
solid mitigation program to offset the project's impacts.
VC/Nolan said the A.M. traffic trips indicated were 154 trips and she assumed that
would be mirrored for the P.M. trips. SENee explained that they would be
different based on the methodology. Mr. Sasaki explained that since there is a
combination of both residential and commercial uses, the residential is pretty much
as stated as those going out in the morning tend to come back in the evening so
that is fairly balanced. However, with commercial, typically there will be a lower
A.M. trip generation and more trips generated in the P.M. The net trip generation
is 272 in the A.M. peak hour includes both inbound and outbound vehicles. For
the P.M. it is actually 650 peak hour trips (332 inbound and 318 outbound)_ When
there is a mixed use of residential and commercial, obviously some of the people
who live on site are going to shop at the adjacent commercial and most likely that
relationship is a lot higher than some residential away from the project. Individuals
tend to shop at the closest location. There can be and is often a reduction to
account for the internal synergy. This particular study was done on a worst-case
basis so it did not make those reductions. In attempting to create the envelope
and looking at what mitigations were needed, that is one factor that makes it more
of a worst-case analysis that that particular reduction was not made within the trip
generation analysis. So the numbers shown are essentially worst-case. SENee
clarified to VC/Nolan that out of the 154 trips outbound A.M., 75 of those trips were
associated with the condominium development and 79 were associated with the
retail center.
C/Shah asked if a nine percent increase in Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea
Canyon Road P.M. traffic was a moderate or significant impact. Mr. Sasaki said
that for Diamond Bar Boulevard at Brea Canyon there were impacts that were
identified within the traffic study and then there were also offsetting mitigation
measures so it would be considered a significant impact that was identified
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 18 PLANNING COMMISSION
through the traffic study within the EIR. But then also there were mitigation
measures that were identified that would fix or offset those impacts.
Chair/Torng asked at what point — two percent or four percent - a fair -share
contribution would be required. SENee responded to Chair/Torng that the City's
traffic guideline in general refers to a greater than two percent impact would kick it
into a category of needing mitigation. The guidelines also indicate that if the City
determines that an impact less than two percent is judged to be significant it would
enable the City to require mitigation even though it did not meet the two -percent
requirement.
Chair/Torng asked staff to comment further on the impact to Copper Canyon
because he believed it would be very difficult to make a left turn at the peak hour.
Mr. Sasaki said it was an advantage to have an internal connection and the signal
at Silver Bullet presents an opportunity to make a left turn under signal control. In
the P.M. drivers make left turns from Brea Canyon into the development so if
someone is traveling southbound on Brea Canyon, residents do make a left turn in
but that was not viewed as problematic. Chair/Torng asked if striping could be
added to help the residents. Mr. Sasaki said it was not determined that there was
a project nexus. There may be over time that residents would ask for
improvements from the City to help improve ingress/egress at that location but that
would be separate from this project. Chair/Torng asked if they would go to the
Traffic and Transportation Commission and Mr. Sasaki said he did not know what
the process was for that in Diamond Bar but obviously, the project does not have
ingress/egress through that side street. So it is viewed as more of an issue related
to the neighborhood which very well could be legitimate and could be pursued for
improvement. As far as the study, it is viewed as something separate from the
project.
CDD/Gubman said that the reports were completed and staff would respond to
further questions.
VC/Nolan asked how the number of new homes for this project compares in
general to new home development over the past five years as it pertains to overall
traffic impacts citywide. CDD/Gubman responded that a total of 237 including the
Brookfield development which is about 186 attached units from 2005 through 2009
based on the number of Certificates of Occupancy issued. VC/Nolan asked staff
to elaborate on the issue of entitlement about the importance of how staff certified
this EIR as opposed to if the land was purchased and an EIR was done post sale.
CDD/Gubman said he touched on this matter before. Having a Certified
Environmental Document in hand and having some certainty of the entitlements in
terms of the land uses, the density, number of units and amount of square
footage, if that approval is already in hand it will add value to property when it is
marketed because the developer is not assuming that risk upon purchase.
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION
VC/Nolan asked if there had been thought given to a park and recreation area in
the form of a portion of this land being taken out of the sale and dedicated to the
City of Diamond Bar for park and recreation use. CDD/Gubman asked if VC/Nolan
intended that the commercial and residential mix would be retained but adding the
park component and VC/Nolan responded "adding the park component even as
part of the development and requiring that the developer create a park or just
taking a certain acreage out of the equation completely." CDD/Gubman said that
would be a discussion at a higher level but if it is the Commission's
recommendation to have that park feature added to this Specific Plan he would
presume, given the fiscally cautious approach the City takes on all matters of City
business that the City would require the subsequent developer to construct those
improvements and dedicate that to the City for public use. VC/Nolan asked if it
would make the project less feasible or desirable for a developer to come in if that
is a requirement and CDD/Gubman said he could not really answer whether it
would be less feasible. The sale price of the property would be affected if that was
a feature that the developer was obligated to construct and there may be other
funding tools that could be used such as adding what you might call a "door
charge" on the residential units that would be payable to the City because the park
would reduce square footage by potentially 80 cents to $1 dollar of foregone sales
tax revenue. As a result, the City may look to require some sort of fee to offset
that loss of revenue stream from the residential units. With all of those factors
taken into account, yes, the price tag on the property would reflect that
requirement as any other development requirement would also affect the price tag.
