Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/14/1993Next Resolution No. 93-22 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AUDITORIUM 21865 E. COPLEY DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 June 14, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: . 7:00 pm PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS:- Chairman Bruce Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman David Meyer, Jack Grothe, Michael Li, and Lydia Plunk MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary (completion of this form is voluntary). There is 'a' five minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only: 1 1. Minutes of May 24, 1993 r 0 OLD BUSINESS: 2. Consideration' of a Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 91-8 (1). The application requests an amendment to the existing CUP for a billiard hall. Specifically, the applicant requests the extension of the hours of operation from midnight to 2 a . m. The use is. located in the Colima Plaza at the southwest corner of Golden Springs Dr. and Lemon Ave. On May 24, 1993, the Planning Commission voted to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval with specific changes for final consideration-. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: None NEW BUSINESS: 3. Review of Fiscal Year 91-94 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for. conformity with the General Plan pursuant to Section 65401 of the Government Code 4. REORGANIZATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 5. Status Report on General Plan adoption process. ANNOUNCEMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: June 28, 1993 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 24, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL: commissioners: Grothe, Li, Plunk, and Vice. Chairman Meyer. Chairman Flamenbaum arrived at 8:25 p.m.. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searc . yl Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, Interim City Engineer George Wentz, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. VC/Meyer reported that Chair/ Flamenbaum. will be arriving late to the meeting. MATTERS FROM Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star, THE AUDIENCE: expressed his concern that the charcoal canister, used to remove the gasoline in the ground at the old Chevron site, now currently developed with a two story building owned by Dr. Cho, does not function properly because. it has, never had electrical power applied to the equipment. According to the Water Management Quality District, the electrical power is supposed to come from Country Hills Towne Center's power vault next to Dr. Cho's building. . There were non detectable levels of hydrocarbons the first two quarters of the year, but recently the levels have increased to 1,200 due mostly from the increase in the water table from. the recent heavy rains. The hydrocarbons could be captured if the charcoal canister was turned on. VC/Meyer requested that the City Engineer and the Planning staff investigate Mr. Anderson's concern and to provide a report. . In. response to C/,Li's explained that he is not know it is A monitoring remediation under the Agency. inquiry, Mr. Anderson an engineer, but he does well that is subject to Environmental Protection Martha Bruske, residing at 600 S. Great Bend, expressed her concern that a citizen is being questioned regarding a -concern that is the function of the City Engineer. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Plunk requested. that the Minutes of April 26, 1993 be amended on page 13, 2nd paragraph to may 24, 1993 Page 2 Minutes of indicate, "...the commercial center is not a size Apr. 26, 29, 1993that would only hold dry cleaners and pizza & May 10, 1993. parlors". C/Grothe requested that theminutesbe amended on page 3 to indicate his absence during the vote. Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of April 26, 1993 as amended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Plunk, Li, and VC/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum. C/Plunk requested that the Minutes of April 29, 1993 be amended on page 10 to indicate, "The conditions at South Pointe School are substandard and the traffic situation is worse than any other school in Diamond Bar." Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of April 29, 1993 as amended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Plunk, Li, and VC/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum. C/Plunk requested that the Minutes of May 10, 1993 be amended on page 7 to indicate the proper spelling of ."Vinod". Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of May 10, 1993 as amended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Plunk, Li, and VC/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum. CONTINUED CDD/DeStefano reported that Chair/ Flamenbaum will PUBLIC HEARINGS: not be in attendance for this portion of the meeting due,to a potential conflict of interest. Variance 93-1, CUP 93-3 & VC/Meyer declared the Public Hearing opened. Oak Tree Permit 93-1 May 24, 1993 Page 3 PT/Lungu presented the staff report regarding the request made by the applicants Jake Williams, property owner at project site 22840 Ridgeline Road (lot 156), Richard Miller, property owner at project site 22820 Ridgeline Road (lot 157), Scott Harris, property owner at project site 22009 Lazy Trail Road (lot 153), and A.C. Kausal, property owner at project site 1245 S. Mahogony Court (lot 154), to construct a series of retaining walls in excess of six feet with a maximum height of 18 feet on lots 153, 156, & 157. A CUP is required for the purpose of grading on all four lots pursuant to the Hillside Management. ordinance. An Oak Tree Permit is required in order