HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/2022MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 26, 2022
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair/Wolfe called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. in the Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill
Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Rawlings led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Naila Barlas, Mahendra Garg
(telephonically), William Rawlings, Vice -Chair Kenneth
Mok, Chair Raymond Wolfe
Staff Present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James
Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Mayuko (May) Nakajima,
Associate Planner; Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator,
Also Present: Michael Houlihan, Principal Associate, ESA (Consultant)
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: -None Offered
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 12, 2022.
VC/Mok moved, C/Barlas seconded, to approve the Regular Meeting
Minutes of April 12, 2022, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Garg, Rawlings, VC/Mok,
Chair/Wolfe
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
5. OLD BUSINESS: NONE
6. NEW BUSINESS: NONE
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 54081
Development
Review,
Tree Permit
and Conditional Use Permit
— Planning
Case
No.
PL 2017-203
—Under the
authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Title 21, Sections 22.48, 22.38
and 22.58, the applicant requested approval of a residential subdivision that
includes the development of seven single-family residences and associated
infrastructure, including the southward extension of Crooked Creek Drive, on a
APRIL 26, 2022 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
12.9-acre undeveloped site. Five of the proposed residences each include an
attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The following entitlements are
requested:
1) Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081 ("VTTM No. 54081") to subdivide
the subject property into nine parcels for the following purposes: Seven (7)
single family residential lots; one (1) lot reserved for a trailhead that
anticipates the future improvement of Los Angeles County -owned easements
to provide access to the Schabarum Trail system; and one (1) lot containing
approximately 10A acres of preserved open space and associated
maintenance access. Access to the lots is proposed by extending and
dedicating Crooked Creek Drive for public right-of-way purposes.
2) Development Review to approve the site, architectural and landscape design
of a new residential development to ensure consistency with the General
Plan, Development Code, and compliance with all applicable and design
guidelines and standards.
3) Tree Permit to remove 62 existing protected trees consisting of 58 Southern
California black walnuts and four (4) coast live oaks; and to replace them at a
3:1 ratio with 201 Southern California black walnuts and 12 coast live oaks,
totaling 213 replacement trees to be planted onsite.
4) Conditional Use Permit to approve development on a site subject to a
Planned Development Overlay District and allow modifications to the following
development standards:
• Increase the exposed retaining wall height limit from six (6) feet to 17
feet;
• Reduce the minimum front setback requirement for Lots 4 and 5 from
20 feet to 14 feet and 13.75 feet, respectively; and,
• Reduce the minimum lot size requirement for Lots 1 and 3 from 10,000
to 8,294 square feet and 8,482 square feet, respectively.
PROJECT ADDRESS: Southern terminus of Crooked Creek Drive, east of the SR57
Freeway, Brea Canyon Road and Brea Canyon flood control
channel and north of the City's southern boundary
(APN 8714-028-003)
PROPERTY OWNER: Cathay View Development, LLC
701 S. San Gabriel, Suite D
San Gabriel, CA 91176
APPLICANT: New Bridge Homes
500 Newport Center Drive, Suite 570
Newport Beach, CA 92660
APRIL 26, 2022 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
AP/Nakajima presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission
adoption of Resolutions recommending City Council adoption of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081, Development Review, Tree
Permit and Conditional Use Permit No. PL2017-203.
Chair/Wolfe opened the public hearing.
Bryan Avila, NewBridge Homes, consultant to the owner said he and his team
were present to respond to questions and concerns.
C/Rawlings asked staff to respond to two areas of concern: the 3:1 replacement
of protected trees to be removed; and the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife's (CDFW) indication that the impact is going to be greater than just the
removal of the trees, and that the City should consider the habitat loss in its
mitigation efforts. It appears that the question involves the fuel modification
efforts that require trimming of tree branches, which would then cause an
ecological impact on the trees' abilities to perform and be responsive to their
ecological environment.
Michael Houlihan, ESA consultant, explained that there are two woodland
habitats on the project site: oak woodland and walnut woodland. The oak
woodland is within the fuel modification zone for the new development. The oak
woodland on the site is not classified as sensitive habitat. The walnut woodland
is located behind existing homes on the east side of Crooked Creek, and is
classified as sensitive habitat; however, the walnut woodland is already subject
to brush clearance and trimming activity because it is located within the fuel
modification zone for those existing homes.