VC/Nolan said in that regard is there not already a fair -share amount toward park
service per dwelling unit or per envelope and CDD/Gubman responded
affirmatively and indicated that it is called a Quimby fee and for every development
unit there is an assessment that is payable and what he is saying is that the City
would look into exacting an additional fee from the residential development to
offset the fee of reduced sales tax revenue that would be required to
accommodate the park. CDD/Gubman said he was not suggesting that the fee he
is talking about is the Quimby fee, it is something in addition to the Quimby fee to
serve another purpose but it is the purview of the City Manager to determine how
to manage the City's revenues and expenses. There will be a loss of sales tax
revenue and there will be maintenance costs inherited with the addition of a new
park facility so the City would look at some means to offset those costs. VC/Nolan
said and those funds would go directly to this project site specifically as opposed
to the assessment for dwelling units which could be disbursed throughout other
parks in the City. CDD/Gubman said the funds would go into the General Fund
and through the budgeting process the money would be allocated. VC/Nolan
asked the potential length of a project like this from beginning to end when one
considers inconvenience of construction, construction hours, a particular concern
of hers with hours noted from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
CDD/Gubman stated that Mr. Rogers may be able to elaborate more on that issue
but it would probably be a 12-18 month process from permit issuance to having
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 20 PLANNING COMMISSION
pads ready for actual construction of buildings. Mass grading may take about six
months. Speaking from experience with construction hours he has worked in
communities where the noise regulations allowed construction to begin at 6:00
a.m. and as the community developed and the new development sites were
starting to be surrounded by populated development sites and there was beginning
to be an impact on new residents the City looked at having the noise ordinance
revised to require later construction hours and the hour was set at 7:00 a.m. He
worked in another community where the construction ordinance was 8:00 a.m. and
as development activity increased there was pressure from the construction
industry to allow an earlier start time and it is really a matter of coordination with all
of the trades and how the industry operates. There are concrete batching plants
that are mixing concrete that has a short shelf life and that material needs to be
delivered before it gets too hot; there are delivery trucks dropping off lumber and
they are trying to make their rounds and then as construction starts later in the day
and the weather is warm, the end time is not necessarily later in the day so it
shortens the duration of the work day so that could potentially lengthen the
construction period. So the balance seems to gravitate to 7:00 a.m. which seems
to be the earliest that the building industry can really continue to do business
under and it is seems to be the earliest tolerable time for surrounding residents.
So 7:00 a.m. seems to be the universal standard. VC/Nolan asked staffs
experience on surrounding property values for a project like this. CDD/Gubman
said there is probably data to show that a new development going in will positively
affect the comparable values and square foot values on older homes. As the
homes are newer it may have less of a positive effect but it seems to have
generally a positive effect on property values. With a commercial development
that is less certain and so that is a question of compatibility and sensitivity to
adjacent uses so taking that into account is what led to the increased setback
requirements and other screening requirements to try to focus the use in a location
that is farther away from residential development.
Chair/Torng asked staff to comment on Mary Rodriquez concern about ground
water flowing under the houses that sit on the slope at Cold Spring Lane and what
would be done about the flow of water without disturbing the housing above. Peter
Lewandowski stated that as indicated in the EIR, the geotechnical analysis was at
a programmatic level in the absence of a formal design plan. But subsurface
investigations were conducted and groundwater was encountered at a depth of 37
feet. Grading activities are not anticipated to encounter ground water as part of its
operations. And as part of typical grading procedures and practices, further
geotechnical review will be required at the building permit stage once final
development plans are finalized. To the extent additional geological conditions are
identified those will be composed as conditions of approval on subsequent
development projects. The subsurface ground water is not anticipated at this
stage to result in significant impacts to the project moving forward.
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 21 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/Torng asked the school district to comment on for what the proceeds of the
sale of this land can and cannot be used. Jack LeBrun, Assistant Superintendent
of Business Services, WVUSD, responded that the question regarding the use of
any type of capital outlay proceeds has to go back into the district's capital
improvement program. Currently, the school district is not allowed to use
proceeds to pay for salaries or ongoing operational expenses.
Chair/Torng asked for a more in depth explanation about the 1991 DBIA resolution
and why that is not a consideration. CDD/Gubman explained that the DBIA
Resolution that was passed in 1991 did formally record the position based on
survey information that a park is a preferred development for that site. Certainly
there has been public testimony that is indeed still the preferred alternative of
many for this site. He would just have to go through a few points to respond to
that. The first would be that subsequent to that resolution was the City's adoption
of the General Plan in 1995. The General Plan does not identify Site D as a park.