to remove oak trees on all 4 lots. A Variance is required for the construciton of retaining walls in excess of 6 feet. The project site, located in "The Country", is zoned R-1-40,000 with draft General Plan land use designation of RR. The City adopted the County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code (Chapter 22.48, Section 160 D.) which indicates that "Retaining walls, not to exceed six feet inheight, are permitted in all yards". PT/Lungu then reviewed theanalysisof the proposed project as indicated in the staff report. The applicants will be required to submit to the City a schedule of the proposed activities with their completion dates prior to the issuance of -a grading permit. It is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 93-1, Oak CUP No. 93-3, and Tree Permit No. 93-1, Findings of Fact, and conditions listed within the attached resolution. PT/Lungu then made the following corrections to the attached resolution: amend the last sentence on page 6, condition (h), to indicate, "The cost of the required bond shall be paid by Mr. Jake Williams and shall remain in effect until completion of the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer."; amend condition (i) to indicate, "The applicant shall provide a phasing schedule of activities with completion dates prior to, the issuance of a grading permit. Should the work not be completed in accordance with.the said phase schedule, the City must rescind the grading permit."; and amend the word "should" to "shall" in condition (p). Carl Kobbins, the Civil Engineer on the project for the grading program, 9640 Center Ave., Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the applicant does not take any issue with any of the conditions placed on the project. However, he noted that the project has been modified, without staff's review, to completely eliminate the 18 foot retaining wall by filling in the area referred to as "daylight", May 24, 1.993 Page 4 which is an area about 30 feet side the property line on lot 156 to the south side property line on lot 157. He then submitted a letter from the adjacent owner indicating that they have granted Jake Williams slope and drainage easement rights in order to make that fill.' PT/Lunge, in response to C/Plunk's inquiry, explained that staff has not had the opportunity to review the indicated change to determine possible environmental impacts. ICE/Wentz stated that he does not see a problem, from an engineering point of view, with the modification indicated. CDD/DeStefano suggested that staff could be directed to investigate possible impacts resulting from the modification. If oak trees which are subject to the City's permit process are impacted, staff would be responsible for providing mitigation based upon the direction given by the Planning commission. Carl Kobbins, -in response to VC/Meyer's inquiry regarding the code enforcement issue, explained that there was some contention with the City about the illegal fills below Mr. Williams home which resulted from the rebuilding of the driveway done - under permit. However, that fill is to be removed, replaced, and recompacted as part of this program. The 48,000 cubic yards of dirt will be imported and used as a controlled fill for a more contoured appearance. Jake Williams, property owner of lot 156, further explained that originally, in 1989, there was a Master Plan on his property alone. Upon review, changes were requestedto that overall Master Plan. After many drawings and attempts, authorization was given from contract City Engineer Ron Kranzer to realign the existing driveway, which was originally built not according to code. The City then issued a stop Work order and called the imported dirt illegal fill. There has never been any blatant stockpiling or illegal grading. All work completed was inspected. In order to complete the project, there would have to be encroachment onto the other lots. Therefore all four lots were coordinated into the project, making it more aesthetically appealing. The 48,000 cubic yards of dirt will and has been moved.within "'The Country" Estates area from other projects underway. He then indicated May 24, 1993 Page 5 his willingness to replace the trees at a 4:1 ratio. ICE/Wentz confirmed that the driveway was approved, and quite a bit of fill was placed below the driveway, in the area now proposed to be filled, that was uncertified and not according to City code. With this approved plan, those materials will be properly placed in a safe condition. An attempt was made to try to put as much compliance with the Hillside Management Ordinance as possible, recognizing zing that the site is very restricted. The bench drains. will be screened and gunited as much as possible. The only portion of the plan, from an engineering and soils point of view, that was not reviewed and approved is the proposed elimination of the wall. CDD/DeStefano, in response to VC/Meyer, stated that condition (d) , on page 6 of the resolution prepared by staff, indicates that the applicant is required to submit a detailed.landscape and irrigation plan. Because it is part of the Hillside CUP, it requires mitigation -in accordance with the revegetation techniques contained within the Hillside Management Ordinance. Hearing no further testimony, VC/Meyer declared the Public Hearing closed. CDD/DeStefano, in response to VC/Meyer, suggested that the Planning Commission can either review the specific drawings discussed this evening to determine the impact of eliminating the 18 foot retaining wall from an engineering standpoint, and an environmental standpoint, or direct staff to investigate the possible impacts with direction that, if there are. oak trees within that area which exceed the thresholds within the code and require