Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/2011MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2011 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Shah 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: CDD/Gubrhan led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Steve Nelson, Tony Torng, Vice Chairman Kwang Ho Lee, Chairman Jack Shah Absent: Commissioner Jimmy Lin was excused. Also present:. Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Brad Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; David Alvarez, Assistant Planner, and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 2.1 MATTERS FROM THE 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 25, 2011. C/Torng moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 25, 2011, as submitted. Motion I carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS 5. OLD BUSINESS: None Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah None Lin DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Review of Possible Sale and Disposal of Surplus City Property located at the Southeasterly Corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Cannon Road for conformance with the City's General Plan. CDD/Gubman presented staff's report and recommended that - the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution finding the possible disposal of the approximately 0.97 -acre vacant parcel located on the southeasterly corner. of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road to be in conformance with the City's General Plan. C/Torng asked if this property sale should be 'bundled with the school district's sale of Site D, which would help the City from a traffic and transportation standpoint. CDD/Gubman responded that that is the objective because the school district owns its piece of property and the City owns its small strip of property so the: City has to go through procedural steps in. order to dispose of each respective parcel of land. When these procedural steps are completed, both properties will be bundled and sold as one package. C/Nelson asked if the sale of the property was condition ' ed on a.particular development of the site that combines both properties and CDWGubman responded yes, that it would be required even if the developer chooses to not build any homes or do any type of development other than.landscape improvements but build all of the houses on the school district property and will be obligated to construct the intersection improvements on the City's piece of land. C/Nelson said he was asking if there was a particular development plan for. the bigger parcel with which the City's property would be combined and if the sale of the properties was contingent upon the City approving that particular plan. CDD/Gubman responded that the City Council is scheduled to approve the Specific Plan that will set forth criteria for a future developer. When the .property is sold, among the obligations for that developer to submit their actual project plans will be to complete the intersection improvements. C/Nel.soh said his question was as follows: Lewis Companies wanted to put multi -tenant family housing. The City wanted to have commercial. How is that intent involved in the purchase 'and sales agreements? CDD/Gubman responded that there was an initial effort on the City's part to have a commercial component the City Council 'made the decision that there would be no developed on the site, and through the public hearing process 'commercial DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION development on 'the property so commercial development has been eliminated altogether. The official direction of the City Council is that the Site D Specific Plan be 100percent residential with other. amenities including. a park which has been prescribed. The particulars of how the project will be designed will be forthcoming but the project will be .100 percent residential. VC/Lee asked if the City bought this property from Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD) and CDD/Gubman responded no,. the property was purchased from a private property owner for $950,000. VC/Lee asked who initiated the plan to sell this property.after owning it for a short. period of time and. effort and wanted to know why a map of the property was not included. . CDD/Gubman explained that the intent has always been.to sell.this property. The City acquired, the property to enhance the development.*potential for the-. schooldistricfi property. One of the important goals for acquiring this property was.to widen the intersection to make traffic flow better and the other' reason was, to provide driveway access into a future: shopping center but that is no longer part of the project. The main purpose for - this . piece of _land is* to, provide the intersection improvement. The City -owned parcel is about 4.6 percent of the entire Site D acreage so when all of Site D sells, the City will receive 4.6 percent .of the `sale price. back. So if: the property sells for $20 million, for example, the City would receive a little under.