Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/23/2013MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NEGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOM APRIL 23, 2013 rq-Nwlllllfl• •� Chairman Nelson 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: Vice Chairman Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Jimmy Lin, Vice Chairman Tony Torng, Chairman Steve Nelson Absent: Commissioner Frank Farago and Jack Shah were excused. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; John Douglas, Housing Element Consultant; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 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 March 12, 2013. VC/Torng moved, C/Lin seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 12, 2013, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): None None Lin, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None Farago, Shah CDD/Gubman stated that with respect to Items 7.1 and 7.2, staff's recommendation to the Commission is to open the public hearing on each item APRIL 23, 2013 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION and continue the matters to May 14, 2013, because the applicant did not post the project sites with the required public hearing notice board the minimum 10 days prior to tonight's public hearing date. Since the notifications were sent by mail there may be members of the audience who wish to speak on these matters this evening, thus, staff's recommendation is to open the public hearings for each item, and then continue the matters to a date certain to avoid re -noticing the public hearings. 7.1 Development Review No. 2010-373 -- Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant and property owner Horizon Pacific (c/o Jerry Yeh), requested Development Review approval to construct a new single-family residence consisting of 10,186 square feet of living space; 1,323 square foot garage/storage/utility space; and 482 square foot cabana on a 0.98 gross acre (42,762 square foot lot). PROJECT ADDRESS FEW NOMA 22590 Pacific Lane (Lot 3) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Jerry Yeh Horizon Pacific 20888 Amar Road #203 Walnut, CA 91789 Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. VC/Torng moved, C/Lin seconded to continue Development Review No. PL2010-373 to May 14, 2013. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS". Lin, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Shah 7.2 Development Review No. PL2010-372 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant and property owner, Horizon Pacific (c/o Jerry Yeh), requested Development Review approval to construct a new single-family residence consisting of 10,018 square feet of living space; a 1,300 square foot garage/storage/utility space; and a 452 square foot detached tatami room on a 0.98 gross acre (42,719 square foot) lot. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. APRIL 23, 2013 PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 22588 Pacific Lane (Lot 4) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Jerry Yeh Horizon Pacific 20888 Amar Road #203 Walnut, CA 91789 Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. C/Lin moved, VC/Torng seconded, to Development Review No. PL2010-372 carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: continue the public hearing for to May 14, 2013. The motion was Lin, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None Farago, Shah 7.3 PL2012-513 — 2008-2014 Housing Element Implementation — Amendments to Title 22 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code ("Development Code") and Related Amendment to the Land Use Category of the General Plan Land Use Element. The City of Diamond Bar proposes to amend certain sections of the Development Code and the I (Light Industrial) Land Use category of the General Plan Land Use Element in order to implement policies and programs contained in the City's Certified 2008-2014 Housing Element. These amendments fall into the following three categories: Establishment of zoning standards for emergency shelters and transitional/supportive housing to be in compliance with Senate Bill 2 (SB2). The proposed Development Code Amendment establishes the I (Light Industrial) zone to be the zoning district in which emergency shelters may be established by right; and, affirms SB2's mandate that transitional/supportive housing shall be treated as a residential use subject only to the same requirements as other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. The I (Light Industrial) land use category of the General Plan Land Use Element would be amended to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in the Housing Element. APRIL 23, 2013 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Establishment of zoning regulations for single -room occupancy (SRO) housing. The Development Code Amendment identified the I (Light Industrial) zone to allow housing for single -room occupancy units with a conditional use permit. The I (Light Industrial) land use category of the General Plan Land Use Element would be amended to accommodate the need for single -room occupancy housing identified in the Housing Element. 