Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/2017 PC MinutesMINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2017 CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Mahlke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: `% Chair/Mahlke led the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioners Naila Barlas, Frank Farago, Ken Mok, and Chair Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke Vice/Chair Raymond Wolfe Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; May Nakajima, Associate Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION: 2.1 Selection of Chairperson C/Mahlke nominated C/Wolfe to serve as Chairperson for the Planning Commission. C/Mok seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations offered. C/Wolfe was elected to serve as Chairperson of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: C/Barlas Yes C/Farago Yes C/Mok Yes C/Mahlke Yes C/Wolfe Absent 2.2 Selection of Vice Chairperson C/Farago nominated C/Mok to serve as Vice Chairperson. C/Mahlke seconded the motion. There were no other nominations offered. C/Mok was elected to serve as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Barlas Yes C/Farago Yes C/Mok Yes C/Mahlke Yes Chair/Wolfe Absent VC/Mok assumed the gavel. 3. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: Robin Smith read from a letter that was the subject to public hearing Item 8.1. VC/Mok recommended that she hold her comments for the public hearing. ACA/Eggart suggested that Ms. Smith could repeat her comments during the public hearing or submit the letter to the Commission who could then respond to her comments during the public hearing. Ms. Smith submitted the letter and copies were distributed to the Commission. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: 5.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2017: C/Mahlke moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2017, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 6. OLD BUSINESS: 7. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: 8. PUBLIC HEARING(S): None None Barlas, Farago, Mahlke VC/Mok, None Chair/Wolfe 8.1 Development Code Amendment PL2016-198 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.70, the City of Diamond Bar proposes to amend the following sections of Title 22 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code (Development Code) in order to comply with recently enacted State regulations pertaining to accessory dwelling units (ADUs): 22.080.030, 22.16.140, 22.42.060, 22.42.110, 22.42.120, 22.68.030 and 22.80.020. MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department AP/Nakajima presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Development Code Amendment PL2016-198. C/Mahlke asked for confirmation that this amendment does not have so much to do with things the City is instituting but rather making sure that the City conforms to the state law and streamlining the process that is already in place. AP/Nakajima responded that C/Mahlke was correct in her assumption. VC/Mok asked for clarification that this is a matter of changing terminology as outlined in the later portion of staffs presentation and AP/Nakajima responded "yes. VC/Mok opened the public hearing. Robin Smith partly reiterated her statements from a letter she submitted to the Commission during Item 3 -Public Comments. Ms. Smith said that she believes that Diamond Bar is a unique community that has special needs that must be considered and categorical exemption of CEQA in this case is in her opinion, not a safe thing to do without great care and consideration about how that happens. She said that if a neighbor of hers wishes to build a second dwelling it violates the CC&R's and these types of projects can needlessly harm the natural landscape. Ms. Smith then referred to the letter she submitted to the Commission and said she would welcome a written response. Donna Earnheart, 23379 Golden Springs Drive, said she did not believe it would be breaking California law not to allow these units. If a City wants to protect its resources, having CEQA is really important. Perhaps the Commission could figure out a way to get more community involvement to better understand what the community wants. People want to build and develop but hoped that state laws would be more favorable toward honestly evaluating environment impacts. She likes the open land and neighborhoods that are more uniform and would like it to stay that way in Diamond Bar. Allen Wilson stated that he read the amendment and the two bills that were put forth in the last session of the legislature (AB2299 and SB1069). He understands that there is a housing shortage but this proposal will have MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION unintended consequences in the community especially since it is not subject to CEQA because anytime someone builds a development in Diamond Bar or in any City, that developer is subject to CEQA. Saying this proposal will not have any environmental impact is difficult to comprehend and he believes the Commission should postpone making its decision and get more information. Assad Barlas asked if the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet can be reduced under certain conditions and whether the setbacks would remain the same. VC/Mok closed the public hearing. ACA/Eggart responded to speakers that state law prior to January 1, 2017, said cities have to ministerially approve second units and that CEQA cannot be applied to them and there has not been change. This amendment adds words to confirm that because now the statute requires the ordinance to have specific words in it which is being done at this time. Again, the City has not been able to require people wanting to add a second unit to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act because the state legislature says that it cannot. The City has an existing ordinance regulating second units. Under the laws that existed