$1. million which is about the .same amount the. City originally paid for the property. By having this property to offer along with the sale of the Site D property, it will. add value to the City at large. VC/Lee asked when the property would sell and CDD/Gubman responded that the school., district would. like to put the Site D property up for public bids about mid February 2012: VC/Lee said he did not understand because the City's money purchased this property: There is another entity involved and , later on when that entity sells the property, the. City will get its money back but the City does not ' know for sure when it will be sold. ACA/Wohlenberg .explained that the Site D Specific Plan anticipates the use of the entirety of Site .D,. a portion of ' which is owned ' by the City and. as a single project," the developer would purchase the land as a whole a portion from the school district and a: portion of the City's property, both at the same time, take title at the'same time and develop the entire parcel as a single development. The City Council voted to acquire .the property : and. voted to, spend the money to participate in the development of the site and the next step is for the City Council to approve the sale of this parcel to whomever the DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION deve.loper might be. What the Planning Commission is doing tonight is one step in the City Cou.ncil's approval, and the Government Code requires that the Planning Agency (Planning Commission) make the finding that the disposal of the property would be in conformance with the City's General Plan which is what the resolution addresses. The Council has jurisdiction over the process and tonight's. action is .part of the required process for the City Council to move the process forward. Chair/Shah asked if the City would participate in the negotiations for the sale of -the Property, and if the City decided to not sell its portion, would it have a choice-, or would .it be legally, bound to sell the City's parcel along with the school district's parcel. CD.D./Gubman responded that the. school district received an appraisal for the entire site and when it goes out to bid the minimum bid price will be set at the appraised amount. Because the appraised amount is in excess of $20 million, the City will not lose any of its initial investment so the intent is to sell both pieces as one package and the ..City would * then draw its proceeds in accordance with. the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that the City previously entered into with the school district which states that 4.6, percent of. the. entire proceeds. would come back to .the City and be placed in the City's General Fund. *C/Nelson.aske'd hoW'the. 4.6 percent relates to the. amount for which the City, purchased the parcel. CDD/Gubran. reiterated that it does not relate to what the: City paid for the parcel. The. City paid $050,000 and expects to. recoup at. least that Much through the, sale of the property. C/Nelson. stated that the City expects zero, profit.. CDD/6ubmari'said he.do6s not know whether the City will profit. CDD/Gu,bman said the property was Purchased at the height of the market and if the. property is disposed.of at this time and the City breaks even, it will regain,.its initial investment., C/Nelson further stated that it was not a wise. investment. CDD/Gubman stated .that the purchase was. based on the fact thatthe. development. would be a mixed -.use project which did not happen. VC/Lee- said he heard the. estimated purchase price was $30 million and asked if the* $2O'million was a threshold, guarantee or a- guideline., CDD/Gubman. reiterated that the',mi.nimum bid price is the. appraised value. . If no -bids are. received that. are at least the minimum bid-,amouht, the City and school. district would not be,'compelled to sell the property. ACA/Wohlenberg:explained to VC/Lee that when the City sells property or disposes of -property that it owns, the rule it is Concerned 'about is that the DECEMBER 13, 2011. PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION .sale or transfer not be considered a "gift" of public funds. A gift of public funds occurs where there is a transfer of some value where the City does not receive back some sort' of benefit whether'it be a public benefit or financial benefit and there has to be some proportional benefit to what the City receives .back in order to have it not be considered 'an illegal gift of public funds. The "gift funds restriction" is part of the California Constitution to keep government agencies from handing out money to friends and benefactors. When determining what the price might be on a parcel, when `selling or acquiring property; the City has the property appraised so that the City knows what the market price of the property, is and if it. is within a reasonable range of what the market price is, the transaction would not be considered a. gift of public funds at point of sale or purchase. When this sale moves forward; it will be based on the appraisal of the property and the school district will seek .bids and determine what developers might want• to purchase and whether they .wilt construct the property according: to the approved plans. Someone could purchase the property and' obtain a different set of approvals processed but there is value to: having entitlements jn .place..:In'.short, the City is concerned. about the "gift.of public funds" anduses an appraisal to.help establish, what the market price is to avoid the gift of•public funds. If the bids are significantly under the appraised price; there is no..obligation on the school district orCity'spart to accept that bid because in addition to perhaps being .an unwise decision, it. may. also implicate.the public funds ban. Whenever the bids, go.out, the minimum .bid the school district and City are seeking would, be the appraised value. Someone might pay more, but the school district and City- are not,bound.to accept less...So the City may end up not disposing of this property if the: bids come in significantly. low. If the.bids come in equal to or higher than, the appraised value it will likely be sold but that is ultimately the.City Council's decision and the City . Council could also decide, within. the scope of the MOU with.the school district,, carry out the sale at a different time:`,.