Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/25/20136i T I D 1 5 E 5 6 1 U R U JUNE 25, 2013 Vice Chairman Torng called the Study Session to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. Present: C/Farago and VC/Torng Absent: Commissioners Jimmy Lin, Jack Shah, Chairman Steve Nelson Also Present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; John Douglas, Housing Consultant, Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie Tobon, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 1) Basics of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): CDD/Gubman stated that the California Environmental Quality Act was adopted by the state legislature in 1970 shortly after President Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into law. CEQA is the state counterpart of the federal regulations. There are four primary objectives that CEQA seeks to fulfill: One is to inform the government decision makers and the public about the potential environmental effects associated with projects. Following this disclosure, the objective is to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. Following the identification of what would be considered mitigation measures to make changes to the project or impose conditions on a project where feasible, to prevent or substantially reduce those environmental impacts. CEQA does not require environmental impacts to be eliminated when a project is up for consideration; it is primarily intended to provide that disclosure of the environmental impacts. Should a government agency elect to approve a project where it is unable to eliminate the environmental effects below what would be considered a "significant" level, it must disclose to the public the reasons why it is going to take an action to approve a project that is going to have significant environmental effects. CEQA guidelines indicate that CEQA is not intended to generate paper but to compel government at all levels to make decisions where they take the environmental consequences in mind along with all of the other policy matters that are part of that decision. Bottom line is that CEQA is intended to be an objective process — an impartial methodology to evaluate the potential environmental impacts for the purpose of disclosing and minimizing environmental damage to the extent that a good faith effort is made and that those mitigation measures are feasible. There are mandates that seek to minimize, eliminate or at least reduce environmental impacts but even if that cannot be done at the very least, CEQA requires that we disclose what the environmental impacts would be if a certain action is taken. CDD/Gubman stated that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is one of many types of environmental documents that can be adopted in conjunction with a project JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION action. It is the most well known type of environmental document and it is also the least frequently used environmental document. Not all projects would require an EIR; in fact, most projects are exempt from CEQA altogether. For example, if a school board candidate applied for a business license to open a campaign office; if one is running for a school board position; CEQA would not apply. Other examples of exempt projects would be room additions or custom homes, Conditional Use Permits for tutoring centers, etc. Another CEQA action that is not elevated to an EIR is a Negative Declaration. The Commission is going to be considering a Negative Declaration tonight for a new office building which is slightly more of an intensive use than a new home or room addition but it still is not a project that would likely have significant environmental effects, so in that case there is a requirement to perform an environmental analysis but because the impacts of that project would not be significant or they can be reduced to levels that would not be significant, a Negative Declaration can be adopted. There is a subset of Negative Declarations called Mitigated Negative Declarations which is where the finding is that the effect is not significant because certain requirements are adopted as conditions of approval to ensure that those environmental effects are mitigated. Another example is an addendum to a previous FIR. In a few months the Commission will be reviewing an FIR Addendum for the Site D project. The FIR has been adopted for that project at a programmatic level based on the level of detail the City had at the specific plan phase. Now that there is a more refined project, the City has to measure it against the adopted EIR and if there are any changes to the project that were not contemplated in the EIR but are relatively insubstantial, the addendum still needs to be adopted to document that those changes were reviewed and findings can be made that those changes are not substantial. According to Sections 15002 and 15151 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines is devoted to providing guidance to the preparers of the EIRs. Unfortunately, relentless legal challenges ensure that theory and practice are two entirely different things. The CEQA Guidelines under Section 15141, states that EIRs should normally be less than 150 pages and for unusually complex projects, should not exceed 300 pages. The EIR that the Commission has this evening is about 400 pages for a relatively simple project and there is another almost 800 pages offering technical background information. Given the susceptibility to legal challenges, there is riot likely to be an FIR that is only 150 pages. The executive summary alone is close to 75 pages. Another extreme example is the Santa Anita Mail in Arcadia EIR which was 4,000 pages and one would imagine that something that voluminous would have to be such a major project it would have to have impacts that would extend all of the way out to Diamond Bar but it is just a shopping mall that has no effect on anybody except the property owners and residents surrounding that vicinity — yet, the threat of legal challenge sometimes compels these unwieldy documents to be developed and published. This same section of JUNE 25, 2013 •' 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION the CEQA Guidelines recommends and encourages that EIRs, be written in plain language with use of appropriate graphics so that decision makers can readily understand the documents. EIR consultants do a pretty good job of making these documents readable but there is no way to get around the certain amount of technical minutia that has to be placed in the document to make it legally defensible. Discussions will include how to deal with the technical minutia and how to navigate through a document more efficiently in