Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/22/2011MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 22, 2011 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: Commissioner Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Jimmy Lin, Steve Nelson, Vice Chairman Jack Shah, and Chairman Tony Torng. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Brad Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. Also Present: John Douglas, Housing Element Consultant 2. REORGANIZATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: a) Selection of Chairman: C/Torng nominated Commissioner Shah to serve as Chairman of the Planning Commission. C/Lee seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations offered. Commissioner Shah was unanimously elected to serve as Chairman of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: C/Lee Yes C/Linn Yes C/Nelson Yes C/Shah Yes C/Torng Yes b) Selection of Vice Chairman: C/Torng nominated C/Lee to serve as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. C/Nelson seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations offered. Commissioner Lee was elected to serve as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: MARCH 22, 2011 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee abstain C/Linn Yes C/Nelson Yes C/Torng Yes Chair/Shah Yes 3. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: C/Torng moved, C/Nelson seconded, to move Agenda Item 8.2 prior to Agenda Item 8.1. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: Lin, Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah None None 5.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 8, 2011. C/Nelson moved, VC/Lee seconded, to approve the February 8, 2011, minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 6. OLD BUSINESS: None 7. NEW BUSINESS: None 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.2 General Plan Amendment No. PL 2011-43 (2008-2014 Housing Element Update) — Pursuant to state law, the proposed project is the update to the City's General Plan Housing Element for the 2008-2014 planning period. PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: Citywide City of Diamond Bar MARCH 22, 2011 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman introduced John Douglas, JHD Consulting, who presented staff's report. Mr. Douglas stated that in January 2011, the City received a letter from the State of California indicating that if the City adopts the Housing Element in the form before the Planning Commission this evening, it will meet all of the requirements of state law and will be certified. He elaborated on the certification process and CDD/Gubman presented information regarding the proposed and potential rezone sites contained within the Housing Element. Mr. Douglas talked about special needs housing consisting of "Emergency Shelters," "Transitional and Supportive Housing," and "Reasonable Accommodation for Persons with Disabilities." On April 19 staff expects the City Council to review this item and following Council adoption of the Housing Element, staff will move into the implementation phase which will include the zone changes and code amendments. CDD/Gubman recommended that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. PL 2011-43 (2008-2014 Housing Element update). C/Nelson asked for an explanation of "transitional and supportive housing" and Mr. Douglas responded that it refers to housing that is designated for persons that are "at -risk" of homelessness. C/Nelson asked if it had anything to do with people with criminal records or substance abuse issues and Mr. Douglas said he believed those kinds of programs could have persons with these sorts of problems that are often considered a disability. C/Nelson said he recalled that there was some discussion about the number and distance apart of some of these facilities and asked if that was included in the Housing Element. CDD/Gubman explained that there was a Code Amendment done for "Group Homes" last year which established distance criteria for sober living facilities and boarding facilities and similar types of uses the City would need to provide for minimally. Emergency shelters are not part of the criteria for group homes, substance abuse and parolee probationary housing which are different from the items being discussed within the Housing Element, and are, in addition, subject to discretionary review. The emergency shelters would be for persons who are destitute and what would be envisioned for these emergency shelters would be churches such as Calvary Chapel, for example. While not limited to churches, staff believes those institutions in Diamond Bar have facilities that would be the most logical locations to accommodate emergency housing needs. VC/Lee asked what kind of housing was contemplated for multi -family units_ Mr. Douglas responded that the law does not specify whether it needs to be MARCH 22, 2011 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION apartments or condos but the law does say that cities cannot specify that it only be condos. The law has to allow multi -family rental housing. What is presented in the Housing Element is exclusively residential and does not include commercial. C/Lin asked if "target quota" meant the City did not have to comply and Mr. Douglas said he believed the best answer was that the state legislature understands that cities do not have total control over the development process. There are certain regulatory requirements that have to be in place in order for housing to be built, including affordable housing. State law holds cities responsible for the things over which they have control. Cities can adopt regulations but if there is not a developer that wishes to build under those regulations it will not happen except in situations such as a Redevelopment Agency wherein the City could act as a developer. C/Lin said he was curious about whether the demographics for 2007 were substantially different from the 2010 census