HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/13/2013MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AEGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING •` •`
AUGUST 13, 2013
Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:03 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.
Present: Commissioners Frank Farago, Jimmy Lin, Jack Shah Vice
Chairman Tony Torng, Chairman Steve Nelson
Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee,
Senior Planner; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; John
Douglas, Housing Element Consultant; Steve Sasaki, City Traffic
Consultant; Rich Barretto, Traffic Engineer; 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 June 25, 2013, Study Session.
VC/Torng moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve the minutes of the June 25,
2013, study session as requested by ACA/Eggart. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Lin, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Shah
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
4.2 Minutes of the June 25, 2013, Regular Meeting.
VC/Torng moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of June 25, 2013, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
Farago, Lin, Shah, VC/Torng,
Chair/Nelson
None
None
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. PUBLIC HEARING(S):
7.1 2008-2014 Housinq Element Implementation — Proposed Affordable
Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project PL2013-227--- The City
of Diamond Bar is the Lead Agency for the proposed affordable housing land
use and zoning designation project to implement the 2008-2014 Housing
Element Update, which requires the City to process amendments to its General
Plan and Development Code to establish a new multiple -family zoning district
and designate adequate sites that could accommodate new multi -family
affordable housing development commensurate with the City's assigned Fair
Share needs. More specifically, the City of Diamond Bar is obligated to rezone
at least 16.3 net acres to permit multi -family development at a density of
30 dwelling units per acre by -right in order to satisfy its regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) obligation to accommodate the development of 490 lower
income dwelling units. The future development area would be limited to one of
two optional Housing Site Areas, each limited to 30 -acres in size and fully within
the proposed RH-30 zone boundary area. Although the implementation of the
Housing Element would designate specific sites where multi -family housing
could be developed in the future, there is no development project associated
with the proposed rezoning effort at this time. The Planning Commission is
asked to recommend to the City Council, certificate of the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR); adoption of the General Plan Amendment; adoption of the
Development Code Amendment, and adoption of the Zone change.
PROPOSED STUDY AREA: Located within a 78 -acre parcel and
comprised of undeveloped hillside generally located along the west side of
Chino Hills Parkway just south of Diamond Ranch Road/Scenic Ridge Drive,
and adjacent to Diamond Ranch High School in the northeast portion of the
City. (Assessor's Parcel Number 8701-22-273 west of Chino Hills Parkway and
south of the SR60 Freeway)
The two candidate sites being considered within the study area are referred to
as Housing Site "A" and Housing Site "B": Housing Site "A" is located
immediately west of and accessed directly from, Chino Hills Parkway. Housing
Site "B" is located on the western portion of the proposed RH-30 zone boundary
area and also accessed from Chino Hills Parkway.
PROPERTY OWNER: City of Industry (Successor Agency to the Industry
Urban Development Agency)
LEAD AGENCY/APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMP11ISSION
CDD/Gubman stated that this item is a proposed General Plan Amendment to
the General Plan Land Use Element and to the Land Use Element General Plan
Map, as well as, a Zone Change application and corresponding amendments to
the City's Development Code. There is no development project before the
Commission this evening. Staff is bringing forward the proposed amendments
to the General Plan and to the Zoning Map to facilitate the creation of a new
zoning designation and to zone property to accommodate housing at a density
of 30 dwelling units per acre. This is based on a state requirement for providing
a certain amount of acreage to accommodate high density housing. The state
requirement is not a development mandate or to state it another way, this
proposed rezoning effort is not the same as saying the City is obligated to
seeing that this land is developed. What the City is obligated to do is to provide
sufficient land in the City to accommodate such development. Therefore, this
effort seeks to fulfill a planning target by making land available; however, this
effort is not seeking to meet a development quota but simply providing the
means to allow for that target to be met.
'This item includes General Plan and Development Code Amendments.
Development as a whole is controlled by the City's General Plan and the City's
Zoning Regulations that are contained within the City's Development Code,
which are in a framework established by state law. The General Plan is a policy
document that guides future development or the long term visions for the City
which are reflected in the City's Land Use Element Map and displays the types
of land uses allowed in different areas. This guiding policy is implemented by
the City's Development Code which is one component of the City's Municipal
Code. The Development Code contains the detailed regulations for uses and
development standards. The City's Zoning Map shows what parts of the City
specific regulations apply to and more precisely defines how the General Plan
is implemented in different areas of the City.
The process the City will be following to enact those recommended changes is
for staff to present its analysis and recommendation to the Commission based
on the facts, laws, regulations and professional experience. The Commission's
role, through the Public Hearing process, is to review all of the facts and
evidence, deliberate on those facts and evidence and make its recommendation
to the City Council. The City Council will consider the Planning Commission's
recommendation, hold an additional public hearing and render its decision. If
the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment are adopted as proposed by
staff, the subsequent steps are not mandated; however, this effort ensures that
the City is meeting a planning target. Should development follow, extensive
requirements included in the environmental documents, the EIR mitigation
program, as well as the criteria set forth in the draft ordinances before the
Commission this evening, would provide all of the technical pre -requisites to
development that would have to be completed before actual buildout.
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
John Douglas reiterated that the actions before the Planning Commission
tonight are to recommend that the City Council Certify the Environmental
Impact Report, and to recommend City Council adoption of the General Plan
Amendment creating the Residential High Density 30 (RH-30) Land Use
Category in the General Plan and change the General Plan Land Use
Designation for the selected site; to amend the City's Development Code to
create development standards and regulations for the RH-30 District; and, to
change the Zoning Map to designate one of the two study sites as RH-30.
As discussed in staff's report, the impetus for this project is a state law that
requires every jurisdiction within California to adopt zoning regulations that can
accommodate the City's assigned Fair -Share of regional housing needs for all
economic income levels in the community. This is done through a process
called the Regional___ Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Through this
process, Diamond Bar's allocation of the region's housing need for low and very
low income households was set at 490 housing units. State law says that within
Southern California, in order to have zoning that is considered suitable for low
income housing, the City has to allow a density of 30 units per acre. This
applies to every jurisdiction in Southern California except for very small
jurisdictions with a population of less than 25,000. Pomona, Chino Hills, Brea
and other surrounding cities are all subject to this same state law. Through the
process of preparing and adopting the Housing Element of the General Plan,
the City is required to identify sites where such housing could be built. This is
not a mandate - it is to create opportunities for development to occur.
Development depends on the interest of the property owner, developers,
lenders and everyone who becomes involved in the development process.
The City's job is to create the land use plans and regulations that would allow
development to occur if all parties are interested in development.
Currently, the maximum number of units allowed in Diamond Bar is 20 units per
acre and state law requires that some land be zoned to allow 30 units per acre
to accommodate that fair -share of low and very low income housing needs.
The State Department of Community Housing Development is the agency that
the state legislature has granted the authority to review local governments'
Housing Elements and Housing Plans. HCD has a process that is referred to
as "Certification" whereby the City submits their Housing Element to HCD and
HCD reviews the element to determine whether it meets the requirements of
state law. Several years ago when Diamond Bar embarked on preparing the
Housing Element recognizing that the City did not have land zoned for 30 units
per acre as required by state law, it examined all potential areas in town that
could possibly meet this state requirement. The City's initial determination was
to move forward with designation of the Kmart property as the appropriate place
for high density housing. When the City submitted its Housing Element to state
HCD indicating its preference for designating the Kmart site, HCD reviewed the
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
draft Housing Element and rejected that site as not being appropriate for
affordable housing. And it is the City's understanding that the reason that site
was rejected is because it would be a more complex process to develop
because it is already developed and would require demolition, funding source,
etc. Redevelopment of a property is a much more costly process than
development of vacant land. At that point, the City had a choice to throw in the
towel and not obtain state approval or look for an alternative site. As a result of
the City's investigation of alternative sites, it was determined that the Tres
Hermanos land was the only available portion of the City that had the potential
for meeting the state's requirement.
The Housing Element that went through review by the Planning Commission
and City Council several years ago identified several candidate sites in the
vicinity of Diamond Ranch High School as the preferred general area to be
rezoned to satisfy the state's requirement. Again, the City is required to rezone
sufficient land so that 490 housing units could be developed with a density of 30
units per acre.
One of the important aspects of state law that affects Diamond Bar is that
because of the time periods that Housing Elements fall under, the end of the
planning period, or "Fourth Cycle," is fast approaching. If the City does not
implement the requirement from the Fourth Cycle, that requirement will roll over
and add to the City's affordable housing requirement for the Fifth Cycle which
starts in October 2013, in which case the City's obligation to rezone would
increase to 956 units resulting in almost double the amount of land that would
have to be rezoned for High Density housing. Important to note is the legal
obligation and potential consequences the City would face if it did not move
forward to comply with state law. Key to this issue is that other cities in
California that have not complied with state law have had lawsuits filed against
them and in some cases the Court has taken control of the City's planning
process which can include such things as the Court enacting a moratorium on
all building permits in the city and can also include the Court ordered approval
of building permits for affordable housing and other types of residential uses. In
short, it is possible that the City could lose control of its land use planning
powers if it fails to act.
Mr. Douglas spoke about the proposed project using the Site Vicinity Map with
Diamond Ranch High School at the center of the map. The EIR that was
prepared studies two possible alternate sites within the study area. The SR60
freeway runs along the north side of the property; Chino Hills Parkway which
turns into Phillips Ranch Road on the north side of the SR60 along the east side
of the property; Scenic Ridge Drive that changes to Diamond Ranch Drive as it
enters the high school area, and what is referred to as Site "A" is the eastern
portion of the study area and Site "B" the western side of the study area. The
area in the southwest corner of the study area was excluded from consideration
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
as a development site because it has the highest concentration of biological
habitat and vegetation within the study area. The proposed project that has
been studied in the EIR is a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change that
would allow 590 (sic) housing units to be built within either -but not -both, Site "A"
or Site "B" at a density of 30 units per acre. No specific development project
has been proposed at this point. This is a zoning exercise only to create the
opportunity for development. However, there are no development plans, no
building architectural designs nor anything of that sort because the property
owner has not indicated any interest in pursuing development at this point in
time.