C/Rawlings asked for clarification on fuel modification that will not result in
additional loss of ecological function of trees on Response to Comments page
3-34 but on page 3-38, references new fuel modification.
Mr. Houlihan responded that the discussion is whether or not there is a significant
impact that is occurring, and if new fuel modification areas are within the oak
woodland area. The reference to fuel modification activities within zones B and C
will not result in loss of trees but will continue existing documented fuel
modification because of the existing homes. The project is not causing an
increase in fuel modification behind the existing homes.
C/Rawlings asked why we identified a certain number of protected tree removals
while CDFW recognized more trees to be mitigated (40 coast live oaks and 113
California black walnuts).
Mr. Houlihan responded that he was unsure if CDFW had been on site to observe
the smaller diameter trees that exist on site and may be referring to oaks in the
fuel modification area. The oaks aren't sensitive species and not being removed
APRIL 26, 2022 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
within the fuel modification area, and therefore, not required to be replaced under
the City's ordinance.
Chair/Wolfe asked for clarcation that any trees that are proposed for removal
that are required to be replaced at a 3:1 ratio are being accounted for. Mr.
Houlihan answered yes.
VC/Mok asked if the City has done its due diligence and involved CDFW early in
the process.
Mr. Houlihan explained that CDFW received the public review draft Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in which they provided
comments, but have not been on site or done surveys to understand what is in
the understory and what other trees exist on the site that define the area as oak
woodland as opposed to walnut woodland. What they've seen is the tree removal
pIan that shows the walnut and oak trees that are protected under the City's tree
ordinance. There is oak woodland based on the amount of coverage that meet
the requirements in the reference manual (A Manual of California Vegetation).
AP/Nakajima responded that CDFW was not involved until the circulation of the
public review draft IS/MND.
C/Garg believed it was imperative that an EMF study be done and he wanted to
see the plan reflect the location of the street lights. Mr. Houlihan responded that
an EMF study has not been done. AP/Nakajima responded that a street light plan
will be required for review and approval by the Public Works Department during
pIan check.
C/Barlas was concerned about the cost to build and Mr. Avila responded that until
the project is approved and final plans are submitted, it is unknown at this time.
He added that the potential profit has been dwindling due to the numerous
revisions to the project.
Allen Wilson asked the Commission to consider the City needs to stop favoring
luxury housing and plan infill housing that supports the community as a whole.
He also stated concerns with only one road for evacuation in a wildlife fire hazard
area.
Robin Smith, Chair of the Diamond Bar -Pomona Valley Sierra Club Task Force,
said the task force remains opposed to the Crooked Creek residential subdivision
until its environmental mitigation plan is brought into compliance with CDFW. She
has personally spoken with CDFW and they do not think their comments have
been taken seriously. She also met with NewBridge Homes and was impressed
with their plans, but told them to reach out to CDFW because by law, they are the
ones that implement CEQA. CDFW calculates tree mitigation by the area
affected, and takes into account not only quantity of trees but the relationship to
the soil and broader natural area. City's tree ordinance does not recognize native
APRIL 26, 2022 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
tree natural communities and disregards ecosystems, which results in mitigation
failure.
Lee Paulson, Responsible Land Use, believes that conservation and housing and
development can co -exist if the science is followed by working with CDFW.
CDFW is the law and the mitigation plan should be endorsed by them.
Vinod Kashyap, Responsible Land Use and resident of Crooked Creek
neighborhood, restated CDFW's role as California's Trustee agency for fish and
wildlife resources and said the Tree Permit considered tonight is inconsistent with
CDFW assessment and established 2018 protocols. CDFW is the agency that
enforces CEQA and mitigation is subject to failure unless endorsed by them.
Nick Prokop, resident on Gold Run Drive, spoke in opposition to the project,
including concerns with forest fires, reduced setbacks, size of homes, vacancy of
homes, and watering of mitigation trees during a drought.