an extra oak tree permit, it be brought back before the Commission for review. C/Grothe expressed his concern with granting a variance because lots in "The Country" were designed to build. into the natural terrain and every lot in that area, with similar topography, would qualify for a variance. Furthermore, there is no indication is nonconforming. would be a better of the walls are Referring to cone would prefer some as to what percentage of the wall Perhaps "existing nonconforming" term than a "variance" since some part of a retroactive project. ition (d), he then stated that he assurance that the landscape plan A in, rin "A%.MU JE May 24, 1993 Page 6 is in accordance with the City's Hillside Grading Ordinance. C/Li indicated that he feels that the Commission should direct staff to investigate and handle the project appropriately. C/Plunk suggested that condition (c) on page 5 be amended. to indicate that the applicant shall also maintain the planters weed free. ICE/Wentz, in response to VC/Meyer, stated that it' is staff's opinion that there is a sufficient set of conditions to assure that compliance will take place to complete the project. VC/Meyer suggested that the condition in the Oak Tree Permit be amended to indicate a tree replacement ratio of 4:1 since the applicant has expressed his willingness to do so. PT/Lungu, in response to C/Grothe's concern if a variance is appropriate, explained that the City Engineer has assured the Planning staff that the walls need to be at this height because of the constraints of the site, unless the applicant is able to encroach upon another property. C/Grothe pointed out that the variance is only needed to put in walls to construct the tennis courts. Motion was made by C/Grothe to approve pprove CUP No. 93-3 and Oak Tree Permit No. 93-1 with the modifications previously outlined by staff and the Planning Commission, and to deny the variance, requiring stepping the wall for the driveway and eliminating any walls exceeding 6 feet in height for the tennis court. The Motion DIED for lack . of a second. C/Plunk pointed out that the tennis court will be constructed down in the gully, which may add to the stability of the area. She then inquired if there is a condition in place addressing the easement needed for drainage. DCA/ Fox stated that it is staff's recommendation that a condition be added to indicate that the applicant shall obtain a recorded easements necessary to accommodate drainage, and any other outside grading is designated by the City Engineer in size and nature satisfactory to the City May 24, 1993 Page 7 En ' gineer prior to issuance of grading permit, and with the provision that no additional oak trees, requiring an Oak Tree removal permit be a part of this approval. CDD/DeStefano stated that the condition should also indicate that the Community Development Department should be involved in that review process, and that no additional oak trees, requiring an oak tree removal permit, be a part of this approval. Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED to approve Variance No. 93-1, CUP No. 93-3, and Oak Tree Permit No. 93-1, Findings of Fact, and conditions listed within the attached resolution as amended by staff, to include a tree replacement ratio of 4:1, and that the hillsides are to be maintained in a weed free condition. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk, Li, and VC/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum. VC/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Cha ir/Flamenbaum. reconvened the meeting at 8:-35 p.m.. Amendment to AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the CUP No. 91-8 request made by the applicant Jung Ho and Yeon Ho Kim, to extend the hours of operation for a billiard establishment located in the Colima Plaza at the intersection of Colima Road and Lemon Avenue, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight to 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. The application for the family billiard hall was originally approved by the Planning Commission on September 23, 1991. since then, the Planning Commission has approved a Karoake Studio for this center and found that the studio may operate until 2:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday night with the provision of on-site licensed and uniformed security. The combination of these two land uses in a commercial center designated as "Neighborhood Commercial" substantially increases the intensity of the center. In staff -Is opinion, this intensification is not in conformance with the concept of a neighborhood commercial center.' Review of the application with the Sheriff Department revealed that there had been at least three occasions where the billiard hall continued to operate well past May 24# 1993 Page 8 midnight. However, upon being admonished by the patrolling deputy, the billiard hall immediately complied with the 12:00 a.m. limitation. Staff feels that the approval of the application in conjunction with other - approvals for late night operation has the potential to over intensify the center. It is staff's recommendation that the Commission adopt a resolution to deny the applicant's request. Chair/ Flamenbaum de-c-lared the Public Hearing opened. David Li, representing the applicant Yeon Kim,. from Rowland Heights, explained that the applicant would like to extend the hours of operation for two hours in order to compete with a similar business in Rowland Heights. The majority of the customers come in around 9:00 p.m. and would like to play longer than the remaining 3 hours. Furtherm*ore, the billiard hall should be able to stay open until 2:00 a.m. as was permitted for the Karoake use. In response to a series of commission inquiries, Mr. Li stated the following: increasing