HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/08/2021MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DIAMOND BAR CITY HALL WINDMILL COMMUNITY ROOM
21810 COPLEY DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
JUNE 812021
Chair/Rawlings called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Wolfe led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Naila Barlas; Kenneth Mok, Raymond
Wolfe, Vice Chairman Mahendra Garg, Chairman William
Rawlings.
Staff Present : Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James
Eggart, Assistant City Attorney (telephonically), Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Mayuko
Nakajima, Associate Planner; Joy Tsai, Assistant Planner (telephonically), Stella Marquez,
Administrative Coordinator,
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented
4.
5.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 25,
2021.
C/Barlas moved, C/Mok seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.
Motion carried by the following Roll CaII vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. PUBLIC HEARING(S):
BarlasMokWolfeVC/Garg
Chair/Rawlings
None
None
7.1 Development Code Amendment -Planning Case No. PL2020-61 —Under
the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.70, the City of
Diamond Bar proposed to amend the following sections of Title 22 of the
JUNE 87 2021 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
Diamond Bar Municipal Code ("Development Code") in order to comply with
recently enacted State regulations pertaining to accessory dwelling units
(ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs): 22,08.040; 22.42.110;
and. 22.42.120.
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar
AP/Nakajima presented staff's .report and recommended Planning
Commission adoption of a Resolution recommending approval of
Development Code Amendment Planning Case No. PL2020-61 to the City
Council.
C/Barlas
asked if a
separate entrance from the main dwelling area would be
required
for JADUs
and
AP/Nakajima
responded
affirmatively.
C/Mok asked if the ADU is 799 square feet, does it mean that the standards
are further relaxed and AP/Nakajima responded no. The ADU must comply
with this ordinance.
C/Mok asked if a JADU in a converted garage was subject to the same codes
and would the property owner be required to put in drywall and a solid wall
separating it from the main dwelling unit. AP/Nakajima responded affirmatively
and said it would need to comply with all of the building codes related to
creating a habitable space.
AP/Nakajima responded to C/Barlas that the school fee threshold is
approximately 498 square feet and anything above that square footage is
subject to school fees.
C/Mok asked if a homeowner in The Country Estates would have to no through
their architectural committee to have an ADU approved prior to obtaining City
approval and CDD/Gubman responded that the Homeowners Association
would not be able to impose additional standards beyond what is required in
State Law and City Code.
Chair/Rawlings asked for clarification of Page 24, item 0 that an ADU may
not exceed 850 square feet. AP/Nakajima responded that attached, studio or
one -bedroom ADUs are limited to 850 square feet or one-half of the existing
home's square footage, whichever is less. (However, the City cannot limit the
size of the ADU to less than 800 square feet, regardless of the size of the
primary dwelling.)
JUNE 85 2021 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/Rawlings asked for clarification of the 60-day review requirement, and if
an ADU application would ever come before the Planning Commission.
CDD/Gubman responded that the only situation where the review might come
to the Planning Commission was if an. ADU was proposed concurrently with a
new home, in which case the ADU application would not be subject to the 60-
day review requirement.
C/Wolfe asked if in accordance to the law an ADU or JADU could be built in
the front yard of a property. AP/Nakajima said this was a concern voiced by
staff when they spoke with HCD, and with their approval, staff added a
provision on Page 23 of the packet which states that ADUs can be no closer
to the street than the primary dwelling structure.
C/Mok referred to page 25, Off -Street Parking and asked if #5 (car share
vehicles) referred to Uber or Lyft, etc. It seems to him that Items 1-4 and 6-7
are moot. Discussion that followed clarified that a car share vehicle is a motor
vehicle available for individuals to check out for personal use, and is not the
same as a ride hailing service, such as Uber or Lyft.
Chair/Rawlings opened public comments.
With no one wishing to speak, Chair/Rawlings closed Public Comments.
C/Wolfe said that while he can appreciate the reason this item is before the
Commission and the importance of the Council taking action, he will vote NO
on this item as a protest vote because he believes the State of California is
overstepping its bounds when it comes to local control. People in this
community and communities around the state chose a certain lifestyle by
purchasing in suburbia and suddenly, their neighbors can add capacity that
was not there previously, in what was originally intended to be a single-family
community.
C/Barlas moved, C/Mok seconded, to adopt a Resolution recommending
approval of Development Code Amendment (Planning Case No. PL2020-61)
to the City Council. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Mok, VC/Garg,
Chair/Rawlings
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Wolfe
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
JUNE 85 2021 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
C/BaIla said that while she respects C/WDlfe's stance, being in real estate she has
noticed that it has become very expensive for the younger generation to purchase or
rent homes. Her three kids live with her in her small home and in order to
accommodate everyone, she found it necessary to convert her office into a bedroom,
which is the reason she voted in favor of the item.
Chair/Rawlings encouraged everyone to keep shopping and eating in Diamond Bar
for the sake of the local economy.
9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
CDD/Gubman announced two public hearings scheduled for the June 22�d meeting,
a Conditional Use Permit to reoccupy the long -vacant office building on Diamond
Canyon Road, and a Conditional Use Permit to occupy a small tenant space at
20657 Golden Springs Drive (Golden Springs Plaza).
10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission,
Chair/Rawlings adjourned the regular meeting at 7:04 p.m.
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 22"d of June, 2021.
Attest:
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Gubman, Community Development Director