The proposed site would have primary property access from Chino Hills
Parkway which would be the only access to the property other than emergency
access that might be required by the Fire Department, Sheriff's Department or
other service agencies. Any future development of this property would be
subject to all of the regulations and requirements that are contained in the City's
Zoning Regulations and Hillside Development Standards, as well as a number
of other public agencies including state and federal agencies that have
jurisdiction over resources such as biological habitat, water quality, etc., which
are described in detail in the various chapters of the EIR.
The following points bear repeating: The City is not required to subsidize any
low income housing projects as part of this process; development on this site
were it to occur in the future, is riot required to be low income housing;
affordable housing projects typically require a subsidy in the neighborhood of
$200,000 to $300,000 per unit which comes from some public source; the City
of Diamond Bar has no funds to subsidize this type of housing; in the past,
Redevelopment Agencies have sometimes been the source of subsidy funds for
affordable housing; the state eliminated Redevelopment Agencies last year; the
source of funds for affordable housing is extremely limited and as a
consequence, very little affordable housing is being built; any future
development of this property would be dependent on the desires of the property
owner which is the City of Industry Successor Agency, the legal entity that took
over from the City of Industry's Redevelopment Agency when the state closed
Redevelopment Agencies. Also, noteworthy is that before any development
occurs, it is possible that the development plan could be reconfigured as part of
a larger Master Plan for the Tres Hermanos property which spans both
Diamond Bar and the City of Chino Hills.
Again, the City's obligation is to adopt zoning regulations that would allow
490 housing units with a density of 30 units per acre.
Because there is no specific development proposal to consider-, this project
lacks things the Commission often sees with this kind of a public hearing.
There is no site plan showing where buildings would be located, there is no
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
grading plan; there is no plan to show where roads would enter the property
and so forth. All of those kinds of plans would come later if and when the
property owner decided to move forward with development and should that
occur, there would be a long list of requirements that would be submitted by the
property owner and developer and those future requirements which are
documented in the EIR are as follows: Additional traffic studies to determine
whether a traffic signal and what the geometric configuration of that intersection
would be on Chino Hills Parkway; geology, geotechnical and soils studies as
part of the grading plan for the project; drainage and hydrology studies required
to make sure that the project complied with all of the applicable codes and
regulations and would not create problems offsite due to drainage; a storm
water pollution prevention plan to ensure that runoff from the project does not
pollute waterways; a Cultural Resources Assessment required to survey the
property to see if there is any indication of any archaeological or paleontological
resources and if so, additional studies would be required to conduct those
surveys and specifically identify whether any of those resources exist; a
requirement for an emergency access plan which would identify how fire or
disaster emergency access would be provided. Typically, fire departments like
to have at least two points of entry and exit in case there is an incident that
blocks one access point. In this particular situation because there is a public
high school next to the property, there is a possibility that emergency access
could be coordinated with the high school so that secondary emergency access
could be provided for both the high school and any possible future residential
development. The Development Plan would be reviewed to make sure it
conformed to the Hillside Development standards. There will be a variety of
requirements related to the construction process which would include such
things as dust control, biological survey to identify the most sensitive portions of
the site, a landscape plan identifying landscape materials, and the assurance
that the fire department requirements regarding landscape were satisfied, and a
construction noise mitigation plan.
RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
RECONVENE: Chair/Nelson reconvened the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Mr. Douglas continued listing the requirements that would be imposed on future
development of this property: A Development Plan submitted for the City's
review to ensure that the project conforms to all of the regulations regarding
zoning, development standards, hillside development and so forth; a required
construction dust control program with watering, etc. to minimize dust emissions
that would affect neighboring properties; a biological survey at the site to
identify the most sensitive areas that would be avoided during construction and
development; a landscape plan that would meet the City's standards as well as
fire department standards for fire protection and fuel modification to minimize
the risk of wild land fires on any future development; and a noise mitigation plan
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
to ensure that a minimum disturbance to neighboring residences would occur
during the construction process through the scheduling of deliveries to the site,
location of staging areas, ensuring proper mufflers on all equipment, etc. These
are standard requirements in all jurisdictions at this time. The project would
need to ensure that the design complies with "CPTED" principles (Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design); a construction parking and staging
plan to show where the construction workers would park; carpooling for
construction workers to minimize impacts on the roadway network; similarly, a
construction traffic mitigation plan to show how impacts on the road network
would be minimized during the construction process; a traffic control plan to
show where lane closures would occur and what time of day they would not be
allowed to close lanes, etc. All of these requirements would be imposed and
any development on this site would have to satisfy all of these requirements
before any development would occur.
The purpose of the Environmental Impact Report is to identify potential
environmental impacts that would occur from a project and identify ways to
minimize the impacts either, through mitigation measures or through alternatives
to the project and still accomplish the objectives of the project. The project was
structured for a study area of about 78 acres and only about 30 acres are
needed to satisfy the mandate. The EIR was set up to compare two different
sites, Site A and Site B, to show which of those sites would have fewer
environmental impacts if development of any portion of the site was to go
forward. The EIR also evaluated two alternatives to the project in addition to
what is called a "no project" alternative, a state law that requires the City to
evaluate not doing anything. In this case, no project means the property would
either continue in its current state or it could be developed at a very low density
of one unit per five acres according to the City's General Plan and Zoning. The
two alternatives that were studied in the EIR were 1) infill sites which would be
residential development on property in another portion of the City that is
currently developed with light industrial uses, and 2) a portion of the Tres
Hermanos property about a half mile south of the study area as shown in the
EIR.
The most important part of the EIR is the Executive Summary which includes a
summary table summarizing the impacts studied, whether those impacts are
significant, whether there are any mitigation measures necessary as part of the
project (requirements that would minimize or reduce environmental impacts),
and the level of significance of those impacts after the mitigation measures are
imposed. The findings of the EIR are that all of the potential impacts for either
Site A or Site B can be reduced below the level of significance through
compliance with existing zoning and other standards or through the mitigation
measures listed in the EIR. The EIR also, in its study of the alternatives, noted
that the infill alternative would require state HCD to approve an amendment to
the Housing Element because it is riot listed in the Housing Element as a
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
"candidate site" for rezoning since state NCD already rejected a developed site
(the Kmart property) as not being feasible for meeting the City's legal
requirement. Therefore, it is staff's professional opinion that the agency would
also not approve an infill site to satisfy the City's housing requirements.
With regard to the alternative on Tres Hermanos to the south of the Study area,
the EIR concludes that the impacts associated with development on that
property would be very similar to the impacts of study Sites A and B and since
there were no significant impacts identified, selection of the alternative would
not eliminate any significant impacts which is one of the primary purposes of
doing an alternative study in the first place. Staff is recommending in the
Resolution before the Commission that Site A be identified as the preferred site
for rezoning because of its locational advantages. As previously mentioned,
the Housing Element called for the rezoning of property to satisfy the state
requirement being discussed this evening.
The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report was necessary as
part of this decision process so a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report was issued in June 2012. A Scoping meeting was held at
Pantera Park in the Community Room in June 2012 which was well attended
and provided a good amount of feedback to the City. The City published a Draft
Environmental Impact Report in May 2013, collected comments from public
agencies and interested citizens, and a Final Environmental Impact Report was
published last week that included written responses to public comments that the
City received from public agencies and individuals. The public review process
culminates with tonight's public hearing, as well as the City Council's public
hearing within the next few weeks.
To summarize the comments and issued raised, the City received comments
from six public agencies. Two of those agencies were the State's
Clearinghouse and The City of Industry Successor Agency who had only minor
comments. Caltrans issued a letter of concern about traffic impacts because
that is their primary responsibility. In response to Caltrans' comments, the
City's response indicates that there are a number of mitigation measures in the
EIR that address those concerns. The EIR concludes that with these
mitigations there would not be any significant traffic impacts. In the context of
environmental law, "significant" within the context of traffic means that the
project would not cause the level of service at intersections and roadways in the
vicinity of the project to exceed established standards. Regarding Air Quality,
South Coast Air Quality Management District is responsible for planning for the
improvement of air quality in the region and had one specific suggestion with
regard to air quality on Site B. Because of its close proximity to the freeway the
SCAQMD was concerned about the health hazards of emissions from the high
volume of traffic on the freeway and how that could affect future residents of the
site so they recommended specific standards that would be required as part of
AUGUST 13,
2013
PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSIOR
future analysis of health risk assessments if Site B were selected. Those
recommendations have been incorporated into the Final EIR. LA County Fire
Department submitted comments regarding fire protection for the site. There
are two mitigation measures in the EIR that address the concerns regarding a
fire protection plan during construction which has to do with flammable
materials being stored on the construction site and how those are managed as
well as, what is called an operational fire plan which has to do with the long
terra protection of the site from structure fires and wildfires after completion of
any project. Those, too, have been incorporated into the Final EIR. The City of
Chino Hills indicated its concern for future traffic and wanted to be assured that
Diamond Bar would continue to coordinate with Chino Hills on any future
development of this property. Chino Hills recommended that mitigation
measures be adopted that are consistent with Caltrans comments.
Mr. Douglas felt it was interesting to note that the City of Chino Hills has also
been required to rezone property under this same state law governing the
Housing Element, and the City of Chino Hills has also rezoned property for
30 units per acre within a portion of the Tres Hermanos property that lies within
Chino Hills. So basically, Diamond Bar and Chino Hills are proposing the same
solution to this state mandate.