• r+tnI-I-- ,.,.G -A ;.,k— +ho nnnrmi6nI Iniac rinna anis rnn/r;iihmnn DECEMBER 13; 2011 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nelson asked what depreciation there has been in the value of the property since the City purchased it and CDD/Gubman. responded about a 30 percent decrease in value so the recovery of the initial investment is thankfully tied to the overall value of 4.6. percent of the overall site. C/Nelson asked.the downside of not selling the property at this time and instead waiting five or 10 years. How critical are the revenues from the sale of this property.to the City's, operations? CDD%Gubman responded that is more a matter, of the property being tied to the Specific Plan project boundary so the sale of. that. property has been through the Specific Plan and environmental documents as well as, the MOU between the City and the school district which contains language that ..expressly states. the property would be sold as -a single unit.. CDD/Gubman responded to. C/Nelson that as he recalls, it does not contain language that the sale must occur "by a certain date." C/Nelson asked if the City really needed to. short -sell the property and CDD/Gubman stated .that if the school district wishes to sell the property, the City's piece is part of .that proposed sale and in order .to withhold sale 'of the property there. would need to be a XM change in the Memorandum of Understanding to divorce the City's parcel from the remainder of the property:. C/Nelson asked . how important the City's piece was to the overall project and.CDD/Gubman. responded. that the City's. property has limited development potential and if it becomes. part of the overall Site D development site,.. it can at least be enhanced with parkway improvements and traffic improvements. C/Nelson asked if the City owned parcel was critical ' to the overall .development and CDD/Gubman said he would not say: that the, school district could not develop its parcel without the City's parcel; but as. a standalone, piece of . property it has very limited development potential because there is no ability to make left turns in and out of the property so without. the possibility of combining the City's parcel with the larger school district property for development potential, the. usefulness of. the school district's property is reduced to landscaping and intersection improvements. VC/Lee said he does not mind if the City pursues public development but this property is selling to the private sector and he does not understand why the City offered this formula. If the City wants, a. benefit, Jt seems to him that the City should sell .its parcel to the school district or.directly to an. investor or leave this parcel alone, let the school district develop its parcel and the City can sell its parcel for a higher price: As he said before, there are different formulas but why would the .City make this .kind of offer to the school: district and get a percentage when. the City would .b.e helping the school district.and the developers. The City should pursue its benefits too DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION and it seems to him that the benefit of this sale goes to the school district and developer and the project will create a lot of traffic. Is there any other option the City can pursue for. its benefit? CDD/Gubman said the City could choose to hold the property and tryto..sell it, and the City has looked at marketing the property as a standalone piece of property. The City looked at the feasibility of developing a gas station on the property which would generate not only the 'sale price but ongoing sales tax revenue as well. Unfortunately; the property is too shallow (too narrow) to enable that goal. VC/Lee asked CDD/Gubman to describe. the physical condition of the. property and CDD/Gubman responded that he can only tell the Planning Commission with sincerity that. staff has looked at -the site. and it' would not support a gas station. VC/Lee asked if the City could pursue any other options and. CDD/Gubman. responded. that "the, City.. Council could decide to negotiate: a change to the MOU or to dissolve the MOU in an : attempt to market- the property individually. VC/Lee asked if the' Planning Commission was being asked to'decide whether or not to sell the property and ACA/Wohlenberg, responded that the MOU that the City Council entered into with the school district was that the two parcels would be combined.to create a.larger :and more.'easily developed parcel, process the approvals for the larger portion and sell the larger portion and divide the revenues proportionate to how much each party invested. It is notthat the City is selling its property to the. School .district for cheap and they are profiting from it,. it is that the City and the `school district worked out a deal. as. to how these contiguous prope rties.would be developed' as one parcel with the proceeds split accordingly. . All aspects of the MOU are .in place and the City is past the point of considering other options since during the process the;City entered into an agreement with the school, district. to carry out the. simultaneous development and sale and the 4.6 percent is the portion of the City's contribution to the ,project. Most .of. the contribution . has come .from. the. school district side so' the school district would obviously get a significantly larger share. .Tonight,, all the Planning. Commission isbeing asked to decide is if the City proceeds with the sale as anticipated by the MOU, is .the use compliant with the City's General Plan. That is the issue before the Planning Commission this