It retained, I would say, an inconsistency between the General Plan and zoning
designation but it was not formally established in the General Plan as a potential
park site. Prior to that, there was a grant application submitted by the City to
secure funding for a park site and there were two locations under consideration:
1) what is currently Pantera Park; and 2) Site D. The funding was approved for
Pantera and not approved for Site D. So that window of opportunity, the best
opportunity to see that (a park) happen was when the grant application was
submitted but it was approved for another site. Subsequent to that and after the
General Plan adoption in 1995, there were improvements to Heritage Park and
there were improvements to Castle Rock Elementary School keeping in mind there
is a shared use agreement between both the WVUSD and Pomona Unified School
District (PUSD) for school facilities to be used by Diamond Bar residents. Finally,
the Parks Master Plan that is currently being completed and will be presented for
City Council consideration does not include Site D as a potential park site; it does,
however, include future improvements to both Heritage Park and to Castle Rock
Elementary. So in that entire timeline the City has not taken a formal position or
adopted a policy to designate or to plan for Site D as a public park. And finally, the
MOU laid the groundwork for crafting of the Specific Plan. The basic criteria
indicated 50 percent commercial and 50 percent residential and under the MOU
there was no remaining percentage for a park use. Having said that, if the
Commission is leaning in the direction of incorporating a park component staff can
help formulate the recommendation to the City Council and staff believes that
doing so would not affect the environmental analysis or fundamentally affect the
Specific Plan.
Chair/Torng asked for deliberation and input from individual Commissioners.
C/Lee said his comments have been spoken loudly by the residents and he
believes his colleagues believe the Commission's function is very limited. The
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 22 PLANNING COMMISSION
Commission's function is to listen to the people and bring their issues and
concerns and discuss those issues and concerns and make an informed decision.
The decision should be for the people and not for someone else. Also, the EIR is
great and he listens to the people and agree with them that it does not go far
enough to answer the residents' worries and concerns. The concept and
implementation of the Site D Specific Plan looks great and appealing but he
believes that professional companies have the money and technology to have a
much respected profession like the City's consultants. But the residents have only
five minutes. They have limited time. Most of them work and do not have time to
prepare this type of appealing presentation that we have seen tonight. But he
believes it looks great and is a very good presentation but the facts do not change
and the facts do not lie. The fact is that the City has enough retail space already
and when he moved to Diamond Bar it used to take five minutes for him to get to
the project area down Diamond Bar Boulevard and now it sometimes takes 30-40
minutes. One resident sent him an email today that stated "Diamond Bar is a
virtual parking lot." And C/Lee thinks this is a temporary virtual parking lot but
Diamond Bar does not want a long term parking lot. That's his one comment.
Also, the EIR is pretty good but EIR is not everything. If there is a concern or
problem the EIR writes down that everything is fine and can be mitigated. He does
not believe that the EIR is a panacea. He understands there are professional
reasons for this project and he really respects the professionals. He does not want
to give any disrespect to them but even though they are professionals they do not
know the residents and if they live here they know better than anyone else. So if
the residents say there is a problem and this project will lead to negative impacts
to the community then he really respects the opinion of the residents. Sometimes
higher technology and speech does not make sense. Why does Diamond Bar
need more cars? Sometimes it does not make sense. Again, he really respects
his residents' opinion and concerns and their worries and their effort and energy to
come down here to express their ideas. And his job is to represent them and in
this instance, if it does not make sense and does not help the community he
believes there is no reason to modify or compromise the project. Sometimes when
we say no that makes for a better future.
C/Shah thanked staff and the consultants for a great presentation. He apologized
to his fellow citizens that he has to say no to further comment because if the public
hearing is opened again it may open up that issue over and over again and the
Commission will never get to its final decision. He takes this business very
seriously. At the same time he wants to make sure the process continues in an
expedient manner. At the same time we will do justice with the problem at hand.
He is keenly aware of the environment, neighborhoods, and needs of the people
and the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Really at this point of the debate at this
time is that the land belongs to somebody. Somebody wants to sell their land.
And the issue brought to the Planning Commission includes five or six items and
one of the items which is major is a General Plan amendment to change the land
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 23 PLANNING COMMISSION
use. If it is left the way it is, what will a new property owner do, and in the interest
of the City, the City decided to go into a MOU with the School District which states
50 percent residential/50 percent commercial. So with that background, the
Commission has to look at the overall picture and long range plan. He understood
that people want new things. He spent his time in transit and he has seen a lot of
NIMBYs—they want mass transit, but "not in my backyard." The same is true here
and we do not progress in our City, there will not be a computer, there will not be a
new automobile, there will not be a new society. So we need to move forward.
We can't just say "leave the land as it is." With the given plan, we have tools to
work at it. One of the tools is the EIR and is the tool right now at hand. It talks
about goals and objectives, long term horizons, tax implications and predictable
outcome. Ultimately, the bottom line is what this entitlement does, it adds value to
the property. And we are all in the business – people are in the business of
ultimately wanting to add value to their properties. Considering all of these factors
there are a few things that come to mind which the Commission should consider.