The City received lengthy comments from interested citizens and residents in
the vicinity. The topics of those comments were traffic congestion, access to
the property, existing traffic problems at the intersection near Diamond Ranch
High School, air quality, property values and crime, slope stability, problems
with drainage and ground water, concerns about the loss of vegetation and
wildlife in the area, aesthetics and visual impacts, concerns about police and
fire protection, concerns about maintaining consistency with state law, concerns
about development costs particularly because this is a hilly area which
increases the cost of development, concerns about the selection of alternatives
and why Site A and Site B were chosen for study as opposed to some other
site, the proximity of this site to necessary services and amenities that are
needed by residents, and impacts on schools.
In summary, many of those comments are environmental issues that were
previously mentioned and were studied in detail in the Environmental Impact
Report. Some of the comments are not issues that are studied in the
Environmental Impact report because state environmental law lays out the
topics that cities are required to analyze as part of the review process. Some
issues that city decision makers and residents are concerned about are riot
considered to be environmental impacts, they are legitimate policy concerns
such as crime prevention, aesthetics, schools, etc. These concerns are not
within the purview of the Environmental Impact Report. This does not mean
that the Planning Commission and City Council have to ignore those concerns
because they are legitimate public policy concerns and legitimate planning
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION
concerns. They are not within the scope of the environmental report; however,
the Planning Commission and City Council are free to consider all concerns not
discussed in the environmental report.
Regarding the choice between Site A and Site B, the EIR concludes that all of
the potential impacts can be mitigated for either of the two sites, so it is not a
clear choice where one site has significant environmental impacts and the other
does not so that the choice is obvious. The selection is a little bit more nuanced
in this situation. It is staff's opinion that Site A is preferable primarily because it
is closer to Chino Hills Parkway, the main access point and therefore, less
grading and disturbance would be required to create the roadway network to
get access to the property. If Site B were selected there would need to be
roadway and infrastructure construction through Site A in order to provide
access to Site B, and if Site B were selected there would still be disturbance
within Site A which is the primary reason staff is leaning toward Site A. In
addition, Site A is farther from the heaviest traffic and the SR60 and related
noise and air quality issues that emanate from that freeway. In general Site B
has gentler topography than Site A but again, there would be disturbance of
both Site A and B in order to create the access to Site B.
The City is required to move forward with this matter according to state law and
staff has attempted to do so in such a way that it creates the least amount of
environmental damage within the City. The City's first option was the Kmart site
which was rejected by the state's Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) which has the ultimate say on whether the City's Housing
Element is in compliance with state law. So, the Tres Hermanos property was
identified as the best available site that would satisfy the state requirements and
be consistent with the Housing Element, as well as minimize environmental
damage. The proposed site is closest to freeway access in the Tres Hermanos
Ranch. The property is adjacent to a public high school. The City is not
required to approve or subsidize any affordable housing on this project site.
The site is not required to be developed for affordable housing. The City's
obligation is to create zoning regulations that comply with state law and satisfy
the City's mandate to accommodate its "fair -share" of housing needs. There is
no specific development proposed. If and when a development came forward it
would be subject to an extensive list of codes and standards, building
regulations, grading regulations, mitigation measures, etc. Any future
development on this site, because it is part of a large property ownership under
The City of Industry's control, could be reconfigured as part of some future
Master Plan. The City's obligation is to adopt zoning to allow 490 dwelling units
at a density of 30 units per acre. And, if the City does not follow through on this
zone change the City's obligation increase to 956 units in the next planning
period.
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSIOI
The requested actions before the Planning Commission this evening are to
recommend City Council Certification of the EIR and to recommend Council
adoption of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to designate Site A
for future development.
C/Lin thanked Mr. Douglas for a very complete, detailed and informative
presentation. C/Lin asked if once the City rezones this site to high density
housing and later someone petitions the City to develop low density housing
can the property be rezoned and Mr. Douglas responded that state law says
that when the City rezones property under these circumstances there is a
minimum density of 20 units per acre that the City may not go below unless it
designates some alternate site to make up the difference. C/Lin said that once
the zoning is in place, the City pretty much needs to stay with it. Mr. Douglas
said that zoning can be changed at some future date, if the City Council decides
that some other location would be better, or if a Tres Hermanos Master Plan is
adopted, this opportunity for high density housing could be shifted to another
location.
C/Lin asked how this situation would be handled if the City were fully developed
and had no vacant parcels. Mr. Douglas said that such a circumstance would
fall under the RHNA process whereby each city is assigned its fair -share. The
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), through its land use
planning and forecasting process, would attempt to allocate on a fair -share
basis where housing is needed and where it is appropriate. So if a city has no
buildable land, presumably that city should not be assigned any future housing
growth. That said, there are cities that have no vacant land that have been
allocated housing growth. For example, San Gabriel has been assigned a fair -
share need of 930 units and there is no vacant land. San Gabriel has high
density zoning for mixed use along Valley Boulevard so San Gabriel allows four
and five story developments along Valley Boulevard to accommodate additional
housing.
C/Lin asked why 30 acres. Mr. Douglas stated that the reason the City has
targeted a 30 -acre area for rezoning is because this is a hillside area. If this
were a flat lot the entire lot would be developable. The City does not have a
bare dirt flat lot available. This is a hillside area that has biological resources,
drainage channel issues, oak trees, etc. so the thought was that if the City
started out with a gross parcel of 30 acres there would be a net developable
portion of that site that would accommodate the 490 units.
VC/Torng asked if this site has been approved by HCD and Mr. Douglas
responded "yes." VC/Torng asked if a Tres Hermanos Master Plan had been
published. Mr. Douglas responded that such a plan has not been published
and asked CDD/Gubman to speak to the issue of a Master Plan for Tres
Hermanos. CDD/Gubman responded to VC/Torng that there is no Specific Plan
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION
or Master Plan proposed for Tres Hermanos at this time. The entirety of the
area known as Tres Hermanos that lies within the boundaries of Diamond Bar is
about 700 acres and there is a possibility that a Master Plan would be
foreseeable within the next few years because as Mr. Douglas mentioned, the
Tres Hermanos property had been under the ownership of the Industry
Redevelopment Agency/Urban Development Agency. With the dissolution of
redevelopment, and the City of Industry becoming successor to the
redevelopment agency, the City of Industry may be obligated to liquidate its
property holdings because there are no longer redevelopment tools for them to
hold onto the property. If the property goes to the open market, it is likely to be
purchased by a developer or several developers which would put pressure on
the market forces to move toward future development of that site. Because of
the size of the property and because it is currently zoned for agricultural use,
and because although 700 acres lies within the City of Diamond Bar, there are
additional several hundred acres of Tres Hermanos within the City of Chino
Hills. To realistically plan for future development there would have to be a
Master Plan effort. If that is how the scenario plays out, this rezoning of the 30
acres that is being considered this evening could be considered as a
placeholder so that the City has met its high density zoning obligation, but
through a more comprehensive master planning effort, there would be an
opportunity to relocate the high density component or to make it part of a more
inclusionary housing plan that has a more diverse palette of housing types that
could be more comprehensively planned. At this time, the study area under
consideration is the only portion of Tres Hermanos that is available for
consideration to rezone. In the future, there may be an opportunity to designate
other portions of Tres Hermanos to Supplant this site as the City's RHNA
obligation high density site.
VC/Torng wondered if in the future this property could be included in the Master
Plan as apartment units and not low income housing. CDD/Gubman responded
that the 30 -units per acre are a "default density" where it is assumed that this
density provides economy of scale for housing that would pencil Out to be
affordable. Although there is the presumption that higher density reduces the
lower per-unit cost and maintains compliance status with its RHNA obligation, it
is at least true in theory that 30 -unit per acre luxury apartments could be
developed. Mr. Douglas reiterated that there is no requirement that affordable
housing be developed on this property and presumably, there would be no
requirement for affordable housing as part of any Master Plan unless the City
Council decided it was a desirable thing to do. The City Council has the
authority to establish minimums for affordable housing. Some cities have done
that and many have not.
VC/Torng asked if the approximate 2,000 residents of the 490 units would
become Diamond Bar residents and CDD/Gubman responded that they would.
VC/Torng said he believed Site A should have its own entrance and
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISS101
Mr. Douglas confirmed that it would be a new intersection and riot the access to
the high school.
C/Shah thanked Mr. Douglas for his presentation. He asked if the units must be
built on one site or could be split into two or three sites. Mr. Douglas responded
that it could be split into two or three lots under state law as long as the total
equaled the 490 units. C/Shah asked if the City investigated the possibility of
several small parcel sites. Mr. Douglas asked if C/Shah was referring to sites
not within the study area and C/Shah indicated his affirmative response.
Mr. Douglas said that as part of the environmental review process several
alternatives were studied and the EIR describes the process the City went
through to decide what alternatives should be studied. The result was the two
alternatives in Tres Hermanos and infill sites in other parts of the City that are
already developed with light industrial uses. Through that process it was
determined that there was not any collection of vacant sites that would add up
to the 490 number except for the Tres Hermanos property because the City is
mostly developed and that is why the alternatives in the proposal were selected.
The infill (light industrial) property would have lower environmental impacts in
some respects but the main concern is that the state would not approve it
because the state has already rejected another site staff felt was even better,
the Kmart site. C/Shah asked if it was staff's opinion that other sites would not
be approved but they had not been submitted to the state. Mr. Douglas said
C/Shah was correct. The site that was submitted to the state was the Kmart
site and it was staff's judgment, based on experience and working with staff at
HCD, that they wanted to see a vacant site.
C/Shah asked why the City of Chino Hills had the same site as Diamond Bar.