data. Mr. Douglas said staff does not know yet because the 2010 census information that has been released is the most basic of information and there is a lot of other data that will come out over the next couple of years. When talking about the City's "fair -share" needs that drives this process, it is good to remember that those needs were established in 2007 by SCAG based on the growth forecast and the demographics they knew at that time. When compiling information, the cities cannot go back and revisit or change those numbers. Those were the numbers that were set in concrete and that is what the cities have to live with until the next set of numbers become available. C/Lin asked if Diamond Bar currently has high-rise units and CDD/Gubman said that at present, the City has two-story units and has nothing that would be considered mid or high rise. He believed that to achieve 30 -units per acre (a 50 percent increase over the current maximum density) would necessitate minimum three-story developments. Mr. Douglas said he has seen many projects that are three-story projects that are about 30 -units per acre. C/Lin asked if affordable housing means subsidized housing and Mr. Douglas responded "generally, yes." C/Lin asked how such units would be subsidized and Mr. Douglas said that it comes back to what was being discussed earlier, that cities do not have total control over the development process. Cities such as Diamond Bar certainly do not have lots of excess General Fund money to subsidize housing which is one of the reasons this Housing Element is referred to as a "planning" target and not a "quota." Cities that do not have funds that they can devote to housing means that the only way affordable housing can be built is through a subsidy from some MARCH 22, 2011 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION other source such as the federal government, state government, redevelopment agencies, etc. The legal framework that cities work in understands that a lot of things have to line up in order for subsidized affordable housing to be built and cities being held responsible for those portions of it that they have control over which is primarily zoning and development standards. Mr. Douglas further explained that typically, the way affordable housing is built is most often by non-profit developers. If, for example, a non-profit developer was interested and could assemble the sources of subsidy funds necessary to provide such a product, they would come to the City, submit an application, go through the development review process, etc., and under those circumstances the City would not be required to contribute any money to the project. C/Torng asked if the City had to notify the City of Industry and the Water District as property owners before proposing those properties within the Housing Element. Mr. Douglas responded that the City of Industry was notified through the Housing Element process as an adjacent jurisdiction. All surrounding communities are notified of the proposed General Plan Amendment. When the City moves forward to the zone change stage of the process, certainly the property owner would be notified through the typical notification process. Certainly the City of Industry would be notified and have an opportunity to come and comment and as the property owner, the City of Industry would make the final decision about what development to pursue on those properties. If the City of Industry were to decide not to pursue any development at this time, there is nothing in the Housing Element or the zoning that would require or override the City of Industry's desire. C/Torng felt that potentially there would be a major population increase, additional traffic, etc., if 400 plus units were built in Tres Hermanos, for example and most likely no one would complain because there are no residents in the area so these sites are likely rendered redundant in the future. Mr. Douglas said the zone changes that are referenced in the Housing Element will not happen with adoption of this element because that is a separate process that would come at a later time and will come back to the Planning Commission and City Council for further consideration atwhich time there would be a thorough environmental review of traffic, noise, air- quality, and all other issues investigated through the environmental review process. C/Torng asked if a Specific Plan would be developed for this type of development. ACA/Wohlenberg stated that his office looked at the issue of the environmental review as well and at this point in the process it is too speculative to come up with the information the City would need to make environmental determinations because at this point no one knows how many units there will be and how many trips per day those units will generate so MARCH 22, 2011 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION those decisions, by necessity, have to be put off to a later stage where things get more specific. C/Torng again asked if a Specific Plan would be developed for this kind of a location when the site is rezoned. CDD/Gubman said that was a possibility. The portion of Tres Hermanos that lies within Diamond Bar is about 700 acres so one scenario would be to do a Specific Plan for all of Tres Hermanos that would include the parcels that are specifically being considered for a zone change. In fact, the City approached HCD with the idea that there would be an overlay over the entirety of Tres Hermanos that would state that the planning for Tres Hermanos shall be in the form of a Specific Plan and that Specific Plan shall include program elements to have an affordable housing component among the entire palette of uses that the 700 acres could be planned for. The HCD came back to the City and said they would expect the City to complete a Specific Plan in an unreasonably short period of time so although he believes a Specific Plan is the best strategy for Tres Hermanos, the only approach that HCD would accept in the