2. Amendment to existing density bonus provisions to be in compliance with Senate Bill 1818. (SB1818). Chapters 22.10, 22.18, 22.42, 22.48, and 22.80 are proposed to be amended and new Sections 22.42.150, 22.42.160 and 22.42.170 are proposed to be added to the Development Code in order to incorporate all of the above provisions. PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROJECT OWNER/ City of Diamond Bar APPLICANT: CDD/Gubman stated that this item is presented to implement several of the program items set forth in the adopted and certified 2008-2014 Housing Element. Part of the objective set forth in the Housing Element is to make provisions for housing in Diamond Bar for a wide spectrum of socio-economic groups; and these implementation measures are reflecting state mandates to have all local agencies comply with those provisions. There are no local mandates that further these requirements beyond what is set forth in state law. The matter before the Commission this evening with Code Amendments and General Plan Amendment is to comply with state law. The City is not advocating to go above and beyond 'what the minimum requirements are because there are no local mandates, policies, goals and/or objectives to move beyond those minimum requirements. Housing Element Consultant John Douglas presented staff's report. Mr. Douglas stated that quite a few cities around southern California are going through this very same process at this time. There are four topics that are before the Commission tonight which are implementation programs required under the Housing Element, pursuant to state law. It is important that the City move forward and amend the code in order to ensure that the Housing Element stays in compliance with state law. APRIL 23, 2013 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Douglas stated that the four topics on the list are: 1) Transitional/Supportive Housing; 2) Emergency Shelters, required pursuant to a state law that was adopted in 2007 (Senate Bill 2); 3) Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing - studio/hotel type units; and 4) Density Bonus. Density Bonus law has been in state codes for many years, and was updated a few years ago, so cities are required to amend their codes to come into conformance with the latest iteration of state laws. Mr. Douglas said that what state law says about Transitional/Supportive Housing is that these are "residential" uses and they are subject to the same regulations, standards, and procedures as applied to any other residential use of that type in that zone. For example, if the city has a single family house being used as a "Transitional" shelter, the same city rules that apply to single family houses in that zone would also apply to the "Transitional" shelter. One question that oftentimes comes up is "how does this affect Group Home regulations?" Under state law and city ordinances, if there is a state licensed group home that has no more than six clients in it, then state law preempts cities from regulating those homes any differently than a traditional family house. This new law on "Transitional/Supportive Housing" would not change those rules on group homes at all. So if this ordinance goes into effect, if a single family house in a residential zone is used as a transitional shelter or supportive housing facility, the city would be limited to applying whatever regulations are pertinent to a single family house which is typically, very minimal. The way that this issue is proposed to be handled is through including definitions in the code that establish, consistent with state law, what is meant by a transitional housing and supportive housing unit. If someone came to the City asking for permission to operate one of these it would be regulated by definition and whatever the zoning regulations are for that type of use in that type of zone. It could be a single-family house, or it could be multi -family condominium or apartments. In terms of the definitions, what is meant by transitional housing is housing that is operated typically by a non-profit or church or charitable organization and they would operate a program whereby people who are in need would come and be screened by the organization running the facility. Typically, these folks are allowed to live in a transitional setting for somewhere between six months and two years while they get on their feet and are able to move on to permanent housing. Supportive housing is similar although it has some supportive service component with it such as job training, other types of counseling, meals on wheels, etc., and often, supportive housing is targeted toward people who have some kind of disability and it is either no rent or very low rent depending on what the people can afford. It is aimed at folks who are in dire straits and do not have any other place to go and it is a stepping stone to permanent APRIL PPLANNING COMMISS10i". housing. This definition can be contrasted with a "drug and alcohol rehab" that is operated on a profit-making basis. This does not fall under the definition of transitional supportive housing because it is a profit-making venture and the definitions that apply to transitional/supportive is aimed at no or very low rent because individuals are low-income. It is important to distinguish that this is not intended to regulate group homes or rehab types of facilities. Mr. Douglas explained that "Emergency Shelters" is a new requirement of state law from a few years ago and what the law says is that every jurisdiction has to identify at least one zoning district in the town where an emergency shelter can be established by a very simple approval process often referred to as "by right" which means no public hearing or conditional use permit is required, and is handled administratively by the Community Development Department. However, state law says that cities can establish standards for these types of uses. The proposed ordinance before the Commission tonight would identify the Light Industrial zone as the only location in Diamond Bar where these would be permitted; there would be a maximum 30 -bed limit established on the facilities; there are separate requirements so there could not be any two shelters closer to each other than 300 feet; there would have to be at least 50 square feet of living area per person in the building exclusive of common areas; typically the stay in emergency shelters is limited to six months in any one-year period; there are