Mr. Douglas responded that the Tres Hermanos Ranch spans both sites at the
City boundary, a portion of which lies in Diamond Bar and another portion that
lies in Chino Hills. Chino Hills has identified a site within their city that is part of
the Tres Hermanos ownership and is within the City of Chino Hills.
C/Shah asked what happens if Site A is submitted and the state denies it and
whether the City would then have to provide the 956 units or, would the state
give Diamond Bar an extension of time for further study. Mr. Douglas
responded that the current planning period ends on October 15, 2013, so every
city within southern California is required to comply with their obligation prior to
that date. If Diamond Bar were to switch to another alternative the City would
have to amend the Housing Element, process that through the state, process it
through the Planning Commission and through the City Council and by then it
would be past the October 15 deadline. The effect would be that the City's
obligation would add on to the next cycle and instead of 490 the City would
have to rezone for 956 units.
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION'
C/Shah asked if relocation of the site within Tres Hermanos happened in the
future would the Planning Commission and City Council be required to go
through a similar process all over again. Mr. Douglas responded that if the
property owner (City of Industry) wanted to move forward with a Master Plan for
Tres Hermanos it is likely it would be done via a Specific Plan which is a form of
zoning regulations. For anything of that scale and magnitude, there would
undoubtedly be an Environmental Impact Report, public workshops, scoping
meetings, public hearings with the Planning Commission and the City Council,
and if it truly spanned the entire property it would also involve a similar process
with Chino Hills. CDD/Gubman said that we are currently making a
recommendation to rezone one of two 30 -acre subareas within a 78 -acre parcel
that lies within Tres Hermanos. The portion of the Tres Hermanos Ranch which
lies within Diamond Bar is 700 acres. If there was the opportunity to plan for
the future for the entirety of Tres Hermanos, there would be this process but
clearly, given the enormity and complexity of the site the planning process
would realistically take two, three or even five years to complete.
C/Shah asked if consideration for the 30 acres was based on two, three, four or
five story buildings. Mr. Douglas responded that the proposed regulations that
are part of the resolution package before the Commission would have a height
limit of 45 feet Maximum. Typically, cities see projects that are 30 -units per
acre as being somewhere between two and four stories depending on the
configuration of the buildings, topography and so forth. C/Shah asked if a
developer could build a 10 -story building to accommodate the required number
of units and use the remainder of the property to build other types of units.
Mr. Douglas responded that a 10 -story building could not be built because it
would not meet the standard of a 45 -foot height limit. As previously mentioned,
the proposed height regulation establishes a building cap of 45 feet and nothing
could exceed that without special approval of a variance which is not
envisioned.
C/Farago thanked Mr. Douglas for an excellent presentation. He asked if there
were any developers that staff was aware of that would be interested in
developing the property as it currently exists and CDD/Gubman responded that
staff was not aware of any interest in developing this site. C/Farago asked if
staff knew where the Chino Hills parcel was proposed and its proximity to this
project. Mr. Douglas responded "no" because he just discovered what Chino
Hills' plan was tonight as he was preparing for this meeting. He has not worked
with Chino Hills and does not know the particulars but the details could most
likely be easily and quickly discovered. CDD/Gubman said the parcels would
not be back to back because the property Diamond Bar is looking at is in the
northwest corner of Tres Hermanos and the city limits go east of Chino Hills
Parkway out to the existing homes already developed up Scenic Ridge Drive.
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSIOrl
Using the map, he pointed out the development site and the extent of the City
limits in relationship to the Chino Hills portion which is beyond Longview in the
open grazing area.
C/Lin said his understanding of "affordable housing" is that it is subsidized
housing. One can make it as luxurious as one cares to but it is subsidized.
Mr. Douglas said that technically, what is considered a low-income affordable
housing two-bedroom unit in Los Angeles today would be about $1500-$1600 a
month and a very low income apartment would be about $1000 to $1100 a
month. There are some affordable housing projects that are subsidized to a
lower level than that for those whose incomes are even less.
Chair/Nelson said that conceptually, this EIR is a good faith effort on the part of
the City to set aside land and zone it accordingly so that if someone wanted to
build affordable housing they could do so, but development is not required.
With the certification of this EIR, does that mean that any future developments
require only ministerial review or could the project go through additional public
and environmental review? Mr. Douglas responded that if a development
application carne forward on this site, the process would be that the City would
review that application for its conformance with all of the standards discussed
this evening and all of the mitigation measures that are contained in the EIR.
However, under state law, the environmental review would not start over again
but it would focus on confirming that the project is in conformance with the
zoning and the mitigation measures and all of the standards that presumably
would be approved. This is what is referred to in state law as "by right"
processing which allows all of those things just mentioned confirming the
projects conformance with all of those requirements and a design review. So
the project would come to the Planning Commission for its scrutiny of the
physical design, the placement of the buildings, the site plan arrangement,
where parking is located relative to the buildings, the height of buildings as part
of the design review. In the sense of environmental review, all of the studies
such as geological, biological and hydrology are characterized as
environmental studies but are confirming what would already be required and it
was riot require a restart of the process all over again. Chair/Nelson said the
project would come before a body such as the Planning Commission, the public
would be notified and residents could come to the Comr-nission and comment
on the project. Mr. Douglas confirmed that Chair/Nelson's assessment was
correct.
Chair/Nelson asked if the Chino Hills affordable housing requirement was taken
into consideration in the cumulative impact analysis for this project.
Mr. Douglas said he does not know the answer, to that question because he
cannot remember the items that were on the list of cumulative projects.
However, if Chino Hills is in the same position as Diamond Bar, Chino Hills
does not have a development application; they are only addressing a
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 17 PLAARIRG COfT,11,1,11SSIOR
requirement to rezone, and there is not a plan that is imminent in Chino Hills.
Chair/Nelson said that Chino Hills would not be considered reasonably
foreseeable at this time and Mr. Douglas said he thought Chair/Nelson's
assessment was correct.
Chair/Nelson said that a lot of public comments had to do with the correlation
between low income housing and crime and asked if Mr. Douglas was aware of
any statistics that substantiate that concern. Mr. Douglas said he was not
aware of any studies that confirm a correlation between low income and crime.
C/Shah asked if upon approval of this resolution a future developer would be
required to meet the 30 -unit -per -acre requirement when developing this site.
Mr. Douglas responded that the zoning would allow up to 30 units per acre.
There is a minimum density in state law of 20 units per acre so any future
project Would have to fall within that range. C/Shah asked if Mr. Douglas knew
of any study that shows low income housing adversely affects other property
values. Mr. Douglas said he was not aware of any studies that confirm any
correlation between low-cost housing and adjacent property owners. In fact, he
could take the Commissioners to low-income housing projects in Beverly Hills,
Santa Monica and Irvine and places like that and show low income housing
projects that blend into the community. He again emphasized that low income
housing is not required to be built here. In order for low income housing to be
built there would have to be a very large subsidy that some public entity would
have to come up with and it is very difficult these days to find that sort of
subsidy. C/Shah said he has lived in many states from the east coast to the
west coast and seen low cost housing next to median and high income housing
co -existing.
RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the meeting at 8:36 p.m.
RECONVENE: Chair/Nelson reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing.
Denton Mosier, 4 Quiet Hills Road, Pomona, explained that while he is the
Chair of the Planning Commission in his city he is speaking on his own behalf
only. For the residents of Phillips Ranch, he believes this project is very bad
planning. In his opinion, both Site A and Site B will negatively affect the area
and neighborhood. The project will increase traffic along Chino Hills Parkway
and the environment will be negatively impacted. He was also concerned about
overcrowding in and around the Diamond Ranch High School campus. He
does not want this project in his neighborhood and he urged the Planning
Commission to rethink the project.
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 18 PLANNING COMMISSION
Brian McGurty, 24419 Top Court, Diamond Bar said he was speaking on behalf
of the Diamond Bar homeowners on the west side of the proposed development
which represents about 200 homes within 1500 feet of proposed Site B which
amounts to about 500 Diamond Bar homeowners. The homeowners have
written letters and signed a petition objecting to this location. He said he
believed that a full and complete alternate site analysis had not been done
because underground springs and erosion concerns make Site B difficult. If
homes were built they could not be sold for what it would cost to build them and
traffic would be a problem for Pomona for both Site A and Site B. He thanked
the Commissioners for their thoughtful and probative questions following the
presentation and presented the signatures to SP/Lee.
Sylvia Merrill, 650 Rainbow Place, Diamond Bar, said she would feel the impact
of traffic and growth in the area. Nevertheless, while she is not present to
argue for Site A or Site B, she agrees with all of the points presented by the first
speaker. She was pleased with the questions the Commissioners asked. One
of her biggest concerns is that she has heard over and over again that even if
the area is rezoned the City does riot have to build affordable housing which
tells her that the City is rezoning this property so a developer can do whatever
he wishes to do even though there are density requirements. She read on the
state site that this is an eight year cycle and every eight years the state will
determine whether Diamond Bar and other cities have truly met all of the
density requirements. She wanted to know what would happen in eight years if
Diamond Bar did not meet the high density housing requirement. She has lived
in Diamond Bar since 1987 and she knows that the City incorporated because
some of the residents felt there was overgrowth in the area because Diamond
Bar becomes a traffic jam when the SR57/60 is busy. The vision was to
incorporate Diamond Bar in order to have proactive planning and she has not
seen that in the last 10 years. She is very disappointed that she was not aware
of the public hearings at the state level that residents could actually attend to
express their opinions. She asked the City to urge residents to participate in
the state public hearings to prevent what is happening now. All she hears is a
threat that if the City Council does not pass this resolution the requirement will
double in the next cycle which means further encroachment.