light of what needs to be done to provide legal cover. CEQA does not really work in practice the way it was supposed to in that it generates too much paper and in deference to local agencies where the decision making authority is most appropriately placed is often lost because the whole CEQA challenge industry has become the domain of attorneys and often, if a project is controversial, the final decision is not left at the local level. Case law has held that CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced. CEQA must not be subverted into an instrument for oppression and delay of social, economic or recreational development or advancement. Basically, this is saying that CEQA should not be misused as a weapon to kill projects. There can be projects that are bad projects that are not good for the community and are bad public policy. They may be in conflict with a city's general plan but for all of those other factors that go into a decision on whether to approve or deny a project, the environmental findings can be perfectly solid and defensible yet that is always the component of the decision that will attract the legal challenge and sometimes, even if the findings can survive a legal challenge, the process of challenging an environmental decision can kill a project. One example in the City of Claremont is an EIR that was prepared for several subdivisions that collectively comprised a single project, and one of the impacts the additional population that the buildout would create was putting more pressure on the city's parks and recreation inventory. So, a mitigation measure required the developer to dedicate 20 acres to the city for the development of a lighted sports -recreational amenity that THE city was lacking. Every homeowner that bought a house in these tracts was given a disclosure and acknowledged that there would be a 20 -acre sports park on this land that was well -designated with fencing and signage. As the development builds out and development impact fees were collected to go toward the actual improvements to the dedicated property, the city eventually went forward with plans to develop the park and the residents who moved into the development who were by their presence triggering the need for additional parkland, mounted an effort to challenge the park even though they acknowledged that it was part of the deal in purchasing the property, and filed a CEQA lawsuit. The matter went to court and eventually the city prevailed but it came at a significant expense and illustrates how the CEQA process is abused for other agendas. A project may be good or bad on factors other than environmental issues but because of the environmental challenge being JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION the easiest to mount against a local decision, this is where the focus of the challenge will be directed. 2) How to review an Environmental Impact Report (EIR): CDD/Gubman stated that to review an EIR efficiently, it is important to know how the document is organized. The best place to start is the table of contents. Every EIR should have the following nine sections: 1. Introduction/Executive Summary - the one section Commissioners need to read thoroughly. It will summarize the project, what the environmental topic areas that were reviewed are and which of those environmental topics are the key environmental issues that need to be further delved into. The Executive Summary further provides a synopsis of what is proposed to mitigate any of those potential impacts and what the significance is after those mitigation measures are adopted. 2. Project Description - lays out in more detail what the project is about. 3. Project Objectives - explains what goals the project is supposed to achieve so if it is a rezone to a higher density multi -family designation, one of the objectives that will be spelled out is that the rezoning effort is being undertaken to ensure that the City fulfills its obligation to provide housing for all economic sectors of the community. 4. Thresholds of Significance - will be discussed. Any project that is going to result in construction impacts where there will be air-quality impacts, there will be quantitative thresholds that can easily be calculated for traffic impacts, number of trips the project generates and how those trips burden certain intersections — these can all be calculated to determine whether a threshold has been tripped. 5. Impact Analysis - is the longest and most intensive discussion that can be found in the EIR. The impact analysis covers a lot of technical issues that may not really warrant thorough reading so this is where the Executive Summary helps direct one's energy when reviewing the impacts. There is going to be a lot of technical discussion on air quality impacts which is also very tedious and technical and is probably not of much interest to go through unless one's agenda is to challenge the EIR. Another example could be paleontological impacts. The EIR could get into a lot of discussion regarding that subject but the bottom line is probably going to be what is contained within the Executive Summary which can be used as a guide on how to focus the reader's efforts. 6. Mitigation Measures JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION 7. Analysis of Ultimate Impact of the Project - if Mitigation Measures are implemented. 8. Cumulative Impacts - is the forest in the midst of the trees. A project could generate some traffic impacts at an intersection. The project itself is probably not going to make the intersection noticeably worse but the totality of all of the projects and all of the activities in the area of interest could have a cumulative and measurable impact. 9. Discussion of Alternatives to the Project Originally Contemplated in the project description, which involves looking at either variations to a project or other types of projects that could meet most of the project objectives and, at the same time, have impacts that are less than those of the project that is being proposed. There is a Draft EIR and a Final EIR. The difference is that the Draft EIR is what is before the Commission at this time — the actual volume one that lays out those nine sections listed above which is subject to a 45 -day review period. A Final EIR will include the Draft EIR and the technical appendices that were published for 45 days. Usually, the only additional component of the Final EIR that makes the Draft EIR a Final EIR is another volume that includes comments and responses to comments that were submitted for the Draft Environmental Impact Report. There are some situations where it is not that simple. Sometimes a Draft EIR needs to be re- circulated or new sections need to be added that