the hours of operation will increase business about 500; the petition was not circulated among the residential neighborhood; they do not pay sales tax; they are willing to hire a security guard between the hours of 12:00 and 2:00 a.m.; billiard customers are different than the customers that go 'to karoake studio; the business is family oriented and those men who signed* the petition represent the entire family; and the reason they were open past 12:00 a.m was because of the cleaning crew. The.Public Hearing was declared opened. The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: Don Schad, a resident; David Park, residing in Hacienda Heights; Max Maxwell, a resident; Julliana Ho; and Eric So, a resident. They supported,, the project for the following reasons: there have been no complaints from the surrounding, neighborhood; the karoake studio remains open till 2:00 a.m.; it is hurting their business to close at 12:00 a.m.; and bowling facilities can remain open all night. Martha Bruske, a resident, pointed out that the area has a heavy graffiti problem. If the business is supposed to close a 12:00 a.m., then they should do so and not have to be admonished by the Sheriff Department. May 24, 1993 Page 9 C/Plunk expressed her concern that extending the hours of operation will create a significant increase in traffic at an hour not conducive to a residential neighborhood. If the establishment had trouble closing at 12:00 a.m. then they will have equal trouble closing at 2:00 a.m.. Chair/ Flam.enbaum suggested that the hours be extended to 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday with a condition that there be a uniformed security guard present. VC/Meyer stated that since a CUP is a land use entitlement, then the Planning Commission should focus on the findings of fact of the land use decision. If - the business is not operating as - a good neighbor, then our Sheriff Department or code enforcement ought to be able to address the problem. Motion was made by VC/Meyer and seconded by C/Li to. direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval with the following amendments: hours of operation from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday through Sunday; modifying condition #5 to at least one employee over the age of 21 would be on the premises at all time; and condition #6 be modified to indicate that a security person shall be uniformed, may be the owner of 'the business, and be on the premise from 12:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. (consistent with the karoake studio). Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the hours of operation be made consistent - with -the Karoake Studio 'extending the hours to 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday only. VC/Meyer stated that the Sheriff Department will handle any problems that may, occur. ' Instead of trying to control a business operation, we should be trying to control a land use type of operation. A billiard room close to a residential neighborhood does not seem to be a problem since no one is present to complain. C/Grothe stated that since it is unknown what the effects will be by having both theKaraoke and the Billiard Hall open till 2:00 a..m. . , he would feel more comfortable following the conditions set for the karoake studio approval. C/Plunk pointed out that the karaoke studio has only been open for three weeks so the problems with the establishment have not yet been determined. May 24, 1993 Page 10 VC/Meyer stated that the CUP can be revoked if the business gets out of hand. The Planning Commission voted upon VC/Meyer's motion, as . seconded by C/Li to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval amending the hours of operation from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday through Sunday, modifying condition #5 that at least one employee over the age of 21 would be.on the premises at all time and that condition #6 be modified to indicate - that a security person shall be uniformed and may be the owner of the business, and to be on the premise from 12:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. (consistent with the karoake studio). ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, and Plunk. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:40 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CDD/beSt.efano presented the staff report.rdgarding the request by the applicant, Hamburger Hamlet, to DR 93-2 and amend CUP No. 91-12 and Development Review for the CUP 91-12(1) purpose of constructing a restaurant with a louhge/bar and patio dining to be located at the Country Hills.Towne Center, 2757 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard. The hours of operation are from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve CUP No. 91-12(1), Development Review No. 93-2, Findings of Fact, and conditions listed withinthe attached resolution. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Paul Brockman, the President of Hamburger Hamlet which was established in 1950, stated that they are a casual "upscale" family restaurant serving moderately priced meals. About 75 more jobs will be created for the community. There will be excess of 2 to 3 million dollars of sales which will benefit the community in sales tax. Hamburger Hamlet will also be part of the community supporting sports teams and such. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry, he stated the following: delivery usually occurs between 9:00 May 24, 1993 Page 11 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.; they normally do not have a security ecurity guard for their family restaurant; and though the kitchen will be closed at 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, they are asking'to stay open till 2-:00 a.m. to allow those who arrive at 11:55 p.m. enough time to eat. Sherrod Marshall, the architect for Hamburger Hamlet, expressed his concern for condition (i) and condition (j), as well as condition (1). 