Housing Element was for the City to look at rezoning specific properties within Tres Hermanos. Staff can comply with that and follow through with the rezoning. The City of Industry can say thank you very much for rezoning our property, but we have no interest in developing it and we have a big plan that we will look into in the future. CDD/Gubman said that C/Torng made a good observation and felt it was likely that all of Tres Hermanos would be master planned and this would become one component of that master plan. But if that does not happen Diamond Bar has satisfied its obligation by rezoning at least 15 Y2 acres. C/Lin asked for confirmation that adoption of the Housing Element as part of the General Plan update would provide that the land use map for the City of Diamond Bar would identify this area as a high-density 30 -unit per acre land use and ACA/Wohlenberg responded that Chair was correct. Chair further commented that this adoption would not provide legal right for development. ACA/Wohlenberg said that an applicant would still have to do a zone change and bring a project forward for consideration and other steps would have to take place before anything could be built. Chair/Shah asked if the City would have to go back to the drawing board if the City of Industry said thanks but no thanks to this amendment. CDD/Gubman said that the City of Industry would not have any veto authority. The City Council is the lawmaker in Diamond Bar and the City of Industry could object to the rezoning but it is the City Council that makes the decision on land -use matters in the City. The City of Industry could have the ultimate veto power by electing not to develop the property at all or as the property owner, they could elect to develop it at a lower density than what would be allowed. For example, if the City of Industry develops housing but MARCH 22, 2011 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION it is not at 30 -units per acre, then that puts Diamond Bar in the position to have to locate other land to compensate for that shortfall that can no longer be accommodated on the site. Chair/Shah asked if when submitting a plan does the City have to have an alternative site or is one site okay? Mr. Douglas reiterated that the way the law works is that the City is required to identify enough sites in the Housing Elements that can accommodate the City's need. So the sites that staff has shown the Commission tonight would accomplish that goal. When this gets to the City Council, the Council could decide those were not good sites and ask staff to find or consider other sites. But for purposes of satisfying the requirements, staff believes that what is in the proposed amendment satisfies the requirements. There is another related portion of state law that CDD/Gubman alluded to and that is if these sites were to be developed for something other than housing or for low density housing, the housing would then be required to amend the Housing Element to identify other sites that would satisfy the City's needs. Chair/Shah asked if the emergency shelter was required to accommodate so many people a certain number of square feet per acre. Mr. Douglas explained that when staff comes back with the ordinance to implement the emergency shelter zone, the City has the authority to establish a variety of standards and regulations that would cover those emergency shelters and it includes things like the maximum number of beds, parking, landscaping, lighting, management plan, etc. Chair/Shah asked if transitional housing meant that no one lived there on a permanent basis. Mr. Douglas said Chair/Shah was correct. Transitional Housing is typically a limited term: The -difference between Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing is usually about six months. Typically, an Emergency Shelter would not allow anyone to stay there longer than six months; Transitional or Supportive Housing often times could be a year or two and it is intended for families as opposed to a group home situation. Transitional Housing is typically for families in a single family home, condo or apartment unit and it is typically run through non-profit agencies that have standards such as clean and sober, zero tolerance for drug and alcohol abuse to be a participant in the program and it is a very different situation than some of the group homes the Commission discussed about six months ago. MARCH 22, 2011 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Shah asked if the distance criteria applied. Mr. Douglas reiterated that cities cannot establish any regulations on transitional and supportive housing units that do not apply to the entire City for a regular single family home. So unless a City had separation requirements for single family homes which they do not, then cities cannot establish any kind of separation requirements for transitional and supportive units either. Chair/Shah asked if when this is identified, the City has to address the improvements to infrastructure to those areas. Mr. Douglas reiterated that those issues would be part of the process to review the zone changes during the environmental review process that looks at the site-specific details because as ACA/Wohlenberg mentioned, that level of detail is not yet available. Staff has identified a relatively large area that contains quite a bit more land than needed to meet the requirements for rezoning so as the City goes through the process to identify exactly which areas are appropriate to be rezoned that review of infrastructure, traffic and so forth will take place. Chair/Shah opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Shah closed the public hearing. C/Torng moved, VC/Lee seconded, to recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. PL 2011-43 (2008-2014 Housing Element update). Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None C/Lin said he voted "no" because this is a target and not a quota which means to him that the City does not have to follow the state's instructions or requirements and when he was in another area of politics he had an unsatisfactory experience with affordable housing. It can cause a lot of fiscal problems for the City because the tax it receives is not close to paying for the services provided to high-density housing. 8.1 Variance No. PL 2010-422 — Under the authority of Development Code Section 22.54, the applicant, Gordon T. Myers and property owner, Steven Chu requested approval of variances to allow a swimming pool and a six-foot high fence within the front setback of a single family residence. The lot is MARCH 22, 2011 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION zoned Rural Residential (RR) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 2615 Braided Mane Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Steven Chu 2615 Braided Mane Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Gordon T. Myers Elegant Pools 31200 Landau Boulevard Cathedral City, CA 92234 C/Lin recused himself from consideration of this project because he owns property within the radius notification requirement and left the meeting. PT/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission denial of Variance No. PL 2010-422, based on the Findings of Fact. Staff has concluded that three of the five findings required to grant the variances cannot be made. VC/Lee asked why staff brought a request to the Planning Commission to deny a Variance. ACA/Wohlenberg responded that if an application is received for a variance there needs to be a decision made and that decision has to be made by the Planning Commission. Staff conducts its analysis and brings forth a recommendation to the Planning Commission but the Planning Commission has to ultimately make a yes or no decision on the Variance application. VC/Lee said in his experience with several other cities, the Variance was not processed before the Planning Commission. Are those cities wrong or is Diamond Bar too accommodating? ACA/Wohlenberg said he was not sure what those cities' processes would be but in all of the jurisdictions in which he works, an application may go forward with a recommendation of denial and generally, applicants like to avoid that because it tends to be a recommendation that carries significant weight with the Planning Commission. He has seen agencies encourage applicants to make changes so that staff does not have to put a denial recommendation on the project but ultimately, if the applicant wants it to move forward with the denial application, that is what staff will do. MARCH 22, 2011 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Torng said he knows "The Country Estates" decision is irrelevant to the City's decision but he asked if the "The Country Estates" denied this project. PT/Tobon responded that "The Country Estates" approved the project. Chair/Shah opened the public hearing. Ron Stubna, Landscape Architect for the proposed project, stated that about eight months ago his firm was approached by the owner, Steven Chu who purchased the home six or seven years ago. Mr. Chu was not the person who rebuilt the home. As Mr. Chu has remodeled the home they have decided to add other amenities. The patio has shifted and is severely cracked so Mr. Chu asked his firm to design a new patio, pool, spa, barbecue, etc. At that point, Mr. Chu was not aware of the front yard issue because the pool is set to the side and toward the rear of the house. As this progressed through the association approval and approached the City, he and Mr. Chu learned that they would have to go through this Variance process. There are hedges along the front of the property which have been in existence long before Mr. Chu bought the property and those hedges do a very good job of screening where the pool would be. Even without those hedges, there is about eight feet of landscaping that can be used to screen the pool from the street. Braided Mane is a cul-de-sac so there are only six residents to the south of this property. Mr. Chu's house is set at a 45 degree angle at the intersection and he believes that is why there is a problem that warrants approval of a Variance. The other design issue of concern was the topography which is a 1:1 slope at the rear of the house and his firm wanted to make certain that that rear area remained in a natural condition. In fact, as part of the reconstruction process, the slope overlooks the canyon and the project will bring a lot of the native plant material back onto that slope to stabilize the slope and blend into the magnificent canyon view. In addition, he has learned that a six-foot high wrought iron fence is not required and they could reduce that to a five-foot high wrought iron fence as required by the building code. "The Country Estates" said that if there was an issue with a view of the pool that they would approve a block wall to completely mask the pool. Between the existing hedge and vegetation planned, there should be sufficient masking. Using an overhead view of the landscape plan, Gordon Myers, owner, Elegant Pools, pointed out the front entrance to the house and the garage door entrance. Because of the way the house is situated, the entrance is actually on the side of the house. Mr. Stubna pointed out that it is quite common to have unique situations with a combination of the topography and positioning of the homes in "The Country Estates" and for whatever reason, the construction of the home allowed for a flat place where the pool is MARCH 22, 2011 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION planned. He felt it would be an environmental negative to have to put in huge walls which require increased maintenance with natural earth movement, therefore, believes the proposed site is the safest and most convenient place to build the pool. Mr. Myers said this pool is proposed to be 3'/2 feet maximum depth and found the proposed site to be the best and safest location. The pool could be brought within the limits of the side yard setbacks