may fundamentally change the document to an extent that goes beyond just appending what the Draft EIR had. The following are eight (8) tips for effectively evaluating an EIR: To understand the role that the EIR plays in the Commission's ultimate decision to approve or deny a project, environmental impacts are just one of several factors that the Commissioners would take into account when making a decision to approve or deny a project; however, the Commission cannot approve a project unless it makes some findings in regards to the environmental impacts. So the Commission has to ultimately come to this decision point: "Will the project have a significant effect on the environment. If not, then the Commission may approve a project. If not, then has the project eliminated or substantially lessened all significant impacts, where feasible and not only that, but has the Commission determined that any of the remaining significant impacts that are found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to overriding considerations." This says that the Commission cannot approve a project subject to an EIR unless it can find that there are feasible ways to reduce all of the environmental impacts and, if the Commission cannot do that it cannot approve the project unless it can adopt some findings that tell the public why it believes there are overriding concerns that warrant approving a project. If it is a Home Depot and the development and operation of that store is going to create JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION significant air quality impacts because that is unavoidable in Southern California where it doesn't take much to create a significant environmental impact because air quality, although improving, is still considered unacceptably high. The decision makers could decide that although that is true, the jobs, the sales tax revenue and all of the secondary benefits that sales tax revenue will bring to the community override that significant effect on air quality that cannot be avoided. So when reviewing the EIR there are questions the Commission wants to ask, and keep in mind that the Commissioners are professionals in their individual fields, but as Commissioners they are considered lay persons and their decisions are based on a whole palette of considerations. Commissioners are not assumed or expected to be authorities on environmental impacts, and should feel confident in the expertise of staff and the consultants who have prepared the EIR so that the Commissioners just really need to use their common sense to see if the questions raised in the EIR have been answered sensibly. So, from a common sense perspective, has the EIR identified each of the significant impacts associated with the project and if so, have those impacts been mitigated or has the roadmap for mitigating those impacts been laid out in the EIR; and if so, do the Commissioners think the mitigation measures are a good idea. And if those impacts have not been mitigated, why haven't they, and is there a good reason that mitigation measures or alternatives are not feasible and/or ultimately will not be adopted. The EIR may be solid, it may say that there are ultimately no significant impacts but looking at compatibility and other factors, it still may not be a project worth approving. But from an environmental perspective, the Commission can get to the point of certifying that the EIR properly disclosed all of the impacts and the environmental issue may not be the weighing factor in determining whether this is a good project. On the other hand, the EIR, as indicated in the Home Depot example, will result in unavoidable impacts but, is the project worthwhile? And that is really what the Commission is eventually getting to and the environmental component of that decision is one of many that the Commissioners are faced with. Some thresholds are provided by other technical resources such as Caltrans, California Fish & Wildlife (formerly Fish & Game), the AQMD — they all provide criteria for determining thresholds of significance. Cities can also adopt their own local CEQA guidelines which define what those thresholds are that are appropriate for the community. Regardless of what criteria are used to determine significance, the Commission needs to be mindful that it needs to use those same criteria, other things being equal, for all projects that are being reviewed. So how are mitigation measures evaluated? State law says that the public agency shall provide that measures that avoid effects are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. So a mitigation measure cannot just be imposed unless there is some way to monitor or enforce the compliance and implementation of those measures. And when looking at the mitigation measures there are three choices: The Commission can adopt that mitigation measure, it can make a finding that the mitigation measure is riot within its jurisdiction but within the JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSIOJ STUDY SESSION jurisdiction of another agency and find a way to ensure that the city is not issuing any permits until it has verification that the project has obtained clearance from those agencies that would oversee such a measure. For example, Fish & Wildlife is going to oversee any type of restoration or mitigation to any wetlands damage and the city wants documentation of that before issuing a grading permit for a development. Third, the Commission wants to determine that the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers make the mitigation measure infeasible. This goes back to whether there are overriding reasons why a project should be approved even if all of the significant impacts cannot be dispensed with. The yardstick is to see whether this mitigation measure is socially acceptable. For example, in discussing the NFL Stadium project, say that to relieve traffic congestion Brea Canyon Road would need to be widened, so all of the parkway design features and walking trails that one finds along Brea Canyon Road to Pathfinder would have to be blown out to add two lanes. While that might relieve traffic congestion it may not be acceptable. So in this instance, it is appropriate to challenge the efficacy of that mitigation measure and to compel the project proponents to find something that is more socially acceptable — maybe something to the lane geometry on the freeway instead, where the city is not giving up something to accommodate the needs of this one project. Focusing on the impact after mitigation, that may be a short discussion in the EIR compared to the analysis of the impact before mitigation, but the Commission should ask if the mitigation will result in a measurable reduction in that