PC-1692 Page 74 of 74
6. Fencing plan;
7. Access and circulation plan;
8. Utility plan;
9. Master sign program.
B. Precise plans shall be reviewed and approved as set forth in Section 18.542.800 of this title.
C. The approving authority shall make the findings in accordance with Section 18.12.060 of this title.
SECTION XXX. Section 18.544.820 shall be deleted in its entirety:
§ 18.544.820 Plan disposition.
A. The development plan review board shall consider the plans and shall recommend to the planning commission approval, conditional approval or disapproval of the plans with any conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare.
B. The planning commission shall consider the plans and recommend to the city council approval, conditional approval or disapproval of the plans with any conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare.
C. Upon receipt of the recommendation from the planning commission, the city council shall approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the precise plan.
D. Amendments to Approved Plans. Development plans and precise plans may be amended by the same process provided for approval. Minor modifications, which do not substantially change the concept of an approved development plan or precise plan may be approved by the director of development services and reported to the development plan review board.
SECTION 249. Section 18.544.830. is hereby amended to read as follows:
18.544.8310. Minor modifications.
The director of community development services without public hearing may grant minor modifications to the provisions of this specific plan limited to the following:
…
CITY OF SAN DIMAS
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
Regularly Scheduled Meeting
February 20, 2025, at 6:00 p.m.
245 East Bonita Avenue, City Council Chamber
PRESENT
Chairman David Bratt
Vice-Chairman John Davis
Commissioner Margie Green
Commissioner James Shirley (Arrived at 7:00 p.m.)
Commissioner Doran Barnes
Planning Manager Marco Espinoza
Assistant Planner Yasmin Dabbous
Senior Management Analyst Kimberly Neustice
CALL TO ORDER AND FLAG SALUTE
Commissioner Bratt called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:11 p.m. and Vice-Chairman Davis led the flag salute.
CONSENT CALENDAR
CC 1. Approve December 19, 2024 Minutes
CC 2. Approve January 16, 2025 Minutes
MOTION: Moved by Vice-Chairman Davis, seconded by Commissioner Barnes to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Shirley absent).
PUBLIC HEARING
PH 1. Municipal Code Text Amendment 24-11; Discussion and Consideration of a Municipal Code Text Amendment to amend the City of San Dimas Municipal Code, Title 18 as necessary to Amend the process for zone changes and amendments to Title 18 and to eliminate the Development Plan Review Board.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
February 20, 2025
Staff report presented by Planning Manager Espinoza recommending Planning Commission approve Resolution PC-1692 recommending City Council adopt Municipal Code Text Amendment 24-11.
Planning Manager Espinoza pointed out some of the items that would normally go to DPRB but have been reassigned. For example, item one on Table 18.12.050, single-family residential, would typically go to the Development Plan Review Board (DPRB) but staff feels that these types of projects can be reviewed by staff. If the project was more than one home, a tract map or parcel map, then it would come to Planning Commission (PC) for review. Another example, additions on historic structures would be moved to director review, however, if the project was a designated historic structure, it would be brought to PC for review and approval. New multi-family, industrial and commercial projects would go to PC for review and approval. Master sign programs and monument signs would be reviewed by staff. By modifying the approval level, it saves the applicants time by eliminating the extensive process of DPRB.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated that he thought DPRB was also involved in the architectural review, and asked who does the architectural review if DPRB is eliminated.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that staff would review the architectural portion.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked if staff felt comfortable reviewing the architectural portion or will a professional assist staff with this review.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that the Planners are able to do the architectural review. Part of the hiring process for planners is to see how much they know about architectural types and features. For example, what makes a Craftsman or Colonial home. Staff would be able to review the plans as long as it’s compatible with the neighborhood.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked if the neighbors around the proposed project will still be notified.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated yes.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked who would review industrial projects.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated staff will review the project in lieu of DPRB and if approvable, they will move it forward to PC for review and approval.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked for clarification on the historic portion of the text. He stated the Historical Society has a book that references all the historic homes and asked if that is the list the text refers to.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that the list was from the Historic Resource Survey that was done in 1991.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3
February 20, 2025
Vice-Chairman Davis clarified that a designated historic structure would be like the Walker House where it has a state designation.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that was correct. The original intent of the Historic Resource Survey from 1991 was to designate all the homes on the list historic, but after the survey was complete the ordinance never moved forward for codification and Staff doesn’t know why. Unless the city has a historic ordinance, these properties cannot be treated as designated historic structures.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked for clarification on page three of the chart, the last item states tennis courts.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that in some of the specific plan areas it calls for tennis courts to be reviewed by DPRB, so staff added it to this table so that review and approval will apply to the entire city.
