Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/26/2013MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26, 2013 Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Shah led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Ashok Dhingra, Jimmy Lin, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Frank Farago, Chairman Tony Torng Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; John Douglas, Consultant; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: Vinod KashyUp spok-e about Site D and a, Court of Appeals ruling on lead agencies abilities to delegate CEQA decision-making authority. He asked that the Planning Commission look at the ruling and request that the information be passed along to the City Attorney for his input. In his opinion, the Planning Commission does not have the authority to be a decision-making body. He believes the,Planning Commission's job is to make a recommendation and if it is making a decision, under CEQA it does not have the authority to give certification to the EIR. If this ruling is applicable to Site D, the EIR for Site D is improper. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the November 12, 2013, Regular Meeting. C/Dhingra moved, VC/Farago seconded, to approve the November 12, 2013, regular meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS Dhingra, Lin, Shah, VC/ Farago, Chair/Torng None None NOVEMBER 26, 2013 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 5. M VA OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: REET None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 General Plan Amendment No. PL2013-550 - 2013-2021 Housing Element Update — Pursuant to state law and the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, the proposed project is the update to the General Plan Housing Element for the 2013-2021 planning period. PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide LEAD AGENCY: City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 John Douglas, Consultant, presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the General Plan Housing Element Amendment for the 2013-2021 planning period. The draft Housing Element is with HCD for its 60 -day review which ends on January 14, 2014. C/Dhingra asked for staff to point out the boundaries of the Tres Hermanos property. CDD/Gubman pointed out Grand Avenue, Chino Hills Parkway, the easterly City limits at Longview Drive/Summitridge Drive. The area north of Grand Avenue as one leaves the City limits moving north it becomes Chino Hills' portion of Tres Herrnanos (1700 acres). C/Dhingra asked if the land lies within the City limits or is it in the City's sphere of influence (No. 7) and CDD/Gubman stated that the area is completely within the corporate boundaries of Diamond Bar. C/Dhingra asked for the definition of low and very low income. Mr. Douglas responded that state law defines what those terms mean. The actual income level is based on the median income of the county (Los Angeles) and very low refers to 50 percent of the median income and low income refers to between 50 and 80 percent of the median income. C/Dhingra stated that regardless of the action on this site he personally felt that if the City's General Plan was last done in 1995 it is about time to NOVEMBER 26, 2013 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSIOJ� start thinking about putting it on the front burner because the City has matured quite a bit during the last 20 plus years. C/Lin thanked Mr. Douglas for his report. He asked for a definition of the non -family housing category listed in Table 2-20. Mr. Douglas explained that the definitions come from the US Census Bureau which considers a "family" household to have related people living together (blbod, marriage, adoption). "Non -family" households mean that it is one single person living by himself or two or more people that are not related. C/Lin asked for confirmation that 15 percent of the housing in Diamond Bar is non -family housing and Mr. Douglas responded "yes." C/Lin asked why non -Hispanic and Latino populations are singled out and Mr. Douglas responded that it is simply because it is a commonly reported statistic of the ethnicity of a city. Chair/Torng asked if that was because of the large number of Hispanics in Los Angeles County and Mr. Douglas responded that it may be part of the reason; however, historically the Census Bureau has looked at racial categories but Hispanic is not considered a "racial" category but an "ethnic" category by the Census Bureau. C/Lin said that demographic growth patterns have declined in Diamond Bar over the past 13 years so if past trends are used that would indicate to him that no additional housing units are required for Diamond Bar. Mr. Douglas responded that C/Lin's observation is one of the common complaints whenever SCAG conducts the RHNA process. Many communities such as Diamond Bar do not have much vacant land available, but SCAG believes that growth can happen not only on vacant land but also on land that is suitable for redevelopment. As time goes by, in Southern California an increase in the percentage of residential growth is happening not on vacant land, but on industrial or commercial land that is no longer suitable or economically viable for those uses, and that is why SCAG assigns communities like Diamond Bar substantial growth needs from a housing standpoint. C/Dhingra said that SCAG is usually over -optimistic with respect to traffic patterns, water needs, energy needs, etc. C/Lin said he thought that the Tres Hermanos approval was a mandate. Mr. Douglas explained that it is a mandate for zoning but not for development. State Law requires cities to have zoning in place that could accommodate development of low-income housing. However, in order for that to happen there must be an interested property owner, interested NOVEMBER 26, 2013 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION" developer and source of funding subsidies. States recognize that cities do not have control over those things but do have control over the zoning. The state says that to create the opportunity for low-income housing, cities need to zone land