1 CDD/DeStefano' explained that condition (0 addresses staff's.concern that the ten foot area in the rear of the building off of Diamond Bar Blvd., which is suitable for pedestrian loading and unloading is also suitable to support a vehicle. In conjunction with condition (i), condition (j) addresses staff's concern for vehicular parking requiring that the single door proposed at the rear of the building on the southerly side, currently proposed as a loading/unloading area only, should be moved.to the westerly side. The two conditions run in tandem whereas if condition (i) is maintained,.in terms of no vehicular access to that rear ten foot area, then condition (j) is not needed. ICE/Wentz stated that the Engineering Department was also concerned that delivery vehicles_ not attempt to pull into that area, and,the area not be used for any type of additional overflow parking by cars. If condition (i) is modified to assure that there is no vehicular access or parking back there, the Engineering Department would concur that condition (j) could be eliminated Chair/ Flamenbaum suggested that condition (i) be modified to prohibit utilizing the driveway located at the rear portion of pad #15 for vehicles. Sherrod Marshall then inquired if condition (1) could be modified to indicate that if there is less thari 49 people in the room, and the room is part of a larger room, then a second means of egress is not needed. CDD/DeStefano suggested that condition (1) be modified to read, "Subject to the review and approval of the building official, the applicant shall provide...". Sherrod Marshall then explained that the trash area has been located facing the front of the building to be consistent with the rest of the center. May 241 1993 Page12 Also, the proposed location may be a more efficient location for the trash collectors as opposed to locating it around the corner. C/Grothe stated that he would prefer that the trash containers be located in the back of the building. Sherrod Marshall; noting that the staff report is inconsistent regarding the size of the building, clarified that the building is 7,000 square feet. Referring to condition (g) , he then inquired how "amplified" is defined, and if there is a problem with Hamlet using a musak system in the outside patio and entrance for the pleasure of those waiting. VC/Meyer suggested that condition (g) be modified to indicate that it must be "in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance." Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if it would be a problem for the applicant if the Fountain Springs entrance ,into the Center was made to be an ingress only, as was conditioned upon approval of the SpeeDee Lube project. Bart Porter, Executive Vice President of the Wolff Company, -the asset managers for Country Hills Towne Center, stated they are pleased that Hamlet Hamburger chose Diamond Bar as their future home. He stated that a traffic consultant has been hired to correct the problem of the driveway into the Center.. When the plans' have been completed, it will be presented before the Planning Commission. The plan actually adds about 7 or 8 parking spaces in the process. The entrance from Fountain Springs is currently an egress/ingress and will be changed to an ingress only, unless the City decides otherwise. Robert Gannon, residing at 2641 Rising Star Drive, stated that even though he likes Hamburger Hamlet, the proposed location in the Country Hills Towne Center is not suitable for the following reasons: there is not sufficient parking, spaces in the entire Center; the residential neighborhood currently has trouble with the kids hanging around the center, they must deal with patrons of the restaurant that will over drink; Fountain Springs will most likely be used as an ingress/egress regardless how it is posted, particularly late at night; it is dangerous to have an establishment that serves alcohol in a center that is frequented by children; the northside of the Towne Center is May 24, 1993 Page 13 overdeveloped while the southside remains quiet and underdeveloped; a more benign type of business, such as medical, would be a better choice for that location because it requires very little parking and creates no noise or pollution; and there would have been more people present opposing the Project if the property had been posted by ABC. Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star, expressed the following concerns: there are not 1,000 parking spaces as indicated by the Center because many spaces., particularly behind the movie theater, are not utilized; many of the parking spaces are not even striped; many spaces are often blocked by delivery trucks; there are many carpoolers, who used to park at Fallowfield, now parking in the Alpha Beta area; the same conditions requested of the' Speedee Lube project should be requested for this project that the ramp be made in only, that there be sidewalks' in both sides, and that there be no truck traffic; what garbage company will be used by this project since there are already many garbage trucks arriving at various times early in the day disturbing residents; and has the applicant been made aware of the upstream contamination of hydrocarbons coming on to their property. Martha Bruske, a resident, inquired why the five minute time restriction is used only when citizens begin to express their concerns. She then expressed the following concerns regarding the proposed project: there .is not adequate parking available; parking stalls should not be compact; the project is too close