standards for lighting, security, parking, storage and proximity to transit stops; and, there is a requirement that the operator submit a management plan to the city for review by the Community Development Director and the Sheriff's Department. The management plan would include things like house rules, communications with the city, communications with law enforcement in case of any problems, how to address potential impacts on surrounding properties, loitering and security, etc. So the city has a fair amount of control through the management plan as to how these facilities would be operated. Mr. Douglas explained that the third item on the list is "SRO -Single Room Occupancy", which are very small apartments intended for occupancy by one or two low income persons. Because the units are very small they could be very inexpensive compared to standard apartments. The regulations would allow these with a conditional use permit in the Light Industrial zone so these items would come to the Planning Commission for review and approval and conditions could be applied to the permits. These units would have a minimum size of 150 square feet and a maximum of 375 square feet, whereas, a typical one -bedroom apartment might be in the range of 500 to 700 square feet. These SRO's would be required to have onsite 24-hour management on duty at all times. A APRIL 23, 2013 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION management plan would be required establishing rules, security procedures, etc. These units may provide kitchen facilities within the units or common kitchen facilities, laundry facilities on premises, restrooms with each unit being required to have toilets and sinks but larger restroom facilities and showers that could be shared at the discretion of the sponsor. There is also a requirement that these facilities be within proximity to rail or bus stops. The key difference is that a conditional use permit is required for these types of facilities in contrast to the emergency shelters and transitional/supportive units. Mr. Douglas stated that density bonus is called out by state law and if a developer wants affordable units within their project, cities must grant them density bonus and other incentives. The density bonus is based on a sliding scale depending on what percentage of affordable units and what level of affordability (very low income, low income, etc) and the sliding scale would allow up to a 35 percent density increase depending on the percentage of affordable units with the maximum being 35 percent. For many years the maximum was 25 percent and when the density bonus law was amended, it was increased to 35 percent to create a greater incentive for production of affordable housing. Mr. Douglas offered that state law also allows options for land donation so if a developer wanted to carve out a portion of a property and donate it to the city for use so that the city would then work with a non-profit developer to build affordable housing, the person donating the land could also get a density bonus on the remainder of the project. Another provision regarding childcare facilities was added to the law so that if a developer wanted to include a childcare facility they could get a corresponding increase in the number of units to compensate them for using up land for the childcare facility that they might otherwise use for residential units. The state density bonus law, in its latest iteration, also includes required parking ratios that are typically less than what cities require in terms of parking if the developer requests it. So, if the developer submits a project that meets the minimum standards for density bonus and request parking ratios for the project, the city must approve those. These ratios are typically lower for these units under the theory that people of lower income own fewer cars or are more likely to use buses, etc. Mr. Douglas concluded that after tonight's meeting this ordinance would have to go to the City Council for final review and approval. C/Lin said that regardless of whether there is vacant land that is zoned Light Industrial, can an existing building in the zone be converted to housing of this type and Mr. Douglas said C/Lin was correct that this would be a permitted use within that zoning district. C/Lin referred,to two APRIL 23, 2013 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION attachments, both of which refer to Exhibit A and when one reads Exhibit A it basically speaks to emergency housing and single room housing but nowhere does Exhibit A refer to Transitional or Supportive so where does the documentation make reference to Transitional Housing. Mr. Douglas responded that Exhibit A is attached to the General Plan Amendment Resolution and so the Transitional and Supportive Ordinance does not require any change to the General Plan because those are residential uses and under state law they are permitted in any residential zone and so the General Plan can already support Transitional and Supportive without an amendment. ACA/Eggart further explained that there are two separate resolutions because there are two separate actions required, the first being a General Plan Amendment which refers to Exhibit A which is on the last page of Attachment 2 and the second resolution is for approval of the Zoning Code Amendments and the Exhibit A reference is the multiple page document in the Commission's packet. VC/Torng asked where Diamond Bar's Light Industrial zone lies. CDD/Gubman responded that most of the Light Industrial zoned property would be in the vicinity of Brea Canyon Road so if proceeding southerly on Golden Springs Drive one would turn right on Brea Canyon Road or proceed to Lemon Avenue for a right turn, go under the freeway and on the left side would be one of the Light Industrial areas. Within that general area