where 30 -units per acre density is allowed and once cities do that, they have satisfied their obligation and then it is up to developers, landowners and grant funding sources to put the pieces together so that housing actually gets built. C/Shah said that during a previous Commission meeting people talked about the selection of the Tres Hermanos property and people were told that there Were other sites within the City so various sites could be used to satisfy the requirement and wanted to know what happened to that scenario. Mr. Douglas reiterated that the key problem is one of timing regarding mandates of CEQA review and state mandates regarding public participation, public meetings, etc. Even if a city knew exactly what it wanted to do in terms of zoning, there are required steps in the process that take time. During the past year, the number one priority for the City was implementing requirements from the previous planning period so that the City could remain in compliance with Housing Element law and avoid a carryover of the previous cycle's RHNA requirement into the new cycle. The previous cycle's requirement for rezoning was about 466 units. 'There is a requirement to accommodate 490 units in the new planning period. So if the City had not adopted a zone change when it did, the discussion would be about zoning for over 900 units rather than the 490 for which the City rezoned. As soon as that was done staff turned its attention to immediately preparing this Draft Housing Element, a fairly laborious task, and taking into consideration the deadline of February determining how much time it would take to get consensus on which property to rezone, to do CEQA analysis and also to do the required public hearing process, the City would have had to start that prpcess a year or year and one-half ago to make the zoning change in time for this housing element to be adopted. When the matter of splitting the 'designated areas was discussed, he believed everyone understood that it would be a valuable exercise but there was not sufficient time to do-�o for this planning period so the Tres Hermanos option was recognized as the best option for maintaining the Housing Element compliance and avoiding having to rezone for twice the number of units. C/Shah said he understood the time constraints but the promise made to the public was when the City entered the new planning period (2013-2021) the City would look into having more than one site and he is confused about what is going on. CDD/Gubman stated that as the City's land use advisor, when the City reaches the budget discussion cycle he has brought up the issue of setting funds aside to fund a comprehensive General Plan update. When the Tres Hermanos zone NOVEMBER 26, 2013 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSIOL change effort reached the public hearings and the City made the commitment to look at alternative sites he had not yet made the connection between that and the comprehensive General Plan effort that he is closer to getting the City to buy into. When one realizes the General Plan will be 20 years old in 2015 and the City has an obligation to comprehensively update the General Plan, it makes more sense to look at the alternative sites as part of that comprehensive General Plan update from a budgeting and efficiency standpoint, as well as the fact that the City would be able to deal with the "big picture" of all of the land use policies to really begin to define those alternative sites and how to craft new and more contemporary goals, objectives and policies to allow those alternative sites. For example, one of the alternative locations raised during the Tres Hermanos EIR discussion was the infill industrial sites that are located in the vicinity of Brea Canyon Road, Lemon Avenue and generally, north of Golden Springs Drive. Those are sites whose useful lives are probably winding down and in light of the fact that there is a Metrolink station nearby, it starts to form the vision that the City needs to start planning for the repurposing of that area and, through the General Plan update the City can craft some very feasible and foreseeable policies and standards to allow for higher density housing for that area in mixed- use and transit -oriented developments. By incorporating the commitment to find alternative sites to take pressure off of Tres Hermanos, the comprehensive General Plan update is really the best tool. Staff is working toward embarking on planning the General Plan update early on for the upcoming Housing Element cycle. In short, staff is moving forward with the commitment to look at alternative sites during the process of updating the General Plan as soon as possible after the current proposal to update the Housing Element is adopted and approved. VC/Farago asked what the City's options would be to revising the zoning and General Plan should a developer approach the City to develop the Tres Hermanos property. CUD/Gubman responded that if a developer came forward with a proposal to construct high-density housing elsewhere and that development proposal was processed, it would require its own General Plan Land Use Element amendment, zone change and a subsequent approval of the project. That would create a surplus of available land for the higher density zoning so there would be an opportunity to rezone the Tres Hermanos site and at least reduce the total acreage to meet the RHNA number. The concentration of units on the Tres Hermanos site would not be a focus. In order to do that there would have to be a mid-term Housing Element update that receives state HCD approval. Since the City is not faced with any deadline or mandate to NOVEMBER 26, 2013 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION have a Certified Housing Element because it has already been certified it would be a request of HCD rattler than a proposal to fulfill their demands. Mr. Douglas said that the Tres Hermanos property is owned by the City of Industry and is part of a larger property that includes portions that reside within Diamond Bar and Chino Hills. There have been discussions over the years among those three agencies about a