and he believed the concern was whether this was a front yard or a side yard and when facing the property it appears to be on the side yard. Chair/Shah closed the public hearing. VC/Lee asked if staff had any other suggestions for compromise. CDD/Gubman said he believed there was a fundamental policy question that staff asked the Commission to consider and that is whether the applicant should be entitled to a pool, and on this property the only way to achieve that would be to encroach into the setbacks and of course, that leads to the variance request. It is true, given that there is very little flat pad, this area where the pool is proposed being the one viable location, there is no other option for them. So the fundamental question becomes that given this is the only available location for the pool without going through an extraordinary expense to build up a pad area in the rear, is that sufficient to warrant the granting of this variance or, should a pool simply be considered a luxury rather than a right. Either the applicant chooses to make a bigger footprint, or take into account that this is a difficult property and planning needs to take place before any development occurs for the types of the amenities the applicant would like to have within the constraints of the code. Staff would agree that there is no other place on the site to put a pool. But on the other hand, staff does not believe it can make the necessary findings to recommend that the Commission approve this variance. C/Nelson said that several weeks ago he was very concerned about some retaining walls that were not just a little bit above the City's Development Code but a lot above the City's Development Code, He continues to hold the belief that if the City gives variances that are extreme, even though the existing pools in the area that were developed under the County Code, then the City is simply diluting its Development Code. So he will support the denial and not support the approval of the pool because he does not want this City to be a blank check to develop whatever an applicant wants. Chair/Shah said that staff has studied the issues and brought up several concerns, none of which were addressed by the applicant despite the applicant being aware of those concerns. Second, he agrees with C/Nelson that if the City is going to dilute the regulations in place, there is no purpose MARCH 22, 2011 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION R] to having regulations. As an architect, he cannot necessarily agree with all of the arguments made by the applicant not having been offered an alternative. He understands that it is a matter of cost. On the other hand, it is a matter of choice. He respects the desire of the applicant and their effort in designing the site. However, he sees that several of the items identified in staff's report indicates that this variance should be denied. VC/Lee moved, C/Nelson seconded, to adopt staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission deny Variance No. PL 2010-422, based on the Findings of Fact. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lin CDD/Gubman stated that all Planning Commission decisions may be appealed to the City Council. An appeal of the Planning Commission decision must be filed with the City Clerk within 10 calendar days of the Planning Commission's decision. Should anyone wish to file an appeal they are instructed to contact the City Clerk for information about filing an appeal and/or obtaining an appeal petition. - PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: VC/Lee thanked his colleagues for supporting him as the Vice Chairman and offered his support to Chair/Shah, the Commission and residents. ClTorng congratulated Chair/Shah and VC/Lee on their appointments and wished them the best. He thanked staff for their good job this evening. Chair/Shah thanked his colleagues for the opportunity to serve the City as the Planning Commission Chairman. He thanked staff for their support during his tenure with City Commissions. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future proiects. CDD/Gubman congratulated Chair/Shah and VC/Lee on their appointments to their current positions on the Planning Commission. He said to call or email if there are any questions about future agenda items. He has enjoyed MARCH 22, 2011 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION working with all of the Commissioners and looks forward to working with the new Chair and Vice Chair for the coming year. CDD/Gubman stated that the Planners Institute was held in Pasadena last week. He attended two of the three days and felt the overall program was less interesting and included more retreads of previous sessions. There was a good session on medical marijuana by a colleague of CA/Jenkins who jointly wrote an article with him on the matter. It was interesting to hear other cities' challenges in dealing with this kind of business growth throughout the state_ The budget issues that took a lot of previous year's session time has been somewhat supplanted by the current controversy about eliminating redevelopment agencies. As far as new planning concepts and trends, there was not really a whole lot of interesting new stories for folks to tell which is probably a symptom of the economic downturn where there just has not been enough development activity to see new interesting things occur in the last few years. With that said, he wanted to reassure the Commissioners that they did not miss a whole lot. CDD/Gubman stated that the next Planning Commission is scheduled for April 12 and the Commissioners will hear requests for a cell site on a wireless telecomunitations facility — a streetlight on Diamond Bar Boulevard as well as, a new single family residence on Wagon Train. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 8:50 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 12th day of April, 2011. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Jack Shah, Chairman ��