to a residential area; the noise will echo in the hills; and the entrance from Fountain Springs should remain 2 ways, especially if a signal at Fountain Springs/Diamond Bar Blvd. is installed.. Pam Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star, expressed the following concerns: having an open patio bar 200 yards from a residential street will generate a lot of noise; a bar and a lounge open until 2:00 a.m. is incompatible to a quiet residential neighborhood; and there are already too many spots to buy liquor within the Center. Steven Nice, residing at 2621 Rising Star, made the following comments: though it is a nice restaurant, it is inappropriately located in the middle of a residential neighborhood; a lounge is not consistent with the existing neighborhood; and the number of parking spaces is inadequate. May 24, 1993 Page 14 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. Chair/ Flamenbaum summarized the following changes to the conditions as pr I esented: delete condition (g) and require that*the outdoor patio area to be in compliance with Chapter 2228; delete the statement "vehicular access" in.condition (i) to "vehicles", deleting condition (j); and modify condition (1) to be "subject to the Building Official" VC/Meyer suggested that condition (e) be modified to indicate that there will be no deliveries between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. He then inquired if there are adequate enf ordement measures in terms of the CUP to address problems that may occur so as to assure that these new businesses are operating as good neighbors. CDD/DeStefano stated that there is adequate safeguards with respect to existing City codes, the provisions isions of this CUP, as well as the requirements of the Alcohol Beverage Control Board. Ken Anderson pointed out that a, security guard is not present at the theater in the evenings even though it is a requirement of the CUP. This Center is too close to a residential neighborhood, which has dramatically changed the nature of the neighborhood. Motion was made by VC/Meyer to approve the resolution for the CUP, amending condition (e) , (g), (i), and, (1), and deleting condition (j) as indicated by staff and the Commission. The motion DIED for lack of a second. C/Grothe stated that the whole Center, based on square footage, is under parked due to shared uses. The parking spaces should be made to match the plans presented by the Center. He then stated that the list of the conditions to the Center, i.e. the pedestrian sidewalks, which were placed on the Speedee *Lube project, should be placed on this project as well. Also, the Center should address sidewalks at the Diamond Bar Blvd. entrance in their modification of the major Center entrance. VC/Meyer noted that there may be a problem with sidewalks because of the steepness of the driveway. Perhaps those conditions, should be addressed at the May 24, 1993 Page 15 time that the plans for the modification of the Diamond Bar entrance are presented to staff. Bart Porter stated that one of the issues being addressed is. the steepness of the driveway . and the ability to construct sidewalks. It is our intention to come back, perhaps in 30 days, to give a presentation before the Planning Commission. C/Plunk noted that there is a difference between patio dining which has a bar and an ordinary liquor establishment. She suggested the applicant consider moving closer to Alta Ski & Sport because there is more readily available parking in that area. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED to approve the Resolution for the CUP, amending condition (e), (g), (i), and, (1), and deleting condition (j), as indicated by staff and the Commission. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Li. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONTINUED CDD/DeStefano reported that the Planning Commission PUBLIC - clos ed the public hearing, at the May 10, 1993 ' HEARINGS: meeting, for the Arciero and the RnP portion of the development, and directed staff to prepare South Pointe Resolutions of approval of the various project Master Plan EIR entitlements. The Planning Commission did not No. 92-1, State close the public hearing with respect to the Sasak Clearing House proposal. , Staff, with the services of the 92081040. DA consultant team, has put together the following No's 92-1, 92-2, variety of documents for Planning Commission review 92-3; vesting which is contained in the Commiss * ion's packet TT Map 32400, responding to a variety of questions and issues Vesting TT Map raised by the Commission at the last meeting: an 51407, TT Map additional CEQA finding of adverse environmental 51253; CUP 92-8 impact for the issue of oak tree removal; the & OTP 92-8; CUP Resource Management Plan has been added in various 91-5 & OTP 91-2'; documents, consolidating all the conditions dealing CUP 92-12; OTP with that issue as directed by the Commission in 92-9 the conditions suggested for approval as well as the South Pointe Master Plan development standards; the development standards have been modified specific to the Commission's request, particularly dealing with the 5 and 10 foot sideyard areas; the provisions dealing with Larkstone through access May 24, 1993 Page 16 has been incorporated within the EIR document and the Master Plan document; and conditions appropriate to each tract has been added related to environmental resource recoveries categories. Both the series of, Resolutions and the Development Agreements incorporate a variety of land transfers and commitments by all the different parties towards the successful completion of this project. The documents are substantially the same as those received in May of 1993, and the. specific changes have been identified -in a red line