Vice-Chairman Davis recommended changing tennis courts to sports courts to cover basketball, pickle ball, etc. The intention of the code seems to be for any sport that creates noise or additional lighting for the neighbors. He feels that the neighbors should have a chance to weigh in on these items when one is being proposed.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated he is concerned that we are opening the door to accidently allow certain items, such as batting cages, which are actually prohibited in the City. He asks if staff should leave it as tennis courts or change it to sports courts.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated that he would leave it up to Staff to write the code with the intent to cover things such as pickleball which is a very noisy sport.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that by writing this into the code it will allow Staff to add conditions to the approval to help mitigate some of these concerns, such as no active use after 10:00 p.m. or lights need to be turned off by a certain time.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked how the Homeowners Association (HOA) approval makes its way into the permit issuance process.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that Staff requires a letter of approval from the HOA at the time of submittal. However, if the applicant argues the need for HOA approval, Staff will still take it in and could possibly approve the project. HOA codes are a civil matter between the owner and the HOA, and the City is not involved in the enforcement of the HOA codes.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated that overall, he’s ok with the MCTA but in some places of the code it references “Director” and in some areas it references “Director of Community Development”. Staff should go through the MCTA to check for consistency on terms like this.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4
February 20, 2025
Commissioner Barnes stated he was able to speak with Planning Manager Espinoza earlier about some questions he had, and he was able to get some clarification. He didn’t realize that the report only included the areas of the code that was being modified and not the entire code section.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that was correct, and wherever you see the three little dots at the end of the section, that means there’s more wordage. Staff felt that if they included more of the code, it would be too much.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated it would have been helpful to have a table of contents for the changes and he would recommend making one for City Council’s review.
Commissioner Barnes stated that on page 45 of the agenda packet there are revisions to some sections related to trees and asked if the changes being suggested in this MCTA will cause any issues with the comments the Commissioners made on the tree ordinance that is currently being worked on.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that each section listed are individual sections. The tree preservation ordinance is the only section that Staff is proposing to modify at this time and, if needed, will be edited later when the tree ordinance comes to PC for review and approval.
Commissioner Barnes thought he saw something about caretaker units and asked if a caretaker unit is different than an ADU.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that this item is referenced in a code section related to the M1 zone and applies to a person who lives on a commercial property to take care of the property.
Commissioner Barnes stated that he is in favor of trying to streamline the process but feels that a lot of the DPRB review authority is being shifted to Staff. He also is supportive of doing a joint study session with City Council because he feels that some of the proposed changes would be beneficial to discuss with City Council to see what their thoughts are. While some of the changes that are being shifted to staff are small, they can have larger implications than we realize.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that he understands that there is a lot of changes in this MCTA and the thoughts on moving some of the DPRB items to different review levels might not have been vetted out enough to consider long range implications.
Commissioner Barnes stated that he believes there’s at least one new Councilmember on the City Council since this item was initiated and feels that having a joint discussion would be beneficial.