prior to January 1, 2017, the City was permitted to have an ordinance and to regulate some but not all aspects of the "second unit" including where they would be located. The statutory amendment that went into effect January 1, 2017, said that "if the City wishes to regulate, it must have an ordinance, and that ordinance must contain certain specific provisions and cannot contain certain regulations." So the City's existing ordinance, in some respects, did not comply with the new stricter regulations on what cities could do. So, the intent of this ordinance is to merely put into the Diamond Bar ordinance additional things the state now limits the City to do and requires the Diamond Bar ordinance to say, without going further than state law dictates. That is staff's intent with the draft ordinance. One thing the City is still able to do is to determine locations in which second units are appropriate which it does through its lot size limitations which have not changed and which remain the same. Generally, the setback requirements remain the same if owners are constructing a new unit or an addition. One major change the state law made that the City,is required to implement is that in the case of conversion of existing square footage in an existing structure to an accessory dwelling unit, the City is prohibited from applying any development standards. Regardless of whether the City has an ordinance or not, this City's ordinance says that because that is what the state law is. If the MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION City's ordinance did riot say that, it would still be true. The City would not be able to apply any of those development standards to a conversion of an existing structure. State law pre-empts the City code on that issue. As stated in staff's report, there are some exceptions for setbacks for converted garages. As stated, if someone wants to convert their garage to an ADU, the City cannot stop them from doing so. The City can require them to file an application showing what they plan to do and by showing that it is a habitable space, they have to meet the Building Code requirements and include bathroom and kitchen facilities and the like, and as long as the City can verify that is happening the City has to allow it. But for those, the City cannot require it to be more than five feet off the property line so that if the existing garage is five feet from the property line, the City cannot impose a greater setback and say that it cannot be done. Other than that, the setbacks for newly constructed accessory dwelling units or additions that are accessory dwelling units are the same as what they were previously with no change. If someone is constructing a new unit, this does not give the property owner the right to remove the tree if a Tree Permit would otherwise be required to remove a tree for any purpose. So, if a property owner wants to put an ADU where a tree is, that would require a discretionary permit, they would still have to obtain a permit to remove the tree before proceeding to constructing something. As to how that interacts with CC&Rs, this does not affect provisions in CC&Rs that would prohibit second units and the state law applies only to cities and counties and does not, at this point, restrict what HOAs can do. So if HOA CC&Rs would restrict this type of development or use of property, those would still be enforceable by the Homeowners Association residents and the City's ordinance does not in any way affect that restriction. With respect to monitoring ADUs, the City currently has an ordinance that says people can build ADUs in certain areas and the City does not have a pro -active monitoring program and this ordinance does not intend to create one and staff is recommending that the status quo be maintained on that issue, obviously, since creating additional programs would require additional funding, staff, etc., which would create an administrative burden. CDD/Gubman said the question raised about monitoring brought up a couple of examples — short term rentals such as Airbnb's and maternity hotels, both of which uses are already prohibited in residential zones under the City's definition of a "hotel" and the City's ordinance that governs "group homes" including "boarding houses." Hotels are permitted in certain commercial zones and the definition of a hotel is "lodging for a period of 30 -days or less." If lodging was offered in a residential zone, it can be done on a month-to-month MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION basis. If they were being rented out for less than 30 -days they would be operating a "hotel" use in a residential zone and would be in violation of the City's Municipal Code. When the City becomes aware of Airbnb's being operated, it invokes its Code Enforcement authority to have those operations cease. Maternity Hotels are a use that would fall under the regulations for "boarding houses." A Maternity Hotel is typically a situation where there is a home/residence and there are different renters that could be staying for six to eight weeks and usually, they are in country for the express purpose of giving birth and bestowing all citizenship rights to their child. These uses occur in living arrangements where folks are renting individual rooms and there are other service providers to sustain and operate these uses. Again, boarding houses are prohibited in all single-family residential zoning districts and the City has also used its Code Enforcement authority to close Maternity Hotels for which the City has received probable cause that enable the City to obtain a warrant or where the City has been given permission to enter such facilities to make that determination to ultimately use the City's Code Enforcement authority to shut these units down. "Accessory Dwelling Units" fall under the Single -Family Residential regulations. Technically, accessory dwelling units are only allowed on parcels where there