Larry Taylor, 11 Knoll Ridge Drive, Phillips Ranch, echoed the last speakers'
comments. He feels there is a correlation between the type of housing that is
being proposed and crime. Crime is a huge problem, especially within the City
of Pomona and with Site A most of those folks will be using resources in
Pomona. In his opinion, there is a big difference between renters and
homeowners, a big difference in the way properties are kept and the way
community looks in general by itself. He hoped the Commission would consider
the crime aspect of this proposal.
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION
Anabel Dorion, 48 Los Felis Drive, Pomona, said she agreed with everything
that had been said. Her son interned with a private real estate equity firm in
Connecticut this summer which specializes in low-income housing. The owner
is becoming a multi -millionaire because it is guaranteed money from the state.
While staff says who will not come in and buy that property and build low
income housing, somebody will come in and build for the guaranteed income.
Donna Houston, P.O. Box 4884, Diamond Bar, said she appreciated and
agreed with previous speakers. However, during the past hour she Googled
information about low income housing and surrounding communities and with
all due respect, there is information available. Within minutes she found the
information which prompts her to ask what due diligence has been done. She
is a resident of Phillips Ranch and wants to know how the City of Pomona has
responded to this rezoning because she believes the upper income residents of
Phillips Ranch will be negatively impacted. Pomona has low income housing
that spills over into Phillips Ranch. She is concerned about the impact of this
project and would like for the Commission to reconsider this matter.
Benjie Cho, 2 Wilderness Place, Philliips Ranch, said he appreciated the
Commission's burden. Zoning changes are required with the passage of
AB 2348. He sees that punitive sanctions are required for non-compliance with
this law. It is unfortunate that the state, with its unlimited powers, is put in a
position of less accountability than this Planning Commission. Staff mentioned
significant building and environmental requirements; however, the site selection
that is proposed was based on the site that was easiest to develop. The
significant requirements implied that this development is not imminent and it is
not moving forward and he believes that the building requirements are standard
practices required for any site. There is nothing special about the requirements.
Staff talked about 30 -units per acre but did not hear about a cap and if the site
were leveled there is a potential for many more units than the minimum required
by the state. He urged the Commission to place a cap on the number of units, if
possible. He said he was glad to hear there was a 45 foot cap on the height of
the buildings because visual impact is within the purview of the environmental
process. The developers are a "for profit" business and if they are allowed to
build a high rise, this site may become profitable and if it does become
profitable it will be developed. He recommended that the Commission cap the
number of units per site, not consider height variance to allow higher buildings
on the site, consider a maximum roadway grade for traffic safety concerns and
require soils stability analysis and geotechnical analysis. He urged the
Commission not to go above and beyond the state requirements and meet the
minimum state requirements only, to preserve the community.
Ginna Escobar, 68 Sundance Drive, Pomona, and Council Member for Phillips
Ranch and Westmont neighborhoods, said that she believes everyone's input
matters and she wanted to know what type of outreach effort was made for this
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE20 PLANNING COMMISSIOJ
meeting. Only one to two percent of the community that will be affected is
present and she believes there need to be town hall meetings and better
advertising. She was notified about this meeting yesterday. She is not
representing the Porriona City Council; she is present as a neighbor and
resident. She has heard about Diamond Bar and Chino Hills but has not heard
about any outreach to Pomona. She is disappointed and hurt because
whenever Diamond Bar needs Pomona, they respond and whenever Pomona
needs Diamond Bar they are left out. There are about 24,000 people in the
Pomona neighborhoods that are directly adjacent to this project and the
notification process of notifying people that live within 1000 feet does not
include those folks. She also wanted to know what type of outreach effort was
made to the Pomona Unified School District. She believes the high school
parents should have been notified. She urged the City to please continue to
meet with Pomona and do more in-depth and cohesive research. She asked
the City to please be more proactive and demand more information and please
listen to the community and the neighbors and include them in the process.
Terry Allen, Phillips Ranch, said it seems like the City is putting all of the bad
stuff as far away from the City as possible. How can the City of Diamond Bar
zone something they do not own? He agreed with the other speakers. There is
an empty space where Diamond Bar Honda was located which he believed
would be a good place for this project. He thanked the Commission for the
opportunity to express his opinion.
Martha Reaga, 20 Oak Cliff Drive, Phillips Ranch, said that one of her main
concerns is the schooling and the number of children that will be in these new
housing facilities. She estimates there would be a minimum of three children
per household in a low-income home which means another 1500 children that
will not fall under the care and maintenance of Diamond Bar. That site is one
hundred percent under the Pomona Unified School District which means that
the City of Pomona will pay for the education of school aged children for this
site that is being developed — not Diamond Bar and not Chino Hills. She
Googled the crime statistics for low-income housing and found statistics to
support the opinion that crime will migrate to Phillips Ranch. She wanted to
know what plans have been made to adequately provide for education for all of
those children that will be in those units because she would not want her tax
dollars to go toward the education of children who live in another community.
Vic Menendez, Diamond Bar, said he is from the streets and has been in and
out of prison. Diamond Bar has no clue what will come into the Phillips Ranch
neighborhood and residents and their children will be affected. A low-income
project was built in Pomona for seniors and after two years kids, grandkids and
boyfriends moved in and forced the seniors out and that hurt Pomona. There
were different gangs from different territories from something small that was
created to help the people which it did not. The children will suffer. What the
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 21 PLANNING COMMISSION
City is asking for is a nightmare that is coming and the people who live in the
area will suffer for it. He asked the Commission to reconsider this project.
Roberta Perlman, 3 Navajo Trail Lane, Pomona Unified School District Board
Member, said that the district will educate any child that comes to the district.
Her comments do not reflect the beliefs of her colleagues and she is speaking
as a resident only. Pomona Unified has received very little information about
this project. The district received a CD about the EIR but other than that the
district has not been kept up to date. This is the first time she heard about the
Pantera Park meeting and other meetings. Site A looks like it runs directly
through the Diamond Ranch High School parking lot and this project will back
up to the school and the plan shows it will be incredibly close to the campus.
State environmental law has been addressed in the EIR but the public policy
concerns have not. There will be someone who will want to come and do this
project. There are public safety concerns because of fire, police, etc. There is
only one road up and down and traffic would be intensified with more
development. The district takes safety of its students very, very seriously.
Pomona Unified serves students from both Pomona and Diamond Bar. We are
neighbors and we are friends so approving a zoning change without input from
the school district is really not reflective of collaboration among the cities. She
urged the City to evaluate sites further away from a school and investigate other
alternatives for this project.
Jerry Mestas, 22416 Top Court, raised his kids and coached kids in Diamond
Bar. He also came from a bad area but when he married and had kids he
moved to Diamond Bar because he felt it was a safe community. He knows
firsthand that crime and low income go hand in hand. Quality of life is very
important to him and his kids and if this project is built next to a school it will be
difficult to keep kids on the campus. While he understands that everyone
needs a place to live this does not seem to him to be a good place to build this
type of project. Except for sports, Diamond Bar is a "bed and breakfast area"
and he wants the Commission to keep the area safe for the kids and find
different areas to build on that might be more suitable for the tenants moving
into those areas.
Doug Tan, 22418 Top Court, said staff's report did not address the socio-
economic effects of having low income housing near schools. If the quality of
schools is degraded, property values in the surrounding areas of Pomona,
Phillips Ranch, Diamond Bar, etc., will be degraded. He appreciates the
schools in Diamond Bar and the City should consider the quality of its schools
and other socio and economic effects of this project.
C/Lin felt that some of the public comments needed to be clarified. A few
speakers spoke about the announcement and notification. State law requires
that people within certain distances be notified and he believes that Phillips
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE22 PLANNING COMMISSIOK
Ranch is outside of the area of legal notification. He asked if there was any
outreach effort for the folks in Phillips Ranch. SP/Lee responded that a public
notice was sent to the Pomona Unified School District, and public notices were
printed in two newspapers, the Inland Valley Daily Tribune (sic) and The San
Gabriel Valley Bulletin (sic). Public notices were also mailed to property owners
within a 1000 foot radius of the proposed zone boundary area. The rezoning
site was published on Chino Hills Parkway and at the cul-de-sac of Rockbury
and Deep Springs Road. In addition, all notices, agendas and staff reports
were also posted at the City's website and all documents were and are made
available at City Hall and the Diamond Bar Library. Public notices were not
mailed to the Phillips Ranch area but the City has done public noticing beyond
what the state requires for this type of rezoning project.
C/Lin asked about the speaker's question regarding soil stability in the area of
the project and asked if that subject could be addressed. Mr. Douglas said
there is no geologist present this evening. Staff will attempt to answer all
questions from a planning requirement standpoint. As he mentioned in his
presentation, there is a long list of requirements any developer would have to
comply with, one of which is a geotechnical study that would be reviewed by the
City's engineer or consultants hired by the City to review that study to
demonstrate that the grading plan and development satisfies all of the
requirements of the City's Ordinances and the state grading codes and building
codes and so forth if and when a project is built. Most of Diamond Bar is
hillside development and sometimes problems do occur with hillside
development. However, most of the hillside environment of Diamond Bar has
been developed. There are technical, engineering and construction techniques
that can typically overcome hillside sites. In some cases, extensive remedial
grading is required and those questions would be answered as part of the
technical and geological studies that would be required before any development
happens and remedial grading, etc., if necessary to address any geological
issues, would be a requirement of that project.