impact. When we say "understand the project objectives" we go back to those nine basic outlining criteria in the EIR. Each project should include a statement of objectives sought by the project and the statement of objectives will help the lead agency to develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR. This analysis section is a crucial tool in determining the true impacts of the project. The project objectives will be a benchmark and gauge for determining the sufficiency of the alternatives and the alternative analysis is a crucial tool in determining the true impacts of the project ranging from no project whatsoever to a range of other projects that could feasibly occur which would have lesser impacts than the project proposed. The term "no project" as an alternative is a bit confusing. What it is intended to do is to look at the project area, what the existing conditions are at the time the notice was prepared for the project and the "no project" alternative is, in the absence of the project that is being proposed, what is likely to occur if the project was not approved. For the EIR that the City is in the process of seeking comments for at this time it is fairly easy. The City is looking at a "zone change" so the "no project" alternative would be to revert to the current zoning which is Agricultural. Other examples that do not involve zone changes would usually be alternatives that look JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 8 PLANNING GOMMISSIOi','� STUDY SESSION at that same project in a different location or a variation of that project that is usually at a lower intensity. So a "no project" alternative is not to mean no development, it is just what development might occur in the absence of the project the Commission is reviewing at this time. Project alternatives need to be feasible and they need to further most of the basic objectives of the project and they need to avoid or substantially lessen the impacts that have been identified with the primary project the Commission is looking at. The "cumulative impact" is the combined impact of the project with other projects that will produce similar impacts such as the typical example of traffic impacts at an intersection. The Final EIR is the Comments and Response to Comments appendix to the Draft EIR - every comment that is submitted during a Draft EIR public review period needs to have a written response in the final EIR. And so, the Commission gets to the point of deciding whether to approve or deny a project and if the Commission is at the point where a project can be approved, if we can adopt overriding considerations to overcome the significant impacts of the EIR, CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against those potential unavoidable or significant environmental risks. The decision-making authority is fully disclosing and acknowledging what is going to result environmentally with the project but on the other side of the ledger, the benefits would need to be well -articulated in that Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the final decision. There are other factors for a project that go into the decision making that are not limited to the environmental impacts so all of the other issues that the community would raise — traffic impacts may not be environmentally significant, but they may have some other qualitative issues that lead to a decision to possibly deny a project. So there are other factors that should not be considered environmental such as compatibility, aesthetic and others that are really the true source of whether or not a project merits approval. 3) Tabletop exercise using the Draft EIR for the proposed rezoning and General Plan Amendment for a 78 -acre portion of Tres Hermanos that lies directly south of Diamond Ranch High School. 'The Zone Change proposes to change the zoning on 30 acres within the study area from Agricultural to Very High Density Residential (RH-30). John Douglas pointed out a couple of items the Commission should be looking at in preparation for the next public hearing. Key question — why are we doing this? Why does the Commission have this EIR in front of it and why is a zone change JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSIOR STUDY SESSION being proposed? This is an unusual project that is being driven by state law and the Housing Element of the General Plan. State law says that cities have to have adequate sites with appropriate zoning in order to accommodate its "fair -share regional housing need." And this goes to a process whereby every city is assigned its "fair -share." For Diamond Bar, for the current eight-year planning period that is just ending, the fair share was over a thousand units of new housing development. So state law says, the city either has to demonstrate that it has enough capacity for a full range of housing of various densities or it has to rezone. Diamond Bar went through the Housing Element process over the last several years and the city does not have enough available land to meet the numbers of about 466 units of High Density Housing so it has to rezone in order to satisfy a state mandate for local governments to demonstrate they have adequate sites. Some people ask why not just tell the state to go fly a kite. Some cities have gotten on the wrong side of state law and have suffered nasty consequences as a result of courts taking over their planning and building authority. No city wants to see that happen so Diamond Bar is moving forward on the assumption that the city wants to maintain a certified Housing Element and be in compliance with state law. Unlike many EIR projects that the Commission might see, this is not being developer -driven. There is no request from a private developer to rezone property so that they can build houses and make a profit. This is being driven entirely by state law that says Diamond Bar has to have appropriate zoning to accommodate its "fair -share" housing needs. So in this EIR and in the project that comes forward in the next few weeks, the Commission will not see any elevations, drawings of homes, landscape site plans, etc. because there is no real project. All the City is doing is rezoning land that could accommodate development if the property owner, which is the City of Industry, wants to move forward with development. So, this is a City initiated project and not a developer driven process. Because there is no "real" project in front of the Commission, it will not see some technical studies that are often presented as part of a package in an EIR such as a detailed grading plan and a detailed drainage plan, hydrology and those types of things. Those have not been done but they will be required before any development