His concerns with the plan are cut and fill. You can cut and fill without having to
import or export dirt to maintain the natural environment and to develop this plan it
needs to be developed so that its environment is park like. One potential
discussion was that the City could develop the park but a small part of this 30 -acre
parcel. Not a bad idea recommended by his colleague. He would be of the
opinion that a future developer be allowed to develop in a park like environment
meaning what he saw today as planned and shown does provide more like a park
like environment more than a piece of land somewhere in the 30 acres—one acre,
two acres, three acres—because it boxes it in. When there is a commercial and
residential component nearby people may not feel comfortable using it as a park.
The City has Heritage Park nearby. There is a school nearby where people can
use that area. Though he is more willing to put in language the City is better off
leaving it to the future developer, but established criteria that the developer must
have a certain percentage of open space for the overall size. He does not know
the percentages required in Diamond Bar but that is the question he will be asking.
So considering all of the facts, he does want his fellow citizens to feel that the
Commission and staff does its job and the important thing is that he wants the City
to progress in such a manner to make sure that what is done today is a move
forward for future generations. He is open to other considerations but knowing
what he knows today the matter at hand is to examine the EIR and whether to
recommend or not to recommend.
VC/Nolan felt the EIR was not an end-all/be-all for this project. It is a tool to use to
come to a decision about what is best for the community at large, for the whole
City of Diamond Bar. It is true that the WVUSD has a right to dispose of this
property. Is it to the City's benefit to approve this EIR and obtain the entitlement
so the City has more of a say in how this will move forward. She disagreed
regarding the open space. She believed the property had approximately 8 or 9
acres of open space which is also considered easements, rights of ways and other
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 24 PLANNING COMMISSION
open areas. She wants an open green area. She wants a park like setting. She
wants a place for people to take their dogs. And again, she thinks it could fit nicely
with the type of community — the retail, the commercial community, that this has
envisioned. She thinks there is space for both. This is a blank slate. The City has
the opportunity to make this what the community wants to make it and to set the
ground rules. Her question for staff is, would it be best for the Commission to
come back to this issue after looking at whether a park area is feasible. She does
not feel comfortable moving forward with the term "park like."
CDD/Gubman said that during the break he drafted language that could be
incorporated into the resolution to recommend approval of the Specific Plan and
the Tentative Tract Map. If the Commission would like he can read the language
to see if it is consistent with the Commissioners' vision and if so, it can be
incorporated in a motion to adopt the resolution with the provisions as
recommended.
C/Lee said that if you insinuate or leave it as some unidentified area, the
Commission needs to decide the item but he (CDD/Gubman) says he wants to
give a suggestion to.....Chair/Torng interjected and said he thought CDD/Gubman
was responding to VC/Nolan and make a suggestion for her to consider. C/Lee
said maybe this is inappropriate because it is illegal for the Commission to
insinuate a decision for a certain area. Chair/Torng said that right now it is a
discussion and as you may recall, VC/Nolan just made a suggestion about a park
area.
ACA/Wohlenberg said that there are always staff's recommendations on items
before the Commission and he believed CDD/Gubman was attempting to react to
comments to provide language that would move toward that goal. But he does not
believe it insinuates any sort of predetermination of the Commission's action or
trying to restrict the Commission to a particular action. The Commission has wide
latitude to approve or deny or approve it with different modifications or change it. It
is merely an attempt to fulfill all usual role and suggest language that would reach
the goal that one of the Commissioners was proposing.
C/Lee felt that all of the Commissioners should make their comments and then
CDD/Gubman could read his recommended language and then the Commission
could deliberate. That would be his recommendation.
VC/Nolan asked her colleagues if she was out in left field or, did she have the
support of her colleagues being on board with this.
Chair/Torng felt that development of a new site is generally not a very popular
decision to be made. As a Commissioner he understands the residents' points of
views and shares their frustration in many aspects. However, as a Commissioner,
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 25 PLANNING COMMISSION
he and his colleagues must understand their role as a decision-making agency
and keep the objective in mind and endeavor to balance as a principal the
economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of a proposed project
against its unavoidable environmental risk in determining whether to approve a
project. If it cannot concur that legal, social, technological or other benefits of the
proposal outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, a diverse
environmental effects may be considered acceptable. Based on the project there
are some unavoidable air quality impacts that cannot be avoided but most of the
other issues including the major ones such as traffic and landscaping issues have
been mitigated -to a less significant level. As a Commissioner serving more than
eight years he really trusts that the staff is working extremely hard to make the City
better every day and he commends staff for doing such a good job in responding
to all of the questions, comments and concerns raised at the last meeting as well
as through the emails and letters. He also believed that the consultants' technical
expertise will make sure the mitigation measures will work to make this the best
possible project. From a benefit standpoint he believes the City needs the tax
revenue and the school district needs additional funds to support school activities.
And he feels it is important to maintain a healthy City and school district because
both will be a cornerstone of this community. A prestigious City with a prestigious
school district will for sure maintain the City's quality of life and housing values,
etc. The City's plan is a level A plan and is not the final development plan. But
with a Specific Plan, the City is able to set some important guidelines for the future
developer. He felt it was very important for the City to set limits and make sure the
best designed project will happen at Site D. He supports recommending inclusion
of a small park area in the commercial development area and let the City Council
make the final decision. And as he mentioned when he quoted a resident's
comments, he felt the comment that she hoped it will be an urban city center with
living shopping and park space set into the natural setting of Site D fit what he was
trying to convey.