would be the concentration of Light Industrial zoned properties. VC/Torng asked why there is no environmental impact report attachment and whether the city was allowed to give special dispensation for the owner/operator to ignore the environmental impact report. Mr. Douglas responded that these items are amendments to the General Plan and Municipal Code which require review under CEQA so staff reviewed the proposed ordinances and prepared the Negative Declaration which goes through all of the environmental topics to decide whether these ordinances could have any significant effect on the environment and the conclusion was that none of these actions would have any significant environmental effect and so when that is the case, the appropriate document is the Negative Declaration. Chair/Nelson asked for clarification of the statement contained in staff's report that states "this procedure would affirm as to its mandate that Transitional and Supportive Housing shall be treated as a residential use subject only to the same requirements as other residential uses of the same type in the same zone." He asked for verification that this does not conflict with the City's Development Code that states "one family per FTIVOJ_Rlffiffl, , UTTET: residence." CDD/Gubman said that the Chair/Nelson was correct that if it is Transitional/Supportive Housing property in the single family zone, it is restricted to a single housekeeping unit whether individuals are related or unrelated. Chair/Nelson asked why the city would change its parking requirements. CDD/Gubman stated that Transitional/Supportive Housing is a category that needs to be looked at separately and is defined as being in a single family dwelling, it is one family/one family unit which is subject to all of the development standards of the single family home. The only distinction that makes it a transitional housing unit versus the single family home next door is that it is being managed by a non-profit agency that is providing for the family that is in the financial circumstance that requires that type of aid. Chair/Nelson asked if this resolution gives the non-profit an exception to the number of parking units in the garage and CDD/Gubman reiterated not for Transitional/Supportive Housing. Chair/Nelson asked what would happen if 100 beds were needed if portions of Diamond Bar had to be evacuated for fire, earthquake or other reasons if there is a limit of 30 beds. The Diamond Bar High School gymnasium can accommodate more than 30 beds and is this ordinance saying they cannot accommodate more than 30. Mr. Douglas responded that this ordinance refers to "permanent year-round facilities" and not temporary facilities in the event of a disaster. Chair/Nelson asked for confirmation that this discussion does NOT include halfway houses and CDD/Gubman responded "correct." Chair/Nelson asked if this would NOT apply to maternity homes as are being discovered in Hacienda Heights, Rowland Heights and Chino Hills and CDD/Gubman responded "correct." CDD/Gubman said that staff believes maternity homes or maternity hotels fall under the definition of boarding house. The City has a definition for boarding house in its Municipal Code. Boarding houses are prohibited in single family zone areas so a maternity home that is operating in a single family dwelling or in a single family zone would be interpreted to be a "boarding house." There are multiple rental agreements for long-term accommodations made for these individuals, which all fits within the scope of the definition of what a boarding house is and would not be permitted within the single family zones. This ordinance does not make any provisions to accommodate them and is silent on them because the City has regulations on boarding houses on the books already. Chair/Nelson asked if the Ordinance could specifically exclude maternity houses/hotels so that there is no possible interpretation or lawsuit. ACA/Eggart responded that the type of commercial facility that has been APRIL 23, 2013 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION found to exist in those other cities is commercial in nature. Transitional supportive housing is generally non-commercial in nature and simply would not fit within that definition and the City would never consider them to fit within that definition. The Development Code does not contain any definition for maternity housing so to make such an addition, the City would have to come up with a specific definition about what that would be. Chair/Nelson is suggesting that staff do so for future adoption by the City Council and he believes it is appropriate. It does not hurt to safeguard the City's code. VC/Torng said he is confused about the issue as well. C/Lin said he felt the definition was very clear and said he agreed with the City Attorney. Does state law say the city has to designate these types of houses within the Light Industrial District or can they be designated in other zones? Mr. Douglas responded that state law allows cities to determine the appropriate zone and it does not specify that Light Industrial is the only place. C/Lin said that Industrial zoning is °appropriately for industrial use. A couple of years ago the City designated the area by DRHS for affordable housing and would seem to him to be a more appropriate location for dwelling units of this nature rather than the Light Industrial zoning. SP/Lee stated that when staff researched the appropriate zones for these types of facilities it looked at proximity to several major transit stops and currently in the industrial areas of the city, there are no heavy manufacturing uses and the uses are primarily light industrial such as offices and warehouse uses. There is a public elementary school and two mobile home parks in close proximity to the Metrolink station, as well as several major bus routes, which is how staff reached its recommendation for the industrial zone to be the appropriate area for these types of facilities. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. VC/Torng moved, C/Lin seconded, to recommend City Council adoption of amendments to Title 22 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code ("Development Code") and related amendment to the Land Use Category of the General Plan Land Use Element — Planning Case No. PL2012-513. Chair/Nelson asked that the motion be amended to include that despite the fact that staff feels it is not necessary, he would like to include as an example parenthetically or as a footnote or however appropriate, the exclusion of halfway houses and maternity homes as part of this amendment. APRIL 23, 2013 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSIOil' ACA/Eggart asked if Chair/Nelson was specifically referring to Transitional and Supportive Housing or to Emergency Shelters as well and Chair/Nelson responded Transitional and Supportive Housing. ACA/Eggart said that the Chair/Nelson could propose specific language to the proposed ordinance that he wanted to recommend to the City Council. If that is done, staff may want to continue the item to vet the item to make certain it reads as intended. The Commission could approve it as is to the City Council with a recommendation that staff bring the issue up to Council and look for ways to add the language to the ordinance by providing examples. If the Commission wanted to proceed with the matter this evening those would be the options. Otherwise, staff would have to go back to see if language could be added so that the city would be in compliance with the law. Chair/Nelson said that subject to his colleague's agreement he was okay with the option to let the City Council deal with the issue; however, he wanted to go on record as having it be something he would like to be made crystal clear. VC/Torng said he would support Chair/Nelson. C/Lin said he would not support an additional amendment because he felt the resolution was clear. VC[Torng asked that the motion be adopted as presented with Chair/Nelson's concerns stated. ACA/Eggart pointed out that the General Plan Amendment requires all three commissioners present to vote Aye. The Development Code Amendment requires two Aye votes. If there is an issue the Commission may want to split the two resolutions into two motions. There is a motion on the table to approve "as is" which will have to be dispensed and if it fails, address the motion to approve as the Chair suggested. CDD/Gubman offered that to help move this forward he asked the Commission to refer to Exhibit A of the first resolution, the ordinance, Section 7 - definitions associated with the ordinance, there are definitions for Supportive Housing and Transitional Housing and the language of those definitions in the last sentence is similar. "For example, Transitional Housing shall be considered a residential use subject to the same standards as other similar residential uses in the same zone based upon predominant characteristics of the use." At the direction of the Commission, staff could add a final sentence to read that "Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing as defined above does not apply to Group Homes, Parolee Probationary Housing, Birthing Hotels, etc." Chair/Nelson concurred. VC[Torng withdrew his original motion and C/Lin withdrew his second of the original motion. APRIL 23, 2013 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Torng moved to adopt the resolution recommending City Council adoption of amendments to Title 22 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code ("Development Code") and related amendment to the Land Use Category of the General Plan Land Use Element — Planning Case No. PL2012-513 with the addition of a sentence at the end of Section 7 of the ordinance which lists defined items to which the ordinance does not apply, as heretofore stated by CDD/Gubman. C/Lin objected to deferring the crafting of the language to staff without prior review by the Commission. Motion died for lack of second. CDD Gubman suggested adding the following sentence to each definition: "Supportive/Transitional housing does not include halfway houses or maternity hotels operated as a business." All of the commissioners indicated acceptance of this language. VC/Torng offered a substitute motion to adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of an amendment to the land use element of the City's General Plan to accommodate the need for Emergency Shelter and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing in the I (Light Industrial) Land Use category of the General Plan. C/Lin seconded the substitute motion. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS Lin, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None Farago, Shah VC/Torng moved, C/Lin seconded, to recommend City Council adoption of the Development Code Amendment with the addition to Section 7 of the following sentences to the definitions for supportive and transitional housing: "Supportive housing does not include halfway houses or maternity hotels operated as a business. Transitional housing does not include halfway houses or maternity hotels operated as a business." Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Shah 8. PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: None APRIL 23, 2013 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman stated that the two continued items from this evening are the only two items currently scheduled for the May 14, 2013, meeting. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 8:07 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 14th day of May, 2013. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director 8te've Nelson, / Chai , an