could happen. And so, it is important to keep in mind this "big picture" of what the City is doing and why the City is doing it. In this EIR Executive Summary, the Commissioners will see a large table that goes through topic by topic and itemizes the various categories of impacts and identifies the mitigation measures that have been identified in order to reduce or eliminate impacts. There will be a lot of familiar stuff regarding mitigation measures to reduce air emissions and to address any cultural archeological resources that could be uncovered during grading and those kinds of things. Important to keep in mind is that unlike most EIR projects, this EIR concludes that all of the impacts can be reduced below the level of significance. So, if this project were approved, development goes forward, if all of these mitigation measures are implemented, there would be no significant impacts. Most EIRs find that there is at least one or JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION two significant impacts, which put the projects into the category of having to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Even though there are significant impacts, the City wants to approve the project anyway for these following economic or whatever reasons. In this case it is unusual because staff believes there are no significant impacts. The Project Description chapter lays out what the objectives are and they are closely related to what he just described about why this EIR is being done — it is state mandated. And so, the objectives are very important in comparing what alternatives should be considered and what the best alternative is for the City to approve. In terms of the Impact Analysis, one unusual thing about this particular EIR is on Page 5.1-26. This is in Chapter 5 — Environmental Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures. This section talks about aesthetics analysis. He asked that the Commissioners focus their attention on "effects — substantially damaged resources including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, etc. and immediately under that it says "Site A or Site B." All of this analysis of impacts is looking at two options for the City to consider. He referred the Commissioners to Page 4-4 (color map) in the Project Description section. This is the map that shows the subject property that is being evaluated. The map has a portion labeled Site A and another portion to the west labeled Site B and the southwestern corner labeled Outlying Parcel. All of the analysis is comparing these two portions of the larger site so that is why the Commissioners will see some sections that list Site A or Site B and that is relevant when there is no difference between A or B — it is the sarne, so the discussion is the same. But then on Page 5.1-27 there is reference toward the bottom of the page that reads Site A — Middle Ground Receptors. This is different from most EIRs the Commission will see. Some discussion is relevant to both of the portions of the study site and some discussion is particular to either Site A portion or Site B portion. Alternatives — this type of an EIR is where the City is being forced to rezone some land. So the key question is not what type of development. The City is being mandated to rezone for High Density Housing so the question is, where is the best place to put it? So in that sense it might be referred to as an "Alternatives" type of EIR where the key question is "Alternatives" and Chapter 6 describes how the City arrived at the choice of what alternatives should be looked at. And again, it is driven by that state mandate. At the end of the alternatives chapter there is a comparative evaluation of the three primary alternatives that were carried forward for more detailed evaluation and those three are: The first is No Project which is not the same as "no development" — it is development that could happen under the current zoning which is Low Density Single Family Homes. The second alternative is Infill sites which are already developed properties in a Light Industrial portion of the City; and, the third alternative is Another portion of the Tres Hermanos Property that is farther to the south but still within the larger Tres Hermanos property. PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSIOJ STUDY SESSION The key findings of this EIR as previously stated: The EIR concludes that all of the potential impacts can be mitigated "below the level of significance", so there would be no Statement of Overriding Considerations required. Second key point is that other alternatives besides the primary option of Site A or Site B would not meet the basic project objectives because they would not be consistent with the Housing Element which is the key reason for doing this project in the first place. And finally, the "other location" alternative Tres Hermanos South site, the impacts would be very similar to either Site A or Site B that are the primary options in the EIR. VC/Torng thanked CDD/Gubman and Mr. Douglas for a great presentation. The only thing unbelievable is that traffic is less significant because of this project of 490 residences. Mr. Douglas pointed out that there is one mitigation measure for traffic which is off- site in the City of Pomona. It is a relatively minor mitigation measure which is the restriping of a turn pocket. Typically, in an EIR one sees big impacts in traffic but that is not the case here. ACA/Eggart announced that the Commission reached quorum about 6:55 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: VC/Torng adjourned the study session to the regular meeting at 7:03 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 13th day of August, 2013. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman .1 41 Community Development Director Steve Nelson, Chairman MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMORD BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 25, 2013 1AIM111111-feffiel's QA Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:08 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. Present: Commissioners Frank Farago, Jimmy Lin, Vice Chairman Tony Torng, Chairman Steve Nelson Absent: Commissioner Jack Shah was excused. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie Tobon, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 28, 2013. VC/Torng moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 28, 2013, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: A NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS None None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): Farago, Lin, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None Shah 7.1 Development Review No. PL2013-123 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant and property owner, Razgo Lee, requested Development Review approval to construct a 1,023 square foot second story addition to an existing single family residence on a 0.67 gross acre (29,138 square foot) lot. The subject property is zoned Low Density JUNE 25, 2013 •' 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Residential (RL) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: 24069 Gold Rush Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Razgo Lee APPLICANT: 24069 Gold Rush Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AP/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2013-123, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng said the neighbor's letter referred to City of Glendora's code which calls for a 33 percent roof per 10,000 square feet of land and asked if Diamond Bar had such a code. AP/Tobon responded that the City's Development Standards state that within this zone there is a lot maximum coverage of 40 percent footprint and the proposed project is 24.4 percent coverage. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. VC/Torng moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL.2013-123, 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: Farago, Lin, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Shah 7.2 Tentative Tract Map No. 72067, Development Review and Parking Permit No. PL2012-455 — The applicant requested Development Review approval to construct a 21,794 square foot new two-story professional office building on a 42,333 square foot (0.97 acre) Office Professional (OP) zoned parcel with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial. A Tentative Tract Map was requested to subdivide air space for an 11 unit office condominium, as well as, a Parking Permit to share driveway access and parking between the proposed development and lot to the north of the project site. PROJECT ADDRESS: 650 Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNER: Peichin Lee 17528 E. Rowland Street #200 City of Industry, CA 91748 APPLICANT: Brea Canyon Investments, LLC 17528 E. Rowland Street #200 City of Industry, CA 91748 SP/Lee presented staff's report and recommended the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 72067, Development Review and Parking Permit No. PL2012-455, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Lin asked how many leasable spaces are within the existing industrial building and whether the current users require deliveries from semi -trucks. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Peichin Lee responded to C/Lin that the existing industrial building is divided into 10 small units with unit sizes from 800 to 2800 square feet. They are relatively small units and the users are storing compact merchandise, and without permission to have the semi -truck able to deliver their merchandise it is acceptable to the small users since they are not the types of uses that would be served by semi -trucks. Chair/Nelson asked how the Diamond Star development turned out for the applicant and Ms. Lee responded that it was a great success. The location, quality and design are good and she thanked the Commission for approving the project. Sixty percent of the units were sold before they broke ground and the rest of the spaces were sold prior to completion. All of the users are happy with the facility. Obviously, the demand for these types of units is strong for local business owners because they like to own their own units (pride of ownership) and take advantage of the low interest rates. Chair/Nelson asked if Ms. Lee expected the same kinds or types of Industry's users to come into this project and Ms. Lee responded that as a matter of fact, 45 percent of the space is already reserved by professional users. Most of the user's are from the City of Diamond Bar or adjacent neighborhoods. Chair/Nelson asked for examples of users and their types of businesses. Ms. Lee responded that there is a wholesale travel agency, a trading company, and a chiropractor who is currently leasing and wish to own. Anthony Gonzales said he owns property in the 852 block of the adjacent townhomes directly across from the proposed project. The building looks great but he is concerned about the parking. He believes at this time they have 10 rentals. He visited the site on Monday and counted about 90 parking spaces JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION and with the 10 rentals 71 parking spaces were filled in the middle of the afternoon on a Monday. He is concerned about overflow parking. If 10 units fill 71 spaces and Ms. Lee intends to add 11 more rental spaces, where will the additional parking come from. He understands that the bulk of parking is supposed to be shared with the northerly parking but the northerly parking is already being occupied. He provided the Commission with photographs. Chair/Nelson said the Commission would review the photographs and present them to the clerk to be entered into the record. During past years, the residents of Windwood Townhomes have had issues with parking overflow from Metrolink which the new multi -tiered structure will alleviate. However, he remains concerned that the overflow parking from the project will flow into his complex. In addition, he is concerned that professional offices will bring come and go traffic and the area is already congested and difficult to maneuver. C/Lin said that in looking at the photographs he noticed an ambulance company that has six or seven ambulance vehicles parked there. Mr. Gonzales said there is a lot of emergency vehicle traffic that goes in and out of the parking lot and each of those vehicles carry one to two individuals so that would mean two to three spaces occupied by employees and the company. The company has been at that location for a number of years. Aside from that, regular employees seem to go to the site and remain there for their eight hour shift. VC/Torng said the speaker mentioned 11 units. Currently, how many units are there and Mr. Gonzales reiterated he believed there were 10 unites at this time and whatever number of units are currently occupied, 71 of the approximately 90 parking spaces were occupied when he visited the site yesterday. 