is a single family residence. It is conceivable that there is a single family residence somewhere in the City that is in a multi -family zone and that single family residence would be able to have an accessory dwelling unit; however, the rules still apply. It is a single family use and a Boarding House or Short -Term rental is a "commercial use" and/or prohibited in the Residential Zones. The establishment of an accessory dwelling unit does not create any loophole or enabling of those uses to be established. CEQA specifically exempts "second units"/"Accessory Dwelling Units" from the Environmental Quality Act. There can always be other overriding issues. If there is a blue line stream or some jurisdictional wetland on a residential parcel, all bets are off as far as the CEQA exemption is concerned. But for existing residences in existing neighborhoods, generally, those are exempt from CEQA and Accessory Dwelling Units under state law are mandated to be treated just as a single family dwelling and cities are not allowed to apply density rules to accessory dwelling units. So, even if zoning says that the density is one dwelling unit per lot, state law specifically says "except when you are providing a second unit" it is not increasing density. That is state law and something the City is bound by. ACA/Eggart said that as to the application of CEQA to this ordinance in particular, if the City does not have an ordinance that conforms to the new state law the City is prohibited from applying any development standards other MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION than some very minimal development standards, or regulating any use at all which means a use could proliferate in an unlimited fashion. So the purpose of this ordinance is for the City to retain as much of its regulatory power as possible underthe new state law. And because the current status quo is under state law, there are no rules. This ordinance does not increase the environmental impact from the status quo. The consequences of the City not adopting the ordinance are that the City would have no say or regulatory ability to police construction of Accessory Dwelling Units and property owners would not have to apply for anything other than a Building Permit. CDD/Gubman said there were questions raised about parking. State law allows the City to require some parking for ADUs. For example, a single family dwelling is required to have two covered parking spaces. The City is able to require an additional parking space for an ADU but that parking space could simply be a portion of the driveway in front of the garage. And then the state law goes further and completely preempts the City from being able to require parking if the property is located within Y2 mile from a transit stop. The best the City can do to tighten this portion of the law because the State Department of Housing and Community Development opines that a bus -stop is a transit facility and staff believes that the City can at least insist that a bus stop has to have a bus arriving at that stop every 15 minutes in order to be able to exempt a property within Y2 mile from requiring parking. If a home is within Y2 mile of the Industry Metrolink station, the City cannot require parking. The other area of consternation this law imposes on the City is that although the City can require parking for single-family residences, the City is now required to allow a homeowner to convert their garage into an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The law says thatthe City can still require replacement parking, but it cannot require the property owner to build a "replacement" garage. The City must be flexible enough to allow them to accommodate tandem parking on the side of the house or if they have some means of providing a lift for meeting their parking requirements which binds the City's hands in terms of what it can do when converting existing space. And although there are minimum lot size requirements when someone seeks to build an addition for the purpose of an ADU or a detached structure, if they are simply converting existing space, there is no minimum lot size requirement. So in that case, a lot can obviously be less than 10,000 square feet and it can be accomplished by converting existing space. A homeowner can get a Building Permit to build an accessory structure like a workshop or a pool building, but once that building is permitted and constructed and the lot is less than 10,000 square MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION feet, the homeowner can now convert that building to an ADU. This is a loophole that may have been deliberately put in the ordinance to find other ways of superseding a local agency's effort to restrict the proliferation of Accessory Dwelling Units. CDD/Gubman said that in response to the comment that this amendment is up -zoning residential neighborhoods, while it would seem to make intuitive sense that because one is adding another dwelling unit the density is being increased, which is up -zoning, the state law expressly states that an Accessory Dwelling Unit cannot be calculated toward density. In other words, the City cannot say that this is "intensifying" the density in a residential area. CDD/Gubman continued responding to the question about whether it would be breaking state law to prohibit second units, the answer is yes and it is the case. With respect to the statement about "unintended consequences" he is not sure how "unintended" the consequences would be. Some of the language in the law seems intentional. The City encounters this when updating the City's Housing Element (of the General Plan) in that there does seem to be more of a "northern California" bias. It often seems like these regulations are crafted within the bubble of living in an area like San Francisco and these standards are written to be imposed on others that do not have that same character. This is the reality of how some of