VC/Nolan asked if the Commission should hear staff's recommendation for the
language to include.
C/Shah said his reference to a park like atmosphere was in support of an
environment and the developer should decide how to include that option. He was
thinking more on the order of unspecified open space areas where people can
congregate. Second, the Commission is not considering the appropriateness of
the MOU which has already been established with the relationship between the
City and school district. One thing he wanted to add to his comment was about
the trees and perhaps the City should consider having an arborist to review the
trees when the development occurs to advise the developer and the City whether
those trees could be saved or what could be done. His last comment is that this
should be a showcase solar energy efficient project for the City.
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 26 PLANNING COMMISSION
VC/Nolan said that regarding a park and regarding a specific location for it, she did
not believe in leaving it up to the developer, she did not want to take away
necessarily from the residential area. She likes that part of the plan. She thinks
even regarding parking or a small park would infringe on a residential area. She
would like to see something along Diamond Bar Boulevard, along Cherrydale
something that is not just specific to this project but for the community at large.
The south end of Diamond Bar has Heritage Park and schools but to her it is
lacking in this area. And she would like to see something more specific and she is
not even sure if a change in language right now would suffice. There's so much
put into the actual drawing, the grading, the specificity of the commercial and
residential, but to just toss in a plot for a park seems a bit of a rush.
C/Lee said he concurred with VC/Nolan. He loves parks. And he means it since
he moved down to Diamond Bar that area location was allocated for a park. He
likes parks. But he does not like building commercial and houses and taking a
small area for a park. It is a very complicated process if you want to get a park.
He wanted to make sure about VC/Nolan's intentions. He does not think that is
the idea of the residents. And sometimes we need to give them open space and
sometimes the City does nothing and then gives it to somebody else. Our kids —
the next generation -that's the issue right now. I always believe that development
is good for developers. They come down here to our City and whatever they say
and give you in a presentation or fancy words doesn't matter. The relevant fact is
that development of Site D shouldn't be—wouldn't be good for our residents. That
is the truth. And one does not alter or deviate it by other fancy words. That's my
second comment.
Chair/Torng skid that regarding the park addition it belongs to the Specific Plan
under the third resolution. CDD/Gubman indicated that Chair/Torng was correct
but he would advise the Commission not to make any decisions on any of those
three recommendations until the Commission discusses its intent for the park
provision because depending on what the Commission's intent is it may or may not
have an effect on the language of the Specific Plan or the Environmental Impact
Report. So he really believed the Commission needed to discuss this matter
before beginning its process of making decisions and motions on any of the
resolutions.
CDD/Gubman referred the Commissioners to Resolution 3 to recommend City
Council approval of the Tentative Tract Map and Specific Plan and offered the
following language on Page 3 which begins the resolution section. On Page 4 he
suggested that a subsection 'T'. be added: "At the time that a development plan is
formally submitted for Planning Commission consideration, the subsequent plan
shall incorporate within its boundaries a neighborhood park of sufficient size to
incorporate features such as, but not limited to, a tot lot, picnic tables and shade
structures." This would be supplemented by a Tentative Tract condition to require
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 27 PLANNING COMMISSION
the Final Map to include a lot that delineates the boundaries of the park as
prescribed under that new subsection that he previously read.
VC/Nolan said that since the Plan is already specific on acreage for commercial
and easements and things passed already, delineating the size is not
recommended? Or the location of it as opposed to being in the commercial area
rather than the residential. CDD/Gubman said that if it is VC/Nolan's desire to
recommend that level of detail he may have to confer with the EIR consultant and
City Attorney to see if staff needs to go back and look at the environmental
document to see if that would lead to more changes because the language he
proposed to her just now would not mandate any changes to the EIR. The more
precise the Commission wants to get, the recommended provisions still may be
immune from any changes to the EIR but he thinks staff would have to study that
further and come back to the Commission.
Following staff deliberation, CDD/Gubman stated that the staff's discussion had to
do with specifying a size and location and the agreement was that if the
Commission wishes to specify a minimum size of the park it would not affect the
analysis and EIR. The EIR does analyze a maximum intensity and density
scenario for residential and commercial so adding a park component would
potentially reduce the intensity of the commercial development but certainly not
increase it. It may reduce the traffic impacts because the park component may
generate some off-peak trip generation. Staff does not see any compromise to the
EIR. However, the location is problematic at this point so if the Commission were
to include a location at this time the recommendation going forward to the City
Council would not be in compliance with the Level A Plan before the Commission.
The limit would be specifying some of the programming and size without the
location.
C/Shah recommended the park be no less than three-quarters of an acre or about
30,000 square feet or something like that so that it does not involve changing the
EIR.
C/Lee asked if he could make a motion to continue.
CDD/Gubman said again, the issue staff is struggling with is whether or not the
Commission is intending to specify a location because that would be in conflict
with the A level Specific Plan designations for commercial and residential. If the
Commission wants to go into more specifics about aggregate park acreage or
aggregate acreage with a minimum per park site within the plan, staff can help
formulate that language in the resolution. Staff needs to re=`emphasize that getting
into the specifics of a location would not be consistent with the Draft Specific Plan
staff is presenting to the Commission.