'The only spaces that were open were those next to the vacant lot which is where the proposed construction is located. VC/Torng said the Commission has a traffic study and asked that the developer address Mr. Gonzales's concerns. Ms. Lee explained that the industrial building consists of 10 units. The applicant signed a two-year lease with the ambulance company in January 2013. Initially, their business was very slow. The construction of the proposed building is set to be completed at about the same time that the ambulance company's lease expires (December 2014). During the past two months the (ambulance) business has grown and in fact, the owner approached the leasing company a couple of weeks ago to let them know that his company was growing at a fast pace and asked the landlord if they would allow him to break his lease. Our response to the owner was that he could break his lease anytime, and that we would help him find a larger place to accommodate his growing business which we are now doing. We believe that by the time the new building is completed the ambulance company's lease will be up and he will have moved to another location which should solve the parking issue. JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Farago said it appeared there may be overflow parking from the Metrolink and asked if the property owner had any type of security to make sure that only tenants parked in the lot. Ms. Lee said she checked with Metrolink and was advised that there is additional parking for users. She does not see overflow parking in their lot from Metrolink. VC/Torng said that according to the previous speaker there are 10 units. With the addition it will become 11 units. Ms. Lee explained that the 10 units are in the existing building. They will build a new 11 -unit office -building. The ambulance company occupies 2,800 square feet and is 'looking for 7,000 square feet. Chair/Nelson asked how the City could be assured that the tenant would be moving and Ms. Lee reiterated that the lease expires in December 2014. Chair/Nelson asked if the ambulance company owner had a right to renew the lease and Ms. Lee said he does not have the option to renew the lease. She said she would be happy to provide a copy of the lease amendment to the Commission, if requested. During construction there are no new tenants and no new users moving to the site so there will be no parking required before the actual building is completed. Chair/Nelson asked if the combined parking allocation met the City's development standard and whether the existing property to the north was in violation of the City's parking standards. Also, does the City have legal recourse to try to remedy the existing condition and, in the event that the ambulance company's lease is renewed, can the City impose tandem parking or such circumstances to accommodate more parking on their property. Despite the property owner's assurances, in the event that a landlord wants to retain a tenant which of course is desirable, could be a workable situation. Ms. Lee said this can happen on any property. When a landlord rents to a tenant a business can grow. The ambulance company owner is in such a position and is in the process of finding another property. Her firm has a reputation for looking out for the best circumstances for all of their users and tenants. The investment company does not want to damage itself by acting against tenants who have legal signed contracts. If for any reason the ambulance service wants to stay, they can stay until December 2014 when their lease expires. To reiterate, the ambulance owner initiated the meeting with the landlord and asked for relief. The investment company has no problem breaking the lease because the building offers a very desirable location and the investment company can easily find other users to take that space. Chair/Nelson asked if the Commission could impose, as a condition of the use permit, a requirement for tandem parking of the ambulance drivers on their property if necessary in order to prevent parking from flowing onto adjacent streets and adjacent properties. ACA/Eggart responded that if it so chooses, JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSIOK the Planning Commission might consider a condition to provide that the City (City Manager, Community Development Director) has the authority to require a parking study or parking management plan in the event that actual parking/circulation problems arise and require the property owner/applicant to implement recommendations from staff to mitigate those actual traffic problems which tends to be effective because the actual impacts are unknown until the building is built and rented out. C/Farago asked how many ambulances are currently at the existing site and Ms. Lee responded 12-15. The number varies day to day and during the daytime they dispatch ambulance service which leaves only staff parking. C/Farago said that if the nature of the business is to house or park vehicles as part of their business, would not that have to be considered as part of the parking study because it is not typical use of the parking lot. Could there be some type of restriction as to the type of business and amount of vehicles that might be parked or impose stacked parking for that area? Ms. Lee said she believed the ambulance company obtained a business license from the City at the time they moved in and it is fortunate/unfortunate that their business is growing. They do intend to move out when they outgrow the space. She believes that the concerns address a potential problem after completion. C/Farago said that if the ambulance service moves out the problem is alleviated unless another ambulance company moves in. CDD/Gubman said the City issued a zoning clearance and a business license for the ambulance use earlier this year. Regrettably, there were no conditions imposed on that issuance to address the number of vehicles and the actual result of having not only the employee vehicles but the ambulances that would have a multiplier effect on the parking demand for this use. At this point, going forward, the City can impose conditions on new tenants coming in and because the property owner owns both parcels it is a feasible way to address the issue. Going forward, there can be a condition applied to the Development Review approval to require a parking management plan, prior to some milestone in the permitting process for this project, to take into account the continued occupancy of the ambulance company, should it not relocate. From the perspective of meeting the parking requirements in the municipal code, calculating the current and new building needs, a total of 91 parking spaces would be required. There could certainly be a condition imposed that provides some limitation on the number of vehicles per tenant and that can be in combination with provisions to require tandem parking or some other doubling of the existing parking. The City would riot allow that for customer parking but certainly for employee and service employee vehicles such a condition for a parking plan for the site to address that issue. C/Lin said he did not believe the ambulance business was an issue for this evening because it was a permitted use and