Chairman Bratt stated that boards and commissions should not be made entirely of City Staff and that community input is very beneficial.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
February 20, 2025
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that Staff hardly ever have applications submitted for the License and Permit Hearing Board, the last one was about two or three years ago and another one recently for sidewalk sales of political flags and banners. Staff was hoping that since it rarely happens, they can reassign it. Some items that require License and Permit Hearing Board approval, such as security guards or an ice cream store, should go through the regular business license process only. The section is outdated and the modifications presented were to streamline the process for typical business types.
Commissioner Barnes asked if the Planning Commission can be assigned to act as the License and Permit Hearing Board. He agrees that some of the business types are ministerial, but some are not, and need to be reviewed. He understands that this means some additional review of this section may be required but feels that the Planning Commission should be assigned this task.
Chairman Bratt stated that in the twenty years he’s been on the DPRB he hasn’t seen very many applications come through, so it isn’t critical.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated he would be ok moving the review authority to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Green stated she sees that a lot of work has been put into this MCTA and appreciates the questions from the other Commissioners. She’s been a resident for over fifty years and a business owner, and she appreciates the effort to streamline the process. She’s been to most of the DPRB meetings over the years and sees a lot of the community showing up for some items and feels that community input is important.
Chairman Bratt asked Commissioner Barnes if he would be interested in a study session with City Council to discuss these changes.
Commissioner Barnes stated that he would be interested in a study session because he would like to understand what the thoughts of the City Council are, and added they might have some suggestions on where the review authority should lie for the various items.
Chairman Bratt opened the public hearing.
No communications were made at this time.
Chairman Bratt closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated that he doesn’t really have a problem with where this MCTA is going.
He agrees that there should be a joint study session with City Council to discuss what their thoughts are on the changes. Once Staff incorporates the suggestions from Planning Commission and City Council into the MCTA, it can be brought back to Planning Commission for review and recommendation.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
February 20, 2025
Commissioner Barnes stated that he knows this MCTA needs to be done, and it will be beneficial to the City and community but some items should be looked at closer.
Chairman Bratt stated that he thinks that a starting point would be to list what the DPRB did and show that it’s moving over to the Staff, Director or Planning Commission for review authority. After that is determined, then move on to the redlining of the code.
Vice-Chairman Davis used sign programs as an example and stated that the City has a very strict sign code and as long as the applicant is meeting the code then why would you need a review board to look at it. He doesn’t have an issue moving the review authority to the Staff level, however, he doesn’t understand what exactly is being changed when it comes to the section on grading.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that the grading section is just clarifying that the cubic feet of grading doesn’t include pools.
Commissioner Barnes stated that he sees a number of items from DPRB were shifted to the Director.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that a lot of the hillside development items were shifted to the director because they are typically more involved.
Commissioner Shirley stated that initially when they were talking about eliminating the DPRB he understood everything was going to be transferred to Planning Commission but that doesn’t seem to be the case. He feels that a discussion needs to be had as to the major things the DPRB reviews and divided into three areas: Staff review, Director review and Planning Commission review. He feels that the document given to him for review was too cumbersome.
Vice-Chairman Davis stated he would like to try to get a consensus from the Commissioners as to which items on the chart they seemed ok with and what items they feel still needs more review.
Chairman Bratt stated that if the Commission is in agreement with some of the reassigned items, they should approve those items and move it on to City Council and it doesn’t need a study session.
Planning Manager Espinoza suggested that License and Permit Hearing Board be moved to Planning Commission for review. The Commission agrees.
Vice-Chairman Davis recommended that the Master Sign Program and Monument Signs stay at a Staff level review. The Commission agrees.
Vice-Chairman Davis recommended that modifications to historic structures should be moved from the Director to Planning Commission. The Commission agrees.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
February 20, 2025
Vice-Chairman Davis felt that someone should take a look at the historic survey and make decisions on which properties are really historic, and which should not be considered historic.
Vice-Chairman Davis recommended that new single family homes can stay with the Director. The Commission did not agree. Commissioner Shirley, Commissioner Barnes and Chairman Bratt would like it to come to Planning Commission, Commissioner Green and Vice-Chairman Davis felt it is ok for Director review.