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 28 PLANNING COMMISSION
VC/Nolan said that to do this tonight she does not know. She is going to be back
here in a couple of weeks so for her this is not a problem for the Commission to
continue this if it is something that has to be more formulated, there's got to be
more thought given to it. For her to pull out I want 2.25 acres designated to
this... She wanted something. They talked about the gateway — the view of the
City at this location and she thinks that has to be something like a park like setting.
She is not saying the corner of Brea Canyon and Diamond Bar Boulevard but
something along the line that preserves that visually pretty area that is visible to
the community to someone that does not live there is not necessarily going to walk
down the path which she thinks is a great idea to this area but someone will take
their kids to what is on the other side of town or on the other side of Diamond Bar
Boulevard. She is just not real comfortable. She does think that again, as it
pertains to the EIR she does not necessarily think, like CDD/Gubman says, it is
going to change that up a lot but she thinks this is just too big of a change to the
Specific Plan to not consider all of the three elements together.
Mr. Rogers said he keeps coming back to the process that the City is in which is
an A level and B level map. A saying in the business is "The devil is in the details"
and it truly is. The details, in terms of configuration on these properties have not
yet come forward. The intent.was not to, as an applicant or through the school
district to try and design the project specifics. The wonderful thing about this
process because this is what we have been doing on the Irvine Ranch for
decades, is that we create this envelope or umbrella under which we understand
how setbacks work, how development standards work, thresholds in intensity, to
get the process past some of the bigger meatier parts. He kind of agreed with
VC/Nolan, but in the sense that trying to deliberate on the location and specifics of
the park in this setting is a tough call. When VC/Nolan asked "how big a park"
well, it's programmatic and C/Shah's comments about three quarters of an acre
minimum — those are all the kinds of details that quite frankly he thought were
borne out of the B level effort. He said he was not trying to defer it and he was not
trying to shrug the responsibility of doing this but he was suggesting that an
applicant that comes to the City with a commercial plan, in the creativity that he
can elicit in the process of working with his architects and landscape architects
with the mandate that the City might set forth at this A level might be a more
productive venue for the Commission to vet these issues and get into those details
with him and really force it out at that level because that is where he thinks it is
most appropriate. The problem is if we just plop a blob in there and say a park
has to be right there, maybe what we're doing is we're inhibiting the creativity of
the future applicant at the B level. So with that in mind, and remember, that is the
most substantive part in terms of this issue. Where is the park located? Well, a lot
of things have to be developed in an understanding of that commercial site plan to
discover that and he would believe that the City might be doing a disservice to the
future purchaser of that property to make all of those decisions in advance.
Maybe it is good enough that there is a performance criteria overlaid on this
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 29 PLANNING COMMISSION
project. He said he appreciated that VC/Nolan wanted to get to certainty and the
predictable outcome that he keeps talking about but perhaps it is better at the next
level.
Chair/Torng said that actually in a way he concurred with staff's response on this
because actually, the location you suggested by VC/Nolan at Cherrydale, he does
not like that idea. He likes Mr. Roger's suggestion for the idea of the corner of
Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard. At this time the Commission is
not going into the details and he believed that was a level II or Plan Level B, and
right now the Commission is at Level A. Chair/Torng asked if the Commission
could accept C/Shah's recommendation for a three quarter of an acre minimum
with the location to be determined because he has a different opinion that
VC/Nolan.
VC/Nolan said she did not think it so specific, she thinks it is more general than
specific. I just would like more thought put into it. We have 50/50 percent - I don't
know if any third grader could come up with that figure but I would like to think
there would be something that is more concrete regarding size, regarding location,
that is just not random. This is why we are doing this so we can be on the front
end of what we want. And maybe I am the only one that wants it and that would
be fine. But she just thinks it is just still too obscure.
Chair/Torng asked that based on what VC/Nolan said what is the best that staff
can do with the current plan? CDD/Gubman said at this point he would suggest
that the Commission continue the matter because he needs to discuss this further
with Counsel because he is not sure why a location cannot be specified and he
needs to have a better understanding of why? Because this is still a
recommendation to the City Council and the City Council is going to give the final
direction on what changes, if any, are incorporated into this planning document.
Right now he would suggest that the Commission continue the matter to May 11,
2010, and give him a chance to consult with the City Attorney and with the
consultants and come back to the Commission with more developed guidance for
formulating the Commission's recommendation.
Chair/Torng said that for him his location is different from VC/Nolan. He does not
like her location so he does agree that this is something that the Commission
should set the requirements that it wants a park and wants to put that into the plan
and let the developer know so that they have to create something — a park, for this
location. AC/Wohlenberg said that the discussion would be whether or not the
City can specify a location. And then that would be something the Commission
would have to debate at the next meeting and decide if you want to specify a
particular location or not. There may be three votes for that, there may not be.
But we want to make sure we can or cannot let the Commission recommend a
specific location.