the City issued a business license; nevertheless, the City could still have parking problems on this site. The JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 7 •. • distance between two shared parking lots cannot be greater than 300 feet and it looks to him like some of the parking spaces are more than 300 feet away on the drawing. The shared private driveway is 31 feet wide and really all that is needed is about 11 feet for each lane which would leave 10 feet for additional parallel parking. SP/Lee said that the existing fire plan shows fire lane designations as striped which would require about a 26 foot clearance for a fire truck to be able to access the site. C/Lin said that in his view the parking requirements meet the current regulations. Tenants come and go and it may be the City's negligence in not imposing any regulations for the ambulance company. However, since the lease is over in two years it gives the City an opportunity to properly issue new business permits with the imposition of requirements and perhaps the problem will go away. He said he has a hard time denying an application that follows the City's parking regulations. C/Lin said that Mr. Gonzales made a statement about a left turn. When the traffic study was completed, what was the finding regarding those left turn movements and SP/Lee responded that there is a designated left turn lane that allows access to the subject property which is shown in the attached traffic analysis report. C/Farago asked if there was any way to initiate a trigger that staff can address this issue with future businesses that may conform to the City's code to avoid future use issues that might interfere with the permitted parking. CDD/Gubman stated that since this is a discretionary entitlement, if there was an existing business park elsewhere and they were proposing uses to come and go without any entitlement where the City has discretion there is very little that can be done except through collaborative work with the property owner. In this instance, since the Commission is considering a discretionary action to intensify the use of the property it would be appropriate to impose a condition to address the potential parking issue — perhaps a condition Could require or limit the number of commercial vehicles to one commercial vehicle per tenant and if a tenant wanted two commercial vehicles for their place of business the City could require the submittal of a parking plan or some parking management strategy to mitigate the displacement of parking for other clients that might be visiting. Ms. Lee said that as a business developer they are willing to be restricted for the industrial building site with no ambulance service for that particular type of building. Mr. Gonzales said that many times service companies will come in with an F150 or F250 which are commercial vehicles that are often overlooked. With no one else present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. 0JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 8 PLANNING T C/Lin asked if the distance between the parking lots exceeded 300 feet. SP/Lee responded that the distance is measured from property line to property line and not from parking space to parking space. Since the applicant owns both properties and they are contiguous properties the distance is not an issue. C/Lin moved, VC/Torng seconded, to recommend City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 72067, Development Review and Parking Permit PL2012-455 based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson asked C/Lin to amend his motion to include the condition that "if the existing industrial ambulance service business renews its lease and there is a parking problem that a parking management plan be imposed on the use." C/Lin said he would do so and asked for clarification from the City Attorney about whether the existing warehouse is not a subject of this application and ACA/Eggart responded that the existing warehouse is not before the Commission this evening except for the required "shared parking agreement." So the Commission can require a certain number of spaces to be maintained for the use that is being approved through that shared parking agreement or, proceed with any of the other suggestions provided by CDD/Gubman including allowing the Community Development Director to require a parking management plan if deemed necessary. C/Lin asked what the magic number was and CDD/Gubman suggested that according to the Resolution there is a Condition (d) on Page 9 under Parking Permit where it requires "prior to final map approval of reciprocal parking and access agreement for the use and access of common drives, etc. be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, the Public Works Engineering Department and the City Attorney" and it requires recordation with the L.A. County Recorder. The Commission could add to that condition the additional provision of "prior to final map approval and recordation of this reciprocal parking requirements that a Parking Management Plan be required for any tenant that contemplates the use of more than one commercial vehicle and commercial vehicle can be defined not in terms of the vehicle code but in the context of being a dedicated vehicle that is on that premises for the purpose of conducting business at that premises. C/Lin suggested the following: "Prior to final approval of the plan, the applicant will submit a Parking Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City." CDD/Gubman concurred. C/Lin said he amended his motion to add the language as stated. VC/Torng seconded the amended motion. The motion was carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Lin, VCn-orng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Shah JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSIOL Chair/Nelson reaffirmed that the amended motion met with the approval of the property owner/applicant. 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Chair/Nelson offered a public apology to C/Lin for referring to him as C/Chin during tonight's proceeding. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman stated that the next regular Planning Commission date is July 9, 2013, however, there are no items scheduled for that agenda. Therefore, the next scheduled meeting is July 23, 2013 and at this time there are currently no items scheduled for that agenda but that is subject to change. C/Lin and Chair/Nelson said they would not be available for the July 23, 2013, meeting. 10. 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 8:10 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 13th day of August, 2013. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director M -irman Nel�,,ori, C