these regulations are perceived when looking at standards that seem to make fine rational sense in certain areas of the state. While these regulations are imposed statewide, they affect every community, regardless of its urban or rural character. There was a slide shown that talked about an Accessory Dwelling Unit above a garage. It is something in state law, but state law allows cities to place restrictions on the height and size of Accessory Dwelling Units so in light of that, the current regulations do not allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit above street level. They can only be at ground level. The proposed Development Standards, to conform to the new state law, still restricts Accessory Dwelling Units to being one story. There are square footage limitations for lots that are 10,000 to 20,000 square feet which is that the maximum square footage for an ADU is 50 percent of the primary dwelling or 600 feet, whichever is less. So if one has an 1100 square -foot home, that homeowner would be limited to a 550 square -foot ADU. In the case of a 2,000 square -foot home on a 15,000 square -foot lot, the ADU would be limited to 600 square feet. If one has a larger lot (over 20,000 square feet) it is 50 percent up to 1,200 square feet. So a 2,000 square foot house can have a 1,000 square -foot ADU and a 12,000 square -foot house can have no larger than a 1,200 square foot ADU. MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION Staff has codified Design Standards so that the ADUs architecture must match the architectural style and material of the primary dwelling with respect to roof pitch, exterior walls, and window types. To the extent that the City can protect the visual character of the neighborhood, these architectural requirements are stated in the Code. Because the City has to approve ADUs ministerially, it cannot impose any discretion as to the caliber of the architecture. The City has to be very precise in saying that the roof pitch, and exterior materials have to match the main dwelling in addition to the one-story height limitation as previously stated. CDD/Gubman concluded that the City has attempted to comply with state law by doing the very minimum it needed to do in order to be in compliance and then imposed the little bit of local regulatory authority the City had to impose some regulations on the actual size and design of these structures. Staff did not choose to broaden the palette of development standards that would go beyond what the state law says the City has to. Other communities that are more open to this might be perfectly fine allowing larger second units and allowing them above a garage, but since the City is not required to go that far staff attempted to keep this clamped down as tightly as possible to be in compliance without exposing the City to legal challenges by going beyond the amount of minimal local discretion the state law grants. VC/Mok asked if an owner could convert '/2 of their garage into an ADU. CDD/Gubman responded that the minimum square footage for an ADU is 220 square feet. If it is a three car garage, they can convert as much of that third car portion since they are required to provide only two parking spaces. But if they have a two -car garage and they convert all or part of it, the City could require that the owner make the site whole again in terms of parking but could not require them to provide a garage. There would have to be various configurations allowed for parking to be accommodated on site. VC/Mok asked if a driveway would suffice as the extra parking space and CDD/Gubman responded "yes." VC/Mok asked if it was true that a neighborhood with CC&Rs that strictly prohibits ADUs would trump any kind of ordinance the City has in place. ACA/Eggart said that a better way to state it would be that whatever it says in the City's Ordinance does not trump the CC&Rs. C/Mahlke moved, C/Barlas seconded, to recommend City Council approval of Development Code Amendment PL2016-198. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Farago, Mahlke, VC/Mok NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair//Wolfe (The following is discussion after the public hearing closed. The audience spoke off mike and what they said/asked could not be heard — VC/Mok did not reopen hearing, therefore, technically, the following discussion was off record) VC/Mok asked if he was allowed to respond or if staff would respond. ACA/Eggart said that either was permissible. VC/Mok asked the speaker if she was making her comment based on what he asked staff about the CC&Rs? (Response off -mike). VC/Mok said that a community that has CC&Rs will have their own HOA. (Speaker spoke off mike). VC/Mok asked if he needed to open Public Comments again and ACA/Eggart responded that he could if he wished but that he was not obligated to do so. (Speaker again spoke off -mike) VC/Mok said that was his point because the CC&Rs take precedence over the ordinance. CDD/Gubman said there are properties that do not necessarily have CC&Rs but there could be deed restrictions on the property title that hinder certain land uses. There are some homes with deed restrictions that prevent them from adding a second story. There could have been an agreement among neighbors that the deed restriction be recorded against the property. So there are a number of possibilities where a property has a covenant or a restriction that curtails development that goes beyond what the City's Zoning Regulations or land use authority can impose. They cannot override City regulations by allowing something that is prohibited but they can prohibit or be more stringent than what is in the City's Municipal Code. ACA/Eggart said that to help the Commission understand what is happening with this issue, with respect to the City's Ordinance, it may not be clear from how it is written and how laws are written, but from a practical standpoint the City is not giving people "permission" to build second units, it is regulating people's construction of second units to the maximum extent that state law allows the City to do it. The reason that the state legislature passed this law MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION was to intentionally take away the power of cities and counties like Diamond Bar from regulating ADUs and property owners who want to build them because lots of cities would regulate them strictly and the legislature believes that is improper and does not promote solving what it perceives to be an Affordable Housing crisis. That is the legislatures reasons for doing what it did and City staff makes no representation as to whether it is good or bad, it is what it is. 