Planning Manager Espinoza suggested that by giving the Director the review authority to determine sports courts, it will save the applicant time and money by not going through the MCTA process.
Additionally, he reminded Planning Commission that they can still make a determination on the elimination of the MCTA initiation. The Commission agreed.
RESOLUTION PC-1692
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN
DIMAS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 24-11, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE CITY OF SAN DIMAS MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 18
AS NECESSARY TO REMOVE AND AMEND THE PROCESS FOR ZONE
CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18 AND TO ELIMINATE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW BOARD.
MOTION: Moved by Vice-Chairman Davis, seconded by Commissioner Barnes to approve Resolution PC-1692 recommending City Council adopt MCTA 24-11 with the following modifications:
• Move the review authority of new Single-family homes from the Director level to Planning Commission.
• Move the review authority of the License and Permit Hearing Board from the Director level to Planning Commission.
• Change the proposed review authority of modifications to residential and nonresidential historic buildings from the Director of Community Development to the Planning Commission.
Motion carried 5-0
OTHER BUSINESS
OB 1. MCTA Initiation Request to Modify Section 18.500.050 Staff report presented by Assistant Planner Dabbous recommending that the Planning Commission approve the MCTA initiation request to modify Section 18.500.050 to conditionally allow the use of “Senior Independent Living Facility with Services” within the Commercial Area (Areas 1 & 2) of Specific Plan No. 2 (SP-2).
Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
February 20, 2025
Commissioner Barnes asked about the massing of the project given the size of the parcel. The site looks small for the proposed use.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that the applicant is proposing a two-story building with sub terrain parking which is similar to other buildings in the same zone.
Commissioner Barnes asked how high the building could be.
Assistant Planner Dabbous stated that the code allows the building to be two-story but could exceed two-stories with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Vice-Chairman Davis asked if this building would be similar to an apartment complex where there would be a bedroom, bathroom and kitchen.
Assistant Planner Dabbous stated that they are proposing separate units with kitchens but there are also other options being proposed such as a commercial kitchen, activity rooms and a music room.
Vice-Chairman Davis asked to clarify what “elderly” is. Typically, people hear senior and think fiftyfive, but this project seems to be for those older than fifty-five. He also asked if the Planning Commission could restrict the number of occupants in the CUP.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that the code does not specify the age requirement. For this project, it is possible that two CUP’s would be required. One for the building height, if they propose to go beyond two-story, and one for the use, so yes PC can condition the use of the building.
Vice-Chairman Davis clarified that Areas one and two do not currently allow for any residential use nor do they currently have an active residential use.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that was correct.
Commissioner Green asked if these units would count towards our RHNA numbers and if this is considered like a hotel, would we get the bedroom tax.
Planning Manager Espinoza stated that he’s not sure and would have to look into this and get back to the Commission.
MOTION: Moved by Vice-Chairman Davis, seconded by Commissioner Shirley to initiate the Municipal Code Text Amendment for Section 18.500.050 and directed Staff to move forward with the MCTA for Area 1 of SP-2 only.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
a. Community Development Department
Planning Commission Minutes Page 9
February 20, 2025
Planning Manager Espinoza gave updates:
• There will be two items for the Planning Commission meeting in March. One will be a master bike plan that the Public Works Department put together and will present to you. The other item will be a Conditional Use Permit for AquaTots, an indoor pool for lessons and training. • Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session next Tuesday for the Allen Cataract project.
b. Members of the Audience
No communications were made.
c. Planning Commission
No communications were made.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Commissioner Green moved, seconded by Commissioner Shirley. Motion carried 5-
0. The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 20, 2025.
________________________________
David A. Bratt, Chairman
San Dimas Planning Commission
ATTEST:
_______________________
Kimberly Neustice
Senior Management Analyst
Approved: March 20, 2025