or strike out format for ease in identification. it is recommended that the Commission take action to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 (Arciero) and the Development Agreement for that project, and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 (RnP) and the Development Agreement for that project. The Sasak project has been evaluated further by the City Planning staff as directed by the Commission looking at an alternative that extended Shepherd Hills Road from it's existing terminus at Morning Sun. That proposal resulted in a substantial retaining wall that created some concerns for the City staff. Inasmuch as the new 21 ' lot design meets the minimum criteria for Enclave I of the proposed. South Pointe Master Plan and both adjacent developers have agreed to the respective tract designs, staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 51253asrevised for 21 lots. A summary lot comparison is provided for evaluation. The Sasak project does not incorporate a development agreement. Therefore, an additional resolution has been provided for the Hillside Conditional Use Permit and the Oak Tree Removal Permit. Peter Lewendowski, the Director of Planning for Ultra Systems Engineers and Constructors Inc., located in Irvine, Ca., stated that they have been contracted by the City to prepare a detailed EIR for a mixed use project on a 171 acre site in the City of Diamond Bar. A draft EIR was prepared in compliance with California CEQA and the State CEQk guidelines, dated November, 1992, which analyzed the direct, indirect accumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. A Response to Comment document was prepared, dated February, 1993, in response to public and government agency comments received on that document, as well as questions raised by the Planning Commission. Subsequent to the publication of that document, a number of technical studies have been conducted in response to specific questions left unaddressed in the Response to Comment document. The following May 24, 1993 Page 17 three technical studies were prepared and included in a document entitled Response to Comment Technical Appendix: San Diego Horned Lizard Survey; a Focus Spring Time Plant Survey.; and a Focus Mountain Lion Survey. These ' studies concluded that none of the species surveyed were evident on the project site, and no additional biological resources, other than oak trees, would be impacted by project development. The draft EIR, the Response to Comment document, and the Technical Appendix collectively constitute the, Draft EIR. Both CEQA and the State CEQA guidelines require that the, lead agency certify the EIR prior to' taking action on the proposed project. Certification of the EIR is included as a component of the Resolutions presented before the Commission this evening. Hardy Strozier reported that staff has incorporated every recommendation, made by the Commission at the last meeting, to the resolutions. He then identified the following specific changes made to the resolution, which are relatively consistent throughout all the resolutions: item 8.a., on page 6, should be amended to read, "The action proposed has been processed in accordance to the provisions of ordinance #4 (1992) of the City of *Diamond Bar."; page 3, item 7.c., of the Vesting Tentative Map should be amended to indicate 1194 lot subdivision"; page 4, item g., should indicate "based on the size and shape"; page 4, item h., should strike the word "not" because all these projects do front upon a blue line stream; and page 3, of the Conditions of Approval for RnP, should add new item 11, under General Engineering, Requirements, to read, "Adjustments to the designated lot lines of lot #57, #58,, #59, #60f #64, #65, & #66 of tract 51407 (RnP) shall be recorded within six months of final map approval.". VC/Meyer, upon confirmation from DCA/Fox that this Vesting Tentative Map would be recorded first, followed by a lot line adjustment, suggested.that such a condition would be better placed in the Development Agreement because there is no motivation to do a lot line adjustment after map recordation. Also,the lot line adjustment is a discretionary action, and such a condition is requiring that a decision be reached prior to the application being placed before the discretionary body. DCA/Fox explained that the map has to be in final form before it can be adjusted through a lot line A in, ri" May 24® 1.993 Page 18 adjustment process. This map can be recorded as a condition on the recordation of the vesting map, as well as be placed in the Development Agreement. If the condition is approved, the Commission is making a decision ahead of time, however, all of the facts are presented to make such a decision. The map must be in a final form before the lot lines can be adjusted. The specifics of the lot line adjustments are probably not known at this time. ICE/Wentz stated that the process proposed by the DCA/Fox is feasible and is a typical approach to making an adjustment. However, if those specifics could be identified, then that would preclude us from making a lot line adjustment at a later date. VC/Meyer expressed his concern that the maps would be approved subject to being adjusted later with no guarantee to Sasak or RnP that it will be adjusted later. ICE/Wentz stated that it would be appropriate to approve the maps and establish the legal descriptions. Hardy Strozier, continuing with his report until the City Engineer can suggest some language addressing the concern regarding new condition #11., reviewed the following changes: page 3, Grading, item #11j should read "The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer the total cost estimate and post surety for bonding purposes of all grading and execute an agreement