Michele Staples, attorney representing applicant and owner Cathay View
Development, explained that the project has been designed in accordance with
the City's General Plan to limit the impacts to the already impacted area of the
site and complies with the City's public health and safety requirements as well as
CEQA. She reminded everyone that the City is the lead agency for the mitigation
plan and CDFW does not get into the details. Responses to comments in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration includes many clarifications to the CDFW
comments and incorporates 95 percent or more of the mitigation measures
CDFW proposed. Ms. Staples thanked staff for working with the developer in a
cooperative way and for responding with effectiveness to all CDFW comments.
Shih-Jing Yen implored the Commissioners, as gatekeepers for the community,
to keep the environment safe and preserve wildlife and diversity of the habitat.
He encouraged a healthy conversation with CDFW.
Amy Trang asked that the project respect nature and the environmental impacts.
She asked if the City is bypassing CDFW and they should be reached out to.
James Eng was concerned about traffic impacts to the area and that Crooked
Creek is a narrow street which may not be wide enough for fire trucks.
Chair/Wolfe closed the public hearing.
C/Rawlings stated his respect and appreciation for the project improvements that
have been made since the last iteration. The way the road is designed and the
lots have been designed around native species. While he wishes to support the
project, he remains concerned about the differences between CDFW and the City
in regards to the mitigation and as such, suggested that this item be continued
and that CDFW be invited to visit the site, provide additional comments and work
with the City on the differences.
APRIL 26, 2022 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
VC/Mok agreed with C/Rawlings that the project has evolved in a manner to allay
the concerns of the residents in the area and asked for clarification that the CDFW
has not been onsite and has not been present during this process. He asked for
clarification that if it's up to the City to address any environmental issues and not
up to CDFW. If that is the case, inviting CDFW would be unprecedented.
ChairlWolfe reopened the public hearing.
Michele Staples responded to VC/Mok that CEQA has a process that is driven by
the lead agency, which is the City, and CEQA requires that the City communicate
with CDFW at certain points in the CEQA process and explained the process that
has been undertaken to this point. When the City prepared the MND, it distributed
it for public comment, and CDFW weighed in with its comments. The City
responded to the comments and circulated the responses. CDFW did not further
respond to the City's Response to Comments, but they have the opportunity to
do so. In her experience, it would be quite unusual for CDFW to come down to
the site.
Chair/Wolfe closed the public hearing.
Mr. Houlihan explained that CDFW would become involved in the CEQA process
if a lead agency such as the City of Diamond Bar sees a need to bring them in
related to a sensitive habitat or a sensitive species that might be found on the site
or expected to occur onsite in which case, focused surveys would be conducted.
The part of this project that VC/Mok referenced was that CDFW becomes
involved when the portion of the project is within their jurisdiction, which is the
Brea Channel. There are two drains that will be connected to the channel and
will have to determine whether a CDFW streambed alteration agreement is
required. CDFW becomes involved at the request of a lead agency. There has
been a lot of discussion asking where the habitat mitigation plan is for the project,
but there is no such plan; only a Tree replacement plan that follows City's tree
preservation ordinance is required. In the past, when there have been oaks or
walnuts or protected trees removed, it has always followed City requirement and
CDFW has not contended that the City's ordinance is incorrect. The habitat was
evaluated to understand whether it is a sensitive habitat based on the protocol
that CDFW has established and based on the canopy coverage, which was found
during habitat mapping. CDFW has only seen the trees that are going to be
removed that are meeting the City's protected tree requirement. The walnut trees
that are in the area are only composing less than 30 percent of the coverage and
it needs to be more than 30 percent to be a walnut woodland, which is the only
question from CDFW. All questions from CDFW have been responded to. The
applicant's biologist found one sensitive plant species that is a threatened
species (the mariposa lily) in the area, but not on the site. When his firm was
hired, ESA's biologist conducted another focused survey and still did not find the
sensitive plant species on the site. When there is a sensitive species, CDFW
becomes involved under its jurisdiction. Individual walnuts and oaks that meet
APRIL 26, 2022 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
the City's tree ordinance are being accounted for and the project is not affecting
sensitive habitat.
Chair/Wolfe asked how many projects of a similar nature has his firm been
involved in during his career. Mr. Houlihan responded that over his 35 year
career and as project manager, has been involved in 15-20 similar projects. In
this case, ESA's senior biologist, Dr. Daryl Koutnik oversaw the peer review of
the LSA report (prepared for the applicant), as well as preparing the amended
evaluation for the City.