VC/Torng said he was concerned about the current cycle requirement of
490 units and whether Diamond Bar would have another requirement in the
next cycle. Mr. Douglas reiterated that the current cycle covers 2008 to
October 2013. The next cycle runs from October 2013 to 2021 (eight years). If
the City rezones property to accommodate 490 units it would satisfy the City's
obligation to 2021. It is not possible for anyone to know what the obligations
will be beyond 2021 because that process has not yet begun. That process is
done by Southern California Association of Governments in consultation with
the member jurisdictions. The key points to keep in mind is that the City's
obligation for this current planning period that ends in October was identified as
466 units and for the next period it is 490 units. If the City rezones property for
490 units it is allowed to use that site again next time for the 490 units to the
year 2021. If the City does not rezone property now, the 466 units required to
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 23 PLANNING COMMISSION -
accommodate this cycle carries forward and adds on to the 490 units making
the City's designated obligation for the next cycle 956 units.
VC/Torng said that Mr. Douglas mentioned it would be very difficult to find a
buyer (developer) because of the subsidy of this size. According to one of the
speakers it seems like a profitable business. Mr. Douglas said that this
question asks for an opinion and the City is not aware of any buyer for this
property today. The real estate development business is a complicated
business and a lot of factors are taken into consideration. He cannot speculate
on the marketability of the site or the likelihood of it being developed in the near
future. His point was that affordable housing is different from ordinary housing
development because it requires big public subsidies and his point is that after
the loss of Redevelopment Agencies in the state, which Diamond Bar did not
have on a broad scale there is less money today to subsidize affordable
housing than there was in the past. And in the case of Diamond Bar, a small
City that does not have any resources to bring to the table for an affordable
housing development, it is, in his opinion, very unlikely that a non-profit
developer would be able to put together an affordable housing project on this
site. If HCD heard him say that, they might lift their eyebrows and ask what is
being done here and the answer is that the City is trying to find a site that
satisfies their requirements. One of the speakers mentioned the Kmart property
as being a better site. The City fully agrees and that was its first proposal that
the state turned down so the City was forced to go back to the drawing board.
VC/Torng asked if the City could put a cap on various items such as the
30 -units per acre, the 45 foot height, and the number of units per site and two
stories suggested by a speaker to make sure this project would be very difficult
to become a low-income project. Mr. Douglas said the question from a speaker
was "what is the maximum that could occur here if the City rezones this
property" and under the regulations that are in front of the Commission tonight,
the rezoning would establish a maximum cap of 490 units regardless of the
project design. Talking about making the project "difficult" is a fine line to walk
because the state requires the City to not only rezone property but actually use
its powers to facilitate and assist development to the extent that the City has
those powers. And as discussed, the fact that the City does not have any
money that could be put into the project is one matter. The state looks at other
issues as well. The details of a Housing Element and Zoning include the state
looking at development standards, height limits, parking requirements, setback
requirements and all of the standards that go into zoning. So in addition to
looking to see that the City has zoning, the state looks at those items as well
and if the height limit were set at two stories, the state, based on his experience
working with other jurisdictions in the same situation would say that was not
sufficient. And so the 45 height limit has been suggested so that it does not
become an issue with state HCD and also because this is a hillside situation
where the measurement of building height on a slope may be 45 feet in the
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 24 PLANNING COMMISSION
front and less in the back. The 45 foot height limit would be a maximum cap
that the City can argue is sufficient to facilitate the development. With respect
to geological requirements, there is a body of law and regulations that govern
items such as grading and slope stability and cities are required to follow those
standard requirements. If a City were to deviate from those standards they
would then be vulnerable to a challenge from the development side for making
the development process too difficult and in essence prohibiting development
through development standards that are unnecessarily strict.
VC/Torng said he believes the City has to find ways to make all kinds of
limitations on this project.
CDD/Gubman said there are several houses in "The Country Estates" that
because they are on descending slopes may look like they are one or two
stories in the front but are actually four stories. Some of the hillside slopes that
this Commission has reviewed require elevators and there is already a
precedent for residential development at increased heights. VC/Torng said that
overall the hillside management height is 35 feet continuously. CDD/Gubman
said that this resolution proposes a maximum height of 45 feet so from the point
that the building hits grade to the top of the building is 45 feet. With respect to
the geotechnical issues and making development too difficult for affordable
housing, Diamond Bar is, by its nature of topography and geology, very
expensive to develop. The City encounters landslides on virtually every large
property that is being developed. The Site D property the Commission will be
considering later this year has a landslide that will need to be dealt with to
technically meet minimum safety factors. There may be landslides on this site
that are discovered through the geotechnical borings and the analysis that
moves forward, and those landslides would have to be remediated to comply
with code requirements for construction. The South Point West project is full of
landslides. It should be presumed that development would also be expensive
on this site and that is where the higher density requirement adds on the
presumption of economies of scale that make it at least more feasible to
develop than would otherwise be the case. On the question of subsidies, an
important point to reiterate is that Diamond Bar has never had a
Redevelopment Agency and without what is called tax increment that would
have been generated from development, the City would have been obligated to
set aside 20 percent of that tax increment for subsidizing affordable housing or
to act as the developer of affordable housing. The good news/bad news is that
Diamond Bar's efforts to establish a Redevelopment Agency were squashed
and as a result, there are no set-aside funds available to put toward subsidizing
affordable housing. Truly, the City of Diamond Bar is not going to be a resource
for a developer "for profit" or "non-profit" from which to seek assistance. He
cautioned that great care should be taken to not make comments about making
the site too difficult. The City cannot be disingenuous and it cannot create
obstructions to development. The City is not obligated to roll out the red carpet
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 25 PLANNING COMMISSION
or facilitate development where no subsidies are available, but state law
mandates that the City certainly cannot obstruct development. State law does
not require the City to meet a quota it only requires the City to meet a planning
target which is what the Commission is looking at tonight.
VC/Torng asked if the EIR received comments from the Pomona Unified School
District and SP/Lee responded that the City did not receive any comments from
the school district. VC/Torng felt the City should solicit comments from the
school district because of the potential effect of an additional 1000 students.
He agreed that Site A is the best site but began to feel awkward about it being
so close to the Diamond Ranch High School which is one of the high schools in
Diamond Bar and is important to the City. He hopes it does not become a low
income housing project. The other site has the same environmental impact and
is further from the school and the highway. Mr. Douglas reiterated that the EIR
concluded that the impacts would be similar for Site A and Site B. Site B is
farther from freeway access which is a negative. There is slightly less steep
topography on Site B which is positive so the impacts are kind of a wash.
VC/Torng asked if Mr. Douglas had any doubt the state would approve this site.
Mr. Douglas responded that there is a timing problem and if the zone change is
not approved right away by HCD the deadline that the state legislature has
established will be adhered to and there is no grace period in that deadline. If
the City does not rezone the property prior to the deadline the numbers roll
over. People may differ on whether to allow the numbers to roll over and
continue looking for another site even though it means the zoning would have to
be twice the amount of land so it is a judgment call for the Planning
Commission and City Council. It is staff's responsibility to tell the Commission
and Council what the rules are as they are understood and what is likely to
happen based on different scenarios.
VC/Torng asked how long it would take to get approval if the Council agreed to
rezone the south side property. Mr. Douglas said he believed the process was
that if it was the pleasure of the Planning Commission to go with a different site
such as the south site, it would be the Commission's recommendation to the
Council and it would then be the Council's decision to take the Commission's
recommendation or decide otherwise. If the Council agreed with the
Commission's recommendation to switch from Site A or B, it would require an
amendment to the Housing Element because the Housing Element does not
now include in it that alternate south site and it would have to go back up to
HCD for review (a 60 day process at a minimum extending the time to
October 15) and by that time the City would be in the 956 unit territory.
VC/Torng said he believes the south site is more suitable.
CDD/Gubman said that VC/Torng was correct on the building envelope height
issue of 35 feet for any structure on the hillside. The 45 foot height limit is
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 26 PLANNING COMMISSION
10 feet higher than what would be allowed in "The Country Estates" for
example. VC/Torng said that he was hoping the Commission could impose the
35 foot height limit for this project in accordance with the Hillside Ordinance.
Mr. Douglas said that if it is the Commission's pleasure to modify the height to
three stories or 35 feet it could be included in its recommendation to the City
Council.
C/Shah thanked the speakers who brought up a lot of good and thought
provoking points. He asked why the City is already at the deadline and why the
process was not started before a gun was held to its head to make a decision.
Mr. Douglas acknowledged that this was a frustrating position for the
Commission but this process was started in 2008. A lot of the last five years
was consumed by going back and forth negotiating with the state. Staff started
out with an initial position of recommending the Kmart site and it took quite a bit
of time to go through those negotiations and come to the point of public
hearings with the Commission and City Council and back to adopting a
document that was not really what the City wanted but felt it had to do. Another
big part of the process is the environmental review process which he believes
takes too long but is state law. There are a number of requirements and the
document is very voluminous. The process is long and arduous. There are
several other cities that are in the exact same position Diamond Bar is in today
being forced with a deadline to rezone property because of the state mandate.
This is a widespread issue and a widespread problem. Many cities including
Colton and Malibu have found themselves in these circumstances. Everyone
regrets that there is not more time to deliberate but unfortunately, the City must
deal with what is in front of it and not behind it.
C/Shah agreed that the process takes time but it still frustrates him when faced
with a do or die situation. If several cities are in a similar predicament, has
Diamond Bar talked with those cities and HCD about granting additional time to
solve these issues? Mr. Douglas said that cities have bonded together to
approach the state numerous times over the years. In fact, several years ago
the City of Irvine went so far as to sue the state and the regional government
(SCAG) because they were not happy with their fair -share housing allocations.
They lost in the trial court and lost in the appellate court and the Court said that
Irvine had no standing to raise this question, it is settled and the state
legislature has ordered that cities proceed accordingly. Political options lie with
the state legislature and the state legislature is made up of elected
representatives who live in Diamond Bar, Chino Hills, Pomona and other
jurisdictions and they are the ones that write the state laws. That is the political
system and political pressure has been applied by cities, counties and others
over the years but this issue has largely fallen on deaf ears.