guaranteeing completion of all grading prior to approval of the final map."; item #37, on, page 6, Streets, should read "...right-of- way 1...right-of- way improvements shall include but not limited to undergrounding of existing overhead utilities"; add condition #53, on page 8, Streets. to read, "Through access to Larkstohe Drive shall be 'provided with a future ability to close off the access if so desired by the City"; properly spell "Prior" in item #13, on page 12, of the Conditions; add a new condition on page 14, Applicable EIR Mitigation Measures, to read, "Applicant shall comply with the mitigation monitoring program to implement the required EIR mitigation measures."; strike item 10.k. on 'page 17, "Commercial site: provided adequate ventilation system for enclosed parking facilities" and reletter those conditions, and add a new condition 10.m. to read "The applicant for the commercial enclave shall develop and submit, for Community Development Director ,-review and approval, a trip reduction program." May 24, 1993 Page 19 All the preceding changes should be repeated for the Arciero, RnP, and Sasak conditions of approval. Hardy Strozier then reviewed the changes made to the RnP Development Agreement: item 3, Term, on page 5 should properly indicate "no* effective date"; item b., on page 11 and page 12, should properly indicate $50,000; item c. on page 12, should "indicate a one year guarantee"; and the full, RnP address, which is 4439 Rodelia Drive, Claremont Ca., 91711, will be put on page 23. He then explained how the references to "findings" under each one of the topical headings are dealt with. Hardy Strozier then reviewed the changes made to Exhibit "C", the Master Plan: add, to page 5, item 3, that Larkstone Drive shall be a through street to new street A connecting Brea Canyon Road, and that the City reserves the right to close the Larkstone Drive through connection at A street in the future; change the front setbacks, on page 9, to indicate a minimum of 16 feet, and an average of 18 feet; and a condition, on page 12, item c.3, indicates that there can be a 15% grade with the City 'Engineer approval, as indicated in condition #34, page 6, in the Arciero Tract conditions. Hardy Strozier then reviewed the changes made to the Arciero Resolution: strike the word "not" on page 4, item h.; and the remaining changes are similar to the ones outlined previously for all resolutions. He then reviewed the changes made to the Sasak Resolution: strike the word "not" on page 3, item h.; and the remaining changes are similar to the ones outlined previously for all resolutions. Hardy. Strozier, in response to Chair/ Flamenbaum Is statement that the Commission had requested that the homes setback not be uniformed, explained that the way the condition is written, the concept of "averaging" is going to dictate how the Community Development Director reviews the plans during plan check. CDD/DeStefano suggested that the language in the condition be modified so that it meets the intent of the Planning Commission to assure that there is not a uniformed setback. c/Plunk inquired why the 1 year warrantee was changed from a three year warrantee as indicated on page 10.3 of the RnP Development Agreement. May 24, 1993 Page 20 CDD/DeStefano explained that it was felt by the negotiating team that the combination of requiring a $50,000 cash deposit, and the one year warrantee for improvements, plus further criteria within the Development -Agreement -that allows* the City to deal with development improvements and warrantee for those improvements was more appropriate to deal with this issue than the normal three year requirement seen on a typical subdivision. The Commission concurred with staff's recommendation. Hardy Strozier suggested the language on page 10, double asterisk, of the Master Plan be amended to add the following statement to deal with the setback issue: "...,adjoining lots shall provide variable front yard setbacks of not less than 2 feet without prior consent of the Community Development Director" or add a statement, II..,.,average setback homes shall be staggered minimum setback shall be .18 feet, providing a variety of front yard setbacks to prevent a series of similar front yard.setbacks.11 VC/Meyer expressed his concern that by setting a minimum development standard, you'get a development that only meets your minimum development standard. Following discussion, the Commission concurred with the latter phrase, 11. . . , average. setback homes shall be staggered minimum setback shall be 18 feet, providing a variety of front yard setbacks to prevent a series of similar front yard setbacks." DCA/Fox then suggested the following language to address the lot line adjustment issue: "Adjustments to lot lines of lots designated by the City Engineer between Tract #Is 51253 & 51407 shall be identified and described to the satisfaction of ,the City Engineer and shall be recorded within 6 months of final map approval." Motion was made by C/Plunk to'continue the meeting to tomorrow night. The Motion DIED for lack of a second. The Commission concurred with the language as suggested by DCA/Fox. Jan Dabney, .Jan Dabney & Associates, 671 Brea Canyon Road, representing RnP and Arciero, stated that Arciero is in agreement with the changes made to the resolution. RnP is generally in agreement May 24, 1993 1 Page 21 with the changes made, but has concern with the language on the lot line adjustment. The owners would prefer to do a lot line adjustment for the four lots after the tentative map and prior to final approval. The language does not protect RnP if someone should die, nor does it indicate where the lot line adjustment ends. The language should indicate that RnP will do a lot line adjustment, Sasak will do a