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 30 PLANNING COMMISSION
VC/Nolan said she did not necessarily say it would have to be at that corner. She
just would like some research done on it, some thought put into it. I mean if staff
has an idea now that would be great too. She did not mean to insult anyone by
saying that any third grader could come up with the 50/50 percent on this but it just
seems — I would just like something a little more concrete and still give a developer
leeway. But something that we have more envisioned. I just don't think we're
being specific.
C/Shah stated that he felt that given the opportunity for Plan B and let the
developer come in the future and present a location and the Commission will get
another report at that time because the Commission will see the entire picture.
Right now we are seeing just three lots there and we do not know how they are
going to develop them. He stated that he likes the idea of Mr. Rogers that leave it
to the future developer; and maybe we should just identify the need for the park.
He stated that he is of the opinion that maybe we should establish some criteria —
any area and the criteria you describe — tot lot, etc., but leave it for the future and
the Planning Commission will get an opportunity to debate and decide. But at that
time the Commission will have a better picture because we will know what other
things are being developed in the area. We will have better information. He
recommended not to insist on location at this time, but just insist on a park and an
area of that park so at least we have areas (i.e., acreages) identified for the
commercial and areas identified for the residential pads so let's identify the area
for the park.
C/Lee said he concurred with C/Shah's idea — a portion of it. Let's move on.
C/Shah moved, Chair/Torng seconded, to Adopt a resolution recommending that
the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report, approve the Mitigation
Report and Monitoring Program, and adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the Site D Specific Plan and related Zone Change,
General Plan Amendment, and Tentative Tract Map. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng
Lee
None
Nelson
C/Shah moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to adopt a resolution recommending that the City
Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 to change the land use
designations from Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (c) to Specific Plan (SP);
and Zone Change No. 2007-04 to change the zoning map designations from Low Density
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 31 PLANNING COMMISSION
Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan. Motion carried by
the following Rall Call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng
Lee
None
Nelson
The Commission discussed continuation of Recommendation 3 and CDD/Gubman
proposed modified language to reflect the Commission's request.
CDD/Gubman reiterated "at the time that a development plan is formally submitted for
Planning Commission consideration, the subsequent plan shall incorporate within its
boundaries a neighborhood park of sufficient size to incorporate features such as, but not
limited to, a tot lot, picnic tables and shade structures, and shall be a minimum of three-
quarters of an acre.
Chair/Torng asked if the Commission could make it one acre. Why make it three-quarters
of an acre? CDD/Gubman said that is what he heard before so if he
misunderstood... C/Shah said no, an acre is fine.
Chair/Torng asked the Commissioners to remember this is Plan A with certain guidelines.
If the Commission starts to get into a specific location it would become a different plan.
He liked Mr. Roger's idea about integrating a park with the location with an eating area
with a park surrounding it. It looked to him pretty good. But VC/Nolan's idea is at
Cherrydale so then it would require a little more detail to justify it. VC/Nolan said it was
not specifically Cherrydale. She knows she brought that up. But it is something, again,
an entrance viewpoint for the City that when people drive down Diamond Bar Boulevard
they see a park, that the residents see a park and that it is visible and usable for the
community. She stated that she thinks an acre is a little small, is looking at this to some
extent from the perspective of a mom.
Chair/Torng asked if there was any more discussion. ACA/Wohlenberg said staff had
one more change to read into the record. CDD/Gubman said he was reminded that the
Commission discuss multiple locations with an aggregate size so he wants to make sure
he understands so that staff provides the Commission with the language. So do we want
it to say "park area or areas with an aggregate size of at least one acre? C/Shah said he
was of the opinion of two acres total and one particular lot is no less than one acre, then
there would be two areas and let the developer decide what those two areas would be or
where it could be.
CDD/Gubman said what if the two areas were contiguous so that it was a total of two
acres. C/Shah said that would be okay. ACA/Wohlenberg clarified that it could be two
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 32 PLANNING COMMISSION
park areas with a total aggregate area of two acres, one of the areas to be at least one
acre in size. C/Shah said "that is correct, very well stated."
VC/Nolan said that if two acres is too big she would rather see an acre and one-quarter of
something nice and particular. She appreciates the idea of two acres, but is that too
much of an infringement into the commercial area?
CDD/Gubman stated that staff would strongly suggest that this item be continued to give
staff a chance to study this to determine what a different park size would afford. Two
acres could have a significant effect on the viability of the commercial site. One may be
sufficient to provide all of the amenities that the Commission envisions. Staff needs to go
back and study this. The one item staff wants to look at is the Planning Commission
rules. It may be more appropriate to take one motion for all three actions at once rather
than leave this evening with two down and one to go.
Chair/Torng felt the Commission had consensus and was waiting for staff's language.
The Commission has consensus in a way that this is an important Specific Plan but we
want a park. But how much and how to do that is something we are waiting for staff to
provide guidance, and within the limits and not to kind of impact the fiscal responsibility
and not to impact the EIR and those kinds of things. So actually, the Commission can
make a decision or wait until staff comes back and just notify the Commission with the
appropriate language.