ACA/Eggart responded to Chair/Wolfe that in general the process is that the State
agency does not control the CEQA process and is not the final decision -maker.
There appears to be disagreement between the City's expert biologist and some
staff at CDFW as to what the appropriate process is for determining proper
mitigation and the City's expert has articulated that in the written documents that
were received in Response to Comments. The Biologist who prepared those
documents is not present this evening to articulate those details orally, but they
are articulated in a detailed fashion in the Response to Comments. As to what
the nature of the disagreement is and why, the City's expert does not believe that
CDFW's approach is necessary or appropriate in this case. In general, to
VC/Mok's question as to whether the City followed everything it was legally
obligated to do regarding CDFW, the answer is absolutely yes. Any state agency
may attempt to assert itself and have opinions just like any other public about the
CEQA document and they are welcome to provide them to the City for
consideration and response, but the City is not obligated to cooperate with a state
agency but may do so if it believes doing so would be appropriate.
Chair/Wolfe said he can appreciate the importance of making sure that the
community is kept in as pristine a condition as possible and he also appreciates
the fact that there is a need to continue to develop housing — maybe not high
value housing, but certainly housing stock in California is a real challenge.
Regarding the comment that the roadway is not sufficiently wide enough for a fire
truck to turn around he would offer that this is the case today and in fact, this
project will actually improve that as the fire department has been heavily involved
in the process working with the applicant and the City.
C/Garg asked for a Condition of Approval for EMF 30 study and AP/Nakajima
responded that a study was not provided because the lines are not on the
property and are just south of the City's southern boundary. CDD/Gubman stated
that the issue with power lines and cell towers and the concern about radio
frequency radiation and EMFs is still an unsettled question. There is no definitive
evidence of health effects being caused by radio frequency radiation or EMFs
and without having any settled science on this matter, the World Health
Organization has not reached any formal conclusion nor have any other reputable
scientific organizations. In addition, this project is not proposing to put high
voltage transmission lines next to homes, it is a proposal to build homes in the
vicinity of these transmission lines. The CEQA process is to assess the impact
APRIL 26, 2022 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
oI a project on the environment, and this is an existing condition which future
residents of this neighborhood, if approved and developed, would be made fully
aware of and it would be their judgment about whether to reside within that
vicinity.
C/Rawlings thanked everyone for their participation this evening. He still has
concerns about mitigation but he will not move his idea about involving the CDFW
forward based on the comments from counsel and staff.
Chair/Wolfe moved, C/Barlas seconded, to Adopt Resolution No.2022-05
recommending that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Moved, seconded, to Adopt Resolution No. 2022-06 recommending that the City
Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 54081, Development Review,
Tree Permit, and Conditional Use Permit No. PL2017-203, based on the Findings
of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval within the Resolution. Motion
approved 4-1 by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Barlas, Garg, VC/Mok, Chair/Wolfe
Rawlings
None
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATION ITEMS:
C/Rawlings thanked everyone for their participation and said he looked forward to a
successful project.
VC IRA ok said that after studying the documents and weighing the positives and
negatives, he still had concerns about the project but took comfort in ACA/Eggart's
comment that it is certain that the City and the state have been working hand -in -hand
and that there was mutual understanding which is why he voted "yes'
ClBarlas said she had a lot of apprehension regarding this project over the years and
would like to see how it unfolds and she trusts that the City has done all that needs to
be done and hopes the project will be successful. Thank you to all who participated this
evening.
C/Garg
said that upon receiving a
response to his concerns regarding EMF's he is okay
with the
project
and congratulated
the developer and
applicant.
9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
CDD/Gubman stated that the May 10th meeting agenda item is the review of the Capital
Improvement Projects for the upcoming fiscal year wherein the Planning Commission is
required by law to make a finding as to whether the projects are consistent with the
City's General Plan prior to adoption of the budget for FY 2022/23.
APRIL 26, 2022 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission,
Chair/Wolfe adjourned the Regular Planning Commission meeting at 8:21 p.m.
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 10�h day of May, 2022.
Attest:
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Gubman, Community Development Director
Raymon olfe, Chairperson