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Mahlke thanked Mrs. Earnheart and Robin Smith for coming to speak this evening. C/Mahlke is a public speaking teacher and advocates interaction with the Commission. People are always invited to come to Commission meetings and most people find other things to do. Commissioners do not know why residents are not attending these meetings and many are on this dais because they started as audience participants and wanted to participate in a way that was meaningful, mindful and thoughtful. Please do not feel that you are not being heard. Commissioners hear speakers and she believes their concerns are very valid. But as has been heard, the Commission may not have the power at its level to be able to change the law. The desire for change is an important aspect of who we are as Americans, as advocates and people who care. She hopes that because tonight's decision was not what speakers wanted they do not leave here feeling they are not welcome and invited and that the Commission does not welcome and appreciate their contribution. She asked them to feel free to take it to the state level if they wished to do so. C/Mahlke asked if there was an agenda available for the Joint Planning Commission/City Council General Plan update event on March 29. CDD/Gubman said the meeting is scheduled to last two hours. C/Barlas said the Commission appreciates people coming to meetings to voice their opinions because Commissioners began on their side of how they view things. The concerns residents have are shared by the Commissioners who are residents of Diamond Bar. Sometimes public voices are much stronger than those who serve. While Commissioners are limited, the public can make their voices heard for change. VC/Mok said that while the Planners Institute was not that exciting, it was very informative. There was a lot of information thrown at attendees over three days and he really appreciated the City allowing him to attend for the first time as a new Commissioner. Starting with the General Session, Professor Donald Shoup of UCLA emphasized that cities need to bring attention to parking policies and reforms because parking lots occupy so much space that could be used for housing. The state of California is in a housing crisis and it is not likely to improve. Cities like Pasadena, Lancaster and cities in Europe have addressed these issues by becoming MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION "walkable" cities. And the more automobiles that are on the road cause adverse health effects. He offered some ideas for thought for Diamond Bar with respect to infill during the General Plan update process such as creating a website that show all development in the city, including renditions of proposed projects on communication boards at the project site, and density bonuses for developers that include affordable housing. He has notes about signs, how to use the General Plan, Zoning Code and Climate Action plans to improve planning in the city and high density housing. He is happy to share his notes with his colleagues. C/Barlas thanked the City for allowing her to attend the conference. It was very informative and somewhat overwhelming. It has helped her understand certain issues such as density bonuses and ADUs. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future proiects. CDD/Gubman said that if the City elected to not adopt a local ordinance to regulate Accessory Dwelling Units, the existing ordinance would become null and void which would create a "wild west" scenario with respect to ADU's. Without having any ordinance adopted there would be no setback requirements, no height limit requirements, no square footage limitations, etc. Diamond Bar is compelled to do something or else the City would lose what little control it has. In short, the City's failure to adopt local regulations would result in essentially no regulations except for Building Permits. CDD/Gubman stated that the next Planning Commission meeting is March 28, 2017, with one project on the agenda which is a new Single Family Residence on Falcons View Drive in The Country Estates. On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, the Planning Commission and City Council will hold a joint meeting to receive a status update on the General Plan update and completion of Phase I which was fact-finding and reconnaissance to provide baseline information opportunities and constraints and survey responses to begin cobbling draft alternative plans and policies that will be part of the next phase. On Thursday, March 30, 2017, the State of the City address will take place at the Diamond Bar Center. A portion of the event will highlight the General Plan process. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As noted in the agenda. VC/Mok encouraged everyone to attend the City Birthday Party on Saturday, April 8, 2017, at Pantera Park as well as, the Easter Egg Hunt on Saturday, April 15, 2017, at Pantera Park. MARCH 14, 2017 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, VC/Mok adjourned the regular meeting at 8:22 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 28th day of March, 2017. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Kennth Mok, Vice Chairperson