C/Shah wanted to know if Diamond Bar had attempted to get a response from
the City of Pomona. Mr. Douglas responded that yes, Diamond Bar had done
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 27 PLANNING COMMISSION
so. The City of Pomona was sent a notice at the beginning of the process and
staff from the City of Pomona attended the public scoping meeting at Pantera
Park last year. Staff knows for a fact that the City of Pomona is fully aware of
this project.
C/Shah asked if staff considered five acre parcels with smaller units to fill the
requirement instead of a 30 -acre lot for all of the units. Mr. Douglas said that in
order for that option to be a viable alternative the City would need four to six
five -acre sites and he is personally not aware of that many vacant sites of that
size in the City. CDD/Gubman responded that staff conducted an inventory of
the vacant sites through the Housing Element process and there simply is not
the aggregation of acreage that would meet the requirement that has been
placed upon the City. There are other larger undeveloped sites but they are
restricted by covenants and other land use regulations that preclude them from
consideration. There is about 60 vacant acres on the edge of Summitridge
Drive south of Grand Avenue which has a General Plan Land Use designation
of Open Space and to consider any land that has an open space dedication
would require a vote of the people through an election process that would place
this issue on the ballot to ask the voters to consider changing the land use
designation on a property from Open Space to High Density Residential which
is most likely a non-starter to even consider. There are other properties that are
similarly restricted because they were part of a development where all of the
development rights were transferred to a Cluster location and the land those
development rights were transferred to have that same kind of restriction as
open space to be preserved in perpetuity. So what is left are smaller infill sites
that through the process of evaluation took staff to the Kmart site which staff felt
had tremendous potential for mixed-use redevelopment that would
accommodate the density requirement. As the Commission knows, that option
was rejected by HCD which was another in a continuum of events through the
City's dealings with MCD that pushed the City out and made this a very long
and frustrating process. Frankly, staff worked at an accelerated rate to get this
EIR completed so that the City had a chance to meet its deadline and avoid a
rollover penalty.
Mr. Douglas asked the Commission to consider during its deliberations that if
the City goes forward with the zone change as proposed, it gets the City
through this planning process without penalty. The next Housing Element is
due in the next few months and Must be adopted by February 2014. As a
separate action, if it is the Commission's pleasure to move forward with this
zone change, as a separate action the Commission might consider something
such as recommending to the Council that as part of the new Housing Element,
the City explore other alternatives besides the site before this body tonight. He
is not guaranteeing that some alternative would be successful in the next
planning period but at the very least it would allow the City to fight with the state
another day. So as part of the next Housing Element update over the next
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 28 PLANNING COMMISSION
several months, staff could take another look at possible sites and perhaps try
again to fight for the Kmart or some other underutilized site or scattered sites.
But in order to avoid the penalty it would have to be done after the zone change
and as part of the next Housing Element.
C/Farago asked if there was anything proposed about the proposed three sites
to attempt to negate the "all or nothing" A, B or the South site, to divide it
amongst the three and make it a smaller impact to the local environment. Mr.
Douglas said there were many options discussed at staff level as this process
unfolded. The short answer is that staff was brought to a standstill in its efforts
to work with the state and needed to get something approved, saw a path to the
state approval and took it which is to designate one single vacant site. The
state has a preference for larger sites because there are econornies of scale
with development as opposed to a few units here and there.
C/Farago said that knowing the Commission is considering only the zoning
issue and not any type of development, what type of discretion would the City
be able to exercise should a developer propose to develop the site as far as
requiring it to be a "gated" community, for example, to prevent a lot of in -traffic,
or to make it a 55 and older requirement. Mr. Douglas said that with regard to
the age restriction issue, the rules are pretty clear that if a senior housing
developer comes to the City and proposes that, the City can approve it. But if
the City were to impose a condition up front as part of the zoning it had to be
only a senior project, the state would not maintain the City's Housing Element
under those conditions. C/Farago asked if the City considered a bounty to
attract that type of a project. Mr. Douglas responded yes, if there was an
agreement between the City and a senior housing developer and it was a
mutual agreement that would be fine in terms of state housing law. C/Farago
asked for an explanation of Mr. Douglas's suggestion that the Commission
could request that upon approval of this zoning change that the City Council
look at other alternatives for the future Housing Element. Mr. Douglas
responded that if the City were to explore other options as part of the next
planning process and if the state were to give the thumbs up on some alternate
site, this site could be rezoned to a lower density or back to what it was. Zoning
can be changed by the City Council but the key would be to have the state's
blessing on an alternate to this site.
Chair/Nelson asked if staff considered the potential impacts on the Pomona
Unified School District adequately; if there had been any precedent that a
project was ever turned down because of a perceived or documented
correlation between low-income housing and crime; and, how realistic it was
that the state would consider or reconsider an alternative such as the Kmart site
for re-evaluation in this regard.
RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 29 PLANNING COMMISSION
RECONVENE: Chair/Nelson reconvened the meeting at 10:29 p.m.
Mr. Douglas responded to Chair/Nelson that with regard to school impacts, they
were considered in this process and the EIR addresses the issue of school
impacts. Two key points: 1) the state legislature has decreed that school
districts are governed by a separate branch of government from cities. The City
Council has no control over what goes on at Pomona Unified School District just
as the Pomona Unified School Board has no say over land use in the City of
Diamond Bar. State legislature has said that in terms of impacts on schools
from new development new students, the only authority the City has is to
require its developers to pay fees to the school district. And that is the extent of
the City's authority on that point and 2) through the EIR process staff identified
a secondary access that could also serve the high school as an objective of this
project so that if Site A or Site B were developed the City would work
cooperatively with the school district to try to establish a second way out of the
school property in the event of an emergency.
With respect to Chair/Nelson's third question regarding the likelihood of the
state's approving some alternate site it would take a crystal ball to know for sure
whether the state would approve some alternate site be it Kmart or something
else, but his suggestion is that it couldn't hurt and so as part of the next
Housing Element over the next few months, he and staff could work to try and
convince the state that some alternate site would be acceptable, which they
would be happy to do.
Regarding Chair/Nelson's second question about whether any jurisdiction has
denied a project based on a finding that low-income residents would create
crime and therefore be a suitable reason for denying the project ACA/Eggart
stated that he could not say whether any jurisdiction had disapproved a project
on that particular basis, but state law Government Code §65008 as well as,
Government Code §12955 prohibits local agencies including cities from
discriminating against a residential development on the basis of the
development's method of financing, the very low, low or moderate income
status of the intended occupants or the source of income of the intended
occupants. So an express finding denying a specific residential project on the
basis of perceived correlation between increased crime and the income level of
the occupants would be legally suspect. Chair/Nelson said "and subject to
lawsuit" to which ACA/Eggart responded "correct."
Roberta Perlman returned to the podium to state in response to the concept
that a developer would have to pay school fees to educate these children the
proximity of this project to the existing school still needs to be considered. It
literally crosses into the parking lot from what she can determine from the plan.
She believes the close proximity to the school is an inappropriate placement for
this project. She is president of the school board and understands that these
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 30 PLANNING COMMISSION
decisions are heavily weighed but she never does something that does not feel
right in spite of the fact that there is a deadline. She encouraged the
Commission to consider the safety and welfare of the students.
Benjie Cho returned to the podium to say he appreciates the position this
Commission is in and he is not a stranger to state and federal requirements.
Decisions have consequences and no one wants to exacerbate the problem.
The state requirement is riot going to go away and the best solution is to
mitigate the problems as best as possible. His personal opinion is that the
system of government is not sustainable. He recommended that the
Commission get more information on splitting the site and as a separate action,
relook at the circulation element and ordinance changes for geological
investigations so that it is clear for future developments.
An unidentified speaker asked the Commission to clarify the next steps in the
process after the Commission sends its recommendation to the City Council.
CDD/Gubman responded that the City Council hearing that would be held to
consider the Commission's recommendation is subject to the same notification
process as this Planning Commission meeting which includes notification to
property owners within a 1000 foot radius of the project, publication of legal ads
in the two newspapers (Tribune and Daily Bulletin) and posting of the 4x6 foot
notification boards on the property identifying the date, time and location of the
City Council meeting. The City Council meeting is a new public hearing and the
process begins anew with the City Council.
An unidentified speaker asked how long it takes the state to make its decision
after the approved resolution is forwarded to them. Mr. Douglas explained that
what the state HCD expects is, upon adoption of a zone change by the City
Council, that staff will send evidence of that adoption to the state. Shortly
thereafter (there is no deadline) the state would inform staff as to whether that
zone change complied with the commitment set forth in the Housing Element.
There is no official notice required as part of that action and it would most likely
be brought back to the Planning Commission and City Council as an
Information Item as soon as staff receives the information back from the state.
Terry Allen said he hoped that the Planning Commission would take all
comments into consideration and consider all options. Did staff look at any
other sites including the Diamond Bar Honda site and Ralph's Market?
Mr. Douglas reiterated that staff conducted a thorough evaluation of possible
sites. The reason Kmart was the first choice is because it is an
underperforming center and was considered by staff to be ripe for
redevelopment. In the past the Kmart property owner and staff have had
discussions about the redevelopment of that property and for a myriad of
reasons staff felt it was a good option that the state should approve but for their
own reasons, chose not to.
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 31 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing at 10:44 p.m.
Chair/Nelson reopened the public hearing at 10:45 p.m.