VC/Nolan said she had to respectfully disagree to take staff's recommendation to give
this a little more thought and we may come back with the same thing and do this again in
two weeks with just a little more specificity, a few more details. There are just a lot of
different things out there and now was your recommendation for the Commission to take
all three items as a whole does that negate what we already voted on?
C/Shah said there were two or more experts here and he has some experience
visualizing one acre, two acre, three acre and he does agree that one or one and a
quarter acre or one and one half acre are insufficient for a neighborhood park. He kind of
agreed with the Chair to agree with staff's experience and expertise on acreage which
would not impact the future development or the school district and if that is in staff's
opinion, sufficient, then he thinks the Commission should consider that. He thinks the
Commission should be open to hear the experts and if they believe one acre is fine, so be
it. He does not think it is very difficult right now at this stage to visualize it. Everybody
agrees in principle that we need a park. The issue is whether it should be one acre, one
and one half acre, or what. That is the issue.
Chair/Torng likened this debate to the parolee homes wherein the Commission wanted
the maximum distance. So we can identify the language to the maximum size of the park
that staff can identify for the Commission.
APRIL 27, 2010 . PAGE 33 PLANNING COMMISSION
VC/Nolan said she thought if staff was willing to go back, rethink this, give it some more
detailed thought outside of this arena right here and come back, it may be as general as
C/Shah recommends. It may be more specific to this is residential, this is commercial,
whether it's specific land and location, she just likes the idea that staff seems to be
recommending that the Commission come back in two weeks and revisit this particular
item.
C/Lee said the Commission already made a motion for item one and number two. There
is no reason they should be combined together. If VC/Nolan thinks the recommendation
is good make a motion for that and we get some action. VC/Nolan said she did not just
want to do it_ I don't just want to pull a place and a number out of my hat. C/Lee said no
- just make a motion for continuance.
ACAANohlenberg said he wanted to make a point of procedure and parliamentary
procedure. These three resolutions constitute a single action and he wants to make sure
there is not an issue with when a statute of limitations starts to run or anything like that so
that all three are done at the same time. The Commission's rules allow for a motion of
reconsideration be taken at the same meeting where the Commission has already taken
action on a resolution item. So what he would recommend is that the Commission
proposed a motion for reconsideration of the first two items with that decision to be made
simultaneously with the consideration of the third resolution so that we have sort of
undone that approval and just moved it out to coordinate with the third resolution.
VC/Nolan said, so we would be voting again on the first two items that we voted on
already? ACA/Wohlenberg said first there would be a motion for reconsideration on the
first two items. If that passes then those items would be reconsidered simultaneously
with the third so they would be then sort of unapproved and for consideration those would
be moved to be simultaneous with the third.
C/Lee said he had a question about that. The agenda clearly separates Items 1, 2 and 3
and then you said about a resolution. For example, if I agree with item number 2 and
don't agree with item 3 then he cannot express his opinion if he votes on all three at once.
If the items are separate he can express his opinion on a certain item. With them
combined together no matter whether I agree or disagree with a certain item I cannot do
that. ACA/Wohlenberg said they would all still be voted on separately. He wanted to
make sure because the project requires all three resolutions. If two were to pass and one
were to not pass he would not be sure what would happen with that. So in order to make
sure action is taken on all three of them either approval or denial, he wanted to make sure
they were all approved simultaneously because they all do constitute a single project. So
the Commission has taken action on two and if the Commission is not taking action on
the third yet he does not know if that will trigger any problems with review or appeal of
those where there are essentially two approved resolutions that could go up, but they are
essentially useless without the third and he does not know what kind of problems or
delays that may cause the City. So to just avoid that problem his recommendation would
be to pass a motion for reconsideration on Items 1 and 2 so that they can be considered
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 34 PLANNING COMMISSION
again at the next meeting so that at the next meeting staff has to come back with the
additional information about the third resolution but the Commission would also then just
start at the beginning again and consider Resolution number 1, Resolution number 2 and
then Resolution number 3. Chair/Torng asked if at the next meeting the Commission
would come back and go directly to deliberation or go through the whole process.
ACA/Wohlenberg said the Commission would go directly to the resolutions. The
Commission may want some additional deliberation amongst the Commission in orderto
make that decision. There is no problem with doing that and that does not bring up any
due process issues like when there is public testimony. This is just the Commission
acting. So the Commission is saying we need more information. Find that information
and bring it back so we can continue our deliberation on a particular date.
VC/Nolan moved, C/Shah seconded, for reconsideration of Items 1 and 2 and request
that staff bring back recommendations and additional information regarding the
designation of a specific park space or size on May 11, 2010. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson
9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
C/Shah thanked everyone for their consideration this evening and thanked staff and the
consultants for their good effort.
VC/Nolan thanked everyone for their patience and said she looked forward to visiting this
again in two weeks.
Chair/Torng thanked staff and the consultants for their efforts. Thanks to the audience
that stayed with the Commission for such a long meeting.
10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
10.1 Public Hearing dates for future proiects.
11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in tonight's agenda.
APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 35 PLANNING COMMISSION
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman
Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 10:54 p.m.
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 11th day of May, 2010.
Attest:
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Gubman
Community Development Director
.--. orng, Chai .