master planning effort for the entire Tres Hermanos property and it seems more likely that a master plan would be developed for the entire Tres Hermanos area rather than just one piece. VC/Farago said that if the City were to do a comprehensive review/revision of the General Plan and include alter -native sites to take the place of the Tres Hermanos high density zoning, how long will it take to get that plan and could someone come in with a proposal to develop that site in the meantime. CDD/Gubman stated that a General Plan update process will take about three years. Mr. Douglas stated that in terms of a General Plan update, the Housing Element is a fairly brief process. The state has 60 days to review the draft and after the review the City presents the adopted plan. Once the City determined what property it wanted to rezone, the Housing Element could be done concurrently and would not extend the timeline beyond the three years. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. Vinod Kashyup stated that Tres Hermanos was purchased to build a reservoir for Tonner Canyon. For lack of planning for the past 15 years it now becomes a matter of urgency to build low-income housing. Denny Mosher, Chairman of the Pomona Planning Commission, speaking as a private citizen, said he was very concerned about the urgency of this matter and what will happen if a developer comes forward. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Shah asked if the consequence of delaying this process for further study would be 900 units and Mr. Douglas responded no, that the consequence of delaying would be that the City would be required to process an amendment to the Housing Element four years from now rather than having the Housing Element not to be required to be updated eight years from now which means that the City would be required to review its Housing Element twice as often as it does at this time. It would not affect the number of units for high-density. C/Shah asked what it would mean to the City if the update was not adopted at this time. Mr. Douglas responded that there is an explicit requirement in state law establishing a firm deadline and penalty for missing the deadline. The penalty is the City being required to do Housing Elements twice as often for the next couple .of cycles. So if the City Council were to delay, the City would automatically be put on a four-year cycle and the City would be required to go through the update process and submit to HCD four years from now. C/Dhingra commented that in his view, the hierarchy of law has been established. As Mr. Douglas explained, it is the state to SCAG to the City and County. Within that arena of hierarchy he commented that SCAG is more optimistic. When one looks at this situation there is a need to be more optimistic. The idea is to plan for the worst-case scenario and not the best -case scenario whether it be a matter of more population, more water, more traffic, etc. In light of the discussion alluded to earlier he believes that the General Plan update would give the City more "teeth" in doing what the City intends and wants to do relative to low-income housing. He would hate for the City to have to go on a four-year cycle for a Housing Element update but he would like to recommend and suggest that when a motion is made for approval or disapproval of this item, at that time a concurrent recommendation be sent to the City Council that the City immediately start looking at updating the General Plan. ACA/Eggart said that the motions could be presented separately or combined as one. C/Lin said he felt comfortable in approving the amendment and agreed with C/Dhingra that a separate motion would send a strong message to the City Council that the General Plan update process needs to begin as soon as possible. C/Lin moved, C/Shah seconded to recommend City Council approval of the General Plan Housing Element Amendment for the 2013-2021 planning period. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS Dhingra, Lin, Shah, VC/ Farago, Chair/Torng None None E*-] 4 10 C/Lin moved, C/Shah seconded, to recommend that the City Council direct staff to commence work on a General Plan update as soon as practical beginning in 2014. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PUBLIC HEARING(S): None Dhingra, Lin, Shah, VC/ Farago, Chair/Torng None None PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/IN FORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Lin wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman reported that the next Commission meeting is scheduled for December 10 which will be Chair/Torng's last meeting as he is sworn in as a member of the WVUSD the next day. There are two items on the December 10 agenda: 1) a music school tutoring facility in the Pepper Tree Center at Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard behind the Shell Station; 2) a Conditional Use Permit request for the CrossFit Studio Gym in the Kmart Shopping Center next door to Kmart. The business is open and operating without securing approval of a Conditional Use Permit. However, the business is complying with notices that they are out of compliance and require a Conditional Use Permit and are working toward bringing the business into compliance. CDD/Gubman further stated that he received compliance from the Commissioners that there would be a quorum available for a special Planning Commission meeting on December 19 to compensate for the canceled Planning Commission meeting that would have been scheduled for December 24. There is one item on the December 19 agenda for a Code Amendment that would affect the Honda property to establish a hotel overlay zoning to the underlying C-3 zone which will move to the City Council in January 2014, and go into effect prior to the expiration of the moratorium on April 3, 2014, which is currently imposed on the property. NOVEMBER 26, 2013 PAGE 9 , PLANNING COMMISSION As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 8:15 p.m. . The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 19th day of December, 2013. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Frank F,,6rago, Vice�ChAir 'man