Sylvia Merrill returned to the podium and commented that she is very
disappointed at the level of homework and preparation from city staff of this
matter. This matter has been under consideration for a long time and even
before 2008. In 2006 things were submitted which states the reasons the
Kmart site was declined. She encouraged everyone to get educated by going
to the City's website and the state's website. There is a lot of information that
residents were not aware of and providing the minimum level Of Communication
of 1000 feet is not enough. She believes this is a very serious issue for all
Diamond Bar residents that all voters should be aware of. She does not feel
that publishing information in newspapers that she calls junk mail is sufficient.
The Commission needs to take this very seriously because it is not an issue
that will go away after October. Had she known about this sooner she would
have participated in the state's public hearings. When she went to the website
there was documentation about what happened at the hearings and there were
public comments from other cities but no public comments from Diamond Bar.
Diamond Bar employees need to communicate to the voters what is happening
in their community.
Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing.
Chair/Nelson asked CDD/Gubman to reiterate that the City has met its statutory
obligations for public hearing notification. CDD/Gubman responded that staff
met and far exceeded the minimum requirements in accordance with Diamond
Bar's Municipal Code mandates. In addition to the aforementioned, the
information has been posted on the City's website. What is frustrating to him is
that in the past the newspapers, primarily The Tribune, contacted him for
comments during the Housing Element process so there was more media
publicity given to that but they have not taken the opportunity through this
process. The City has made genuine efforts to provide public notification
through mailers, newspaper advertising, websites, property postings, etc.
Chair/Nelson said the City cannot mandate what articles the newspapers chose
to publish.
C/Lin responded to the last speaker that the reason he and others serve as
Commissioners is because they are all professionally associated with the City's
Land Use process. The Commissioners have spent the last six months going
through the EIR and EIS documents. Tonight there were a lot of good public
comments every one of which is valid although some of the issues raised
cannot legally be considered in the rezoning process such as, property values,
correlation of crime to low-income, etc. C/Lin said he lived in the Midwest for a
long time. This City is not building a project in the middle of downtown Chicago.
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 32 PLANNING COMMISSION
He spoke about a low-income project that was built in Leawood, Kansas, across
the street from million dollar homes when he served as Council person in that
city. 300 residents spoke in opposition to the project that was approved in 1989
and that project turned out to be one of the best housing projects in the City of
Leawood. He encouraged everyone to look at that city's website. C/Lin said he
takes pride in the fact that Diamond Bar is a good planning community. The
City has a good staff, very tight planning regulations and guidelines, and any
project that comes before the City gets fine scrutiny before it is approved. He
has confidence in the City's process that any project that comes before the
Commission and Council would be a high quality project. Today, the
Commission is considering only the rezoning of the land, not a development
project. When a development project comes before the Commission there will
be another very comprehensive and detailed review before this body
-recommends approval or denial to the City Council. Again, all the Commission
is considering is a rezoning of a site which may riot be developed given the
economic conditions. Most affordable housing receives a subsidy from the
federal government and it is well known that the federal government does not
have money that is trickling down to the states and cities. It could be 20 years
before any type of project is considered. And subsidized housing typically
requires a big chunk of funding from the agencies as in the case of a 490 unit
development that would require a subsidy of $10, 20 or 30 million. The
rezoning may be approved but he feels that within the next 10 or 20 years
nothing will happen on this particular site. He likes Mr. Douglas's suggestion
that if the Commission recommends City Council approval of the rezoning that it
include in its recommendation consideration of an alternate location when
reviewing the new Housing Element and asked for staff's help with language to
be included in a motion.
ACA/Eggart stated that the Commission could direct staff to include the
recommendation in the written staff report provided to the City Council. In
addition to the resolutions before the Commission, it can request this
recommendation be added expressly to staff's report to the City Council.
ACA/Eggart responded to C/Lin that this would be recornmendation #4.
C/Lin asked whether a certification was a "receive and file" or an "approval" and
CDD/Gubman responded that certification of the EIR would be a resolution
recommending City Council certification of the document. The City Council
could then adopt a resolution that certifies the EIR. ACA/Eggart said that
"certify" means that if the City Council were to certify the EIR it is certifying that
it is complete and adequate.
C/Lin moved to adopt a resolution recommending City Council certification of
the Final Environmental Impact Report and approve the Mitigation Reporting
and Monitoring Program; and, Adopt a resolution recommending that the City
Council approve the following: General Plan Amendment to establish a new
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 33 PLANNING COMMISSION
High Density Residential -30 (RH-30) land use designation and change the
current land use designation on the Land Use Map for the portion of the subject
property identified as "Site A" or alternatively "Site B" from Agricultural (AG) to
Planning Area 5/High Density Residneital-30 (PA-5/RH-30); Development Code
Amendment to establish a new High Density Residential -30 (RH-30) zoning
district and development regulations; and, Zone Change to change the zoning
designation for the portion of the subject property identified as "Site A" or
alternatively "Site B" from Agricultural (AG) to High Density Residential -30
Dwelling Units Per Acre (RH-30) and establish a maximum of 490 dwelling units
for this site with the addition of recommendation #4; that staff include a
recommendation that the City Council consider alternative sites, to be written
expressly in staff's report to the City Council.
C/Shah stated that the City's staff works very hard and they always above and
beyond their duties and although the public may have a perception, he is sorry
that it is a wrong perception. He knows staff and he wants to go on record as
stating that staff works diligently and very hard. He asks the hard questions
and staff has always shown that they have done all of the work and due
diligence on every project that they have brought to the Commission. With
heavy heart he will second the motion and hope that recommendation #4 will
establish a goal that can be reached.
C/Shah seconded C/Lin's motion.
CDD/Gubman reminded the Commission that VC/Torng suggested a 35 -foot
height limit in the Development Code amendment and asked C/L.in if he wished
to amend his motion to include this amendment.
C/Lin asked Mr. Douglas if that was in consultation with the state's requirement
and Mr. Douglas responded that his opinion is that 35 feet would probably be
okay although he cannot speak for the state.
C/Lin amended his motion to include the 35 -foot maximum height limit. C/Shah
seconded the amended motion.
VC/Torng said his intention was to include the alternate Tres Hermanos south
site as well.
VC/Torng said he has also worked with staff for many years and wanted to
commend their efforts. This process has gone on for a long time and he
believes that all of the Commissioners are very concerned for the future of the
City and this is an important issue for Diamond Bar and while it is a difficult
decision, it must be done to alleviate a bad situation.
AUGUST
PAGE34 PLANNING COMMISSIOL
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Lin, Shah, VC/Torng,
Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
C/Farago thanked staff for their diligence in putting together the rezoning
recommendation.
C/Lin thanked the audience for their patience. Tonight's item was a difficult decision
but the right decision under the circumstances.
VC/Torng echoed C/tin's comments and spoke to the attendees that they would have
an opportunity to speak to the City Council. He thanked the participants,
Commissioners and staff for their hard work.
Chair/Nelson advised participants they could find the City Council agenda on the City's
website. Chair/Nelson announced this would be his last meeting with the Planning
Commission for the City of Diamond Bar. He will be moving out of the City at the end
of the month and has served on the Planning Commission since 1988 with about a six
month hiatus during those years. To his colleagues, he stated that the staff at the City
of Diamond Bar has been spectacular. It has been such that he no longer has to
complain about the landscape plans excluding invasive plant species next to open
space habitats. He thanked everyone present — fellow commissioners present and
past, City Council present and past, CDD/Gubman present and past, AC/Marquez
especially because she has kept him on the road, and SP/Lee. He appreciates
everything everyone has done. Diamond Bar is a top notch City and is run
exceptionally well especially when compared to cities that are going bankrupt.
Diamond Bar is not and will not go bankrupt. He has lived in Diamond Bar since 1977,
has been involved with all of the schools, all of the recreational activities, he has
coached kids in softball, soccer and volleyball, etc. It has been an absolutely fantastic
place to live and, he was really disappointed recently when Walnut got 49 out of 50 in
the country. Diamond Bar is right there with them. It's all going on and will continue to
go on in Diamond Bar and it is the participation of the public that the Commission
witnessed tonight that creates that atmosphere. If the whole City were here he would
say the same thing — thank you very much for your concern, thank you to his fellow
commissioners and thank you to staff for their hard work.
9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
CDD/Gubman stated that at next Tuesday's City Council meeting August 20 the City
Council will recognize Chair/Nelson's years of service to the community in his many
AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE35 PLANNING COMMISSIOK
capacities. Staff expressed gratitude and CDD/Gubman thanked Chair/Nelson for his
exemplary service to the community. It has been a pleasure serving as his staff and it
has been an honor for all of staff to work with all of the Commissioners. CDD/Gubman
thanked Chair/Nelson for his leadership and guidance and mentoring to
commissioners as they come on board. He is confident that in Chair/Nelson's wake
the commission is going to continue the caliber of service he has provided through his
example and his leadership. He wished Chair/Nelson the best as he moves to the
next phase of his life.
9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects.
CDD/Gubman stated that the next regular Planning Commission meeting is
scheduled for Tuesday, August 27 with four items scheduled for the agenda
including the Conditional Use Permit for the ARCO/ampm at Brea Canyon Road
and Diamond Bar Boulevard which comes back to the Commission. The City
Council approved the Code Amendment addressing the distance criteria for
alcohol sales so staff is bringing the matter back to the Commission as a new
public hearing to consider the Conditional Use Permit to upgrade the ABC
License from Beer and Wine to Alcohol. As staff is required to do every year, it
will submit for the Commission's review to "receive and file" the General Plan
Status Report that the City is required to file with state. Two development
projects, an addition at a home on Ridgeline in "The Country Estates" and
potentially, a new single family residence on a vacant lot on Rusty Pump.
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 11:13 p.m.
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 27th day of August, 2013.
Attest:
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Gubmah-�
Community Development Director
T-c�y Torng, Viee Qairman
7--