evening. C/Nelson said that if the Planning Commission. approves this item the City has to take 1/3. of the.value the City paid for the parcel. It is not right, but what would be right. CDD/Gubman again explained that the property is going to sell. for an amount that is at least the amount of the appraised . . value and the City will receive at least.4.6-percent of that price. DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Torng' said. he ,believed the intent was to have a parcel. that would benefit the City. Perhaps the amount the City .will receive will benefit the City in the long run rather than trying to reap. a financial benefit from the sale. : He believes it is important that the project is .developed under the proposed Specific Plan .in order to benefit the. City. Chair/Shahstated .that the MOU stipulates. that the City's parcel be sold along with the school district's parcel and states that the parcel can be sold whenever one of the two, entities decides to dispose of the property.. Because of thetiming, the City is not getting. appreciation on the property.. There are two ways . to look at it. One is to negotiate with .the school district for a higher percentage split because they want to sell it during a down-market nor, consider the. overall benefit..to the .City becausethat parcel. is sitting fallow and when the, parcel is developed, the City will be the ultimately benefactor.. Today the issue is the resolution for possible disposal of, the City's parcel to be in conformance with the City's General I Plan and he believes Council should proceed. and approve the resolution.' Perhaps this is the best benefit to. the City. CfTorng moved, VC/Leeseconded, to adopt a Resolution. No.. 2011-26 finding the possibledisposal of the approximately 0.97 -acre vacant parcel located on the southeasterly corner.of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon .Road, to be in conformance with the City's General. Plan, as corrected by. staff. Motion carried by th,e.following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Torng,',VC%Lee, Chair/Shah . NOES:. `COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT:. COMMISSIONERS: Lin - 7. PUBLIC.HEARINGS: . Conditional Use Permit No. PL2011-349 Under the authority, of Diamond Bar ' Development Code Section 22.58, ..the applicants,. Randy Dimacali and Rafael . Nunez, are requesting, approval _ to install . a micro cellular antenna on a new concrete pole in the. Public Right -of -Way (ROW) along the west, side of,Chino Hills Parkway south of. Chino Avenu.e.. PROJECT ADDRESS: Chino Hills Parkway Right-of=Way DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNER: City of Diamond Bar APPLICANT: Randy Dimacali, Coastal Communications .3355 Mission Avenue, Suite 234 Oceanside, CA 92058 And Rafael Nunez NextG Networks of California, Inc. 2125 Wright Avenue, Suite C9 La. Verne, CA 91750 AP/Aivarez presented staff's report and ..recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No, PL2011-349, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution: C/Torng asked what the future anticipated use was ,and AP/Alvarez responded that staff included a condition that improvements would need to be made in the event of future development such as having the unit. mounted on top of a street light. C/Torng said he was asking if there Was any future development planned in the area and CDD/Gubman responded that this project is in the center of Tres Hermanos. which consists of about 700 acres in the City of. Diamond Bar, which is owned by the City of Industry. As far as staff knows, there are no plans in the' foreseeable future for any development so this wireless facility is strictly to close the gap along that roadway section for motorists traveling along Chino Hills Parkway: . Chair/Shah asked if this network leases out to different providers. ACA/Wohlenberg responded that NextG does .not serve retail customers directly but lease capacity on their network to existing retail carriers, as needed... Chair/Shah opened the public hearing.. Joe Malone, Next G Networks .of California, Inc., said he was present to answer questions from the Commissioners. With no one present who wished to speak on ,this matter; Chair/Shah closed the public hearing. DECEMBER 13,'2011 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION. C/Nelson moved, C/Torng seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. PL2011-349, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval. as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson Torng, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lin 7.2 Tentative Parcel Map and Parking Permit Case No. PL2011-260 - The applicant requested approval of. a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide an, : existing 4.4 -acre. shopping center into three separate . parcels and a Parking Permit to share driveway access.. and parking between the newly.. created properties. No new construction will take place and.there will be no physical changes to the. building and . property.. The Planning. Commission is;. asked to recommend review and approval to the City Council :of the entitlements The property . is zoned Community. Commercial (C-2) with a consistent. underlying General Plan land, use designation of General Commercial. PROJECT ADDRESS:. .300424 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond.Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Black Equities Group, Ltd. 433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 1070 Beverly Hills,. CA 90210 APPLICANT:. Joseph C. Truxaw and: Associates, Inc.. 265 S. Anita Drive;: Suite 111 Orange, CA 92868 SP/Lee presented staffs report and recommended.that the Planning Con mission ` recommend. approval of .the Tentative .Parcel Map and'. Parking Permit. No. PL2011 260 to the City Council, based on the:. Findings of Fact .. and subject to. the conditions of approval as listed within thedraft resolution. C/Torng asked how the applicant would benefit .by creating .'separate .parcels. SP/Lee said. she does not know the exact intent of.the-applicarit 'at this time but it DECEMBER 13, .2011 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION would allow the current'property owner to sell off each individual parcel. C[Torng asked if multiple owners might present an obstacle to future development and SP/Lee said that it was a possible outcome; however, separation of the parcels is allowed via the Subdivision Map Act as well as the Municipal Code. Chair/Shah pointed out that Chase. has two fewer parking spots than what is required and SP,/.Lee pointed out that while Chair/Shah is correct., there is, a reciprocal parking agreement among the three properties. Chair/Shah opened the public hearing. Steven Hagar, Joseph C. Truxaw and Associates, Inc. the surveyor who. is e on -sup preparing this parcel map,, spok' behalf. of the property owner in port of. the -project. With respect to the purpose of subdividing, while it, would allow.for properties being' , disposed . of separately,, to his, knowledge. and through discussions, with the property owner,, it is not his intent to do so at this time. However, the property owner wants tho.flexibility of having separate properties. for the purpose of having building's on separate properties, -which* allows for flexibility in 'refinancing portions of the property. without* encumbering the entire . parcel. Chair/Shah closed the public hearing-. VC/Lee moved to recommendthat the Planning Commission recommend pb . apI rval of the Tentative Parcel Map and Parking.Permit No. PL 2011-260 to the City Council, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft 'resolution..'C/N.elson said. he could not think of another reason to subdivide this��prop6rty other than to sell it at the highest and best value for each parcel and -does not believe the casep e resented convinced him otherwise. He has no reason and believes the Commission has no reason to deny the. proposal and seconded the motion. pending comments from .other Commissioners. C/Torng- felt the.* applicant's 'comments were honest and the applicant has followed the rules. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: DECEMBER 13,..2011 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson Torng, VC/Lee', Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS:. None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lin 8.. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Torng wished everyone a Merry Christmas and .,Happy Holidays. C/Nelson; VC/Lee and Chair/Shah echoed.C/Torng's comments: 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: AP/Alvarez reported on the six month review of the. CUP for the tutoring center at 782-784.Pinefalls Avenue. The. applicant submitted a notarized, affidavit stating that 1) the business commenced on Auguste 12, 2011;.2) the current student enrollment' is 30 students, and 3). the.,applicant has n.ot received ' any complaints regarding parking at the facility. Staff visited the site on November. 30, 2011, at. approximately 2:30 p.m. and counted, four vehicles on.. 'the property with 10. students :arid 2 instructors in session.: No parking issues. related to the operation of the, tutoring . center :were .observed. Moreover, the City. has: not received any complaints about the.site. On the basis of the representations of the applicant and observations of staff, no changes to the current approval are . recommended at this time. 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects.'. CDD/Gubman . stated that there will not be -a Planning Commission meeting on December 27. During that, week.staff will be packing: and moving to. its new City Hall location...on. December 2$.. and 29; City Hall functions will be.. temporarily. relocated .to .the Diamond Bar. Center to ensure ongoing customer service during the relocation. The next scheduled. Planning Commission meeting is January 10, 2012, with two items on.the agenda, one for a room additionand one. fora time extension., for the condominium map for the Diamond Jim's Dairy location approved by the Planning . Commission a couple of years ago.. This project is nearing grading permits .and there ' are technical issues .regarding the. sewer pump. which is required for the property. CDD/Gubman reported that. the. -January 10 and 24, 2012,` Planning Commission meetings will continue to be held in-the current AQMD DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Auditorium. Beginning in February, the Planning Commission meetings will be held in, the Community Room of the e new City Hall pending any delays in getting the audio video essentials online. C/Nelson asked if there was any activity on the Ralph's location and CDD/Gubman responded that the shopping center owners are in lease negotiations with a national retail *tenant and the City has been asked not to disclose any of the related. information at this time until negotiations conclude. Staff is optimistic that it will have good news to present to the Commission in the near future. On. behalf of staff, CDD/Gubman wished the Commissioners Happy Holidays and 'a Happy New Year. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Shah adjourned the regular meeting at 8:1.3 pm to. January 10, . 2012. The foregoing minutes tes are hereby'approved this 10th day of January, 2012.. Jack Shah, Attest: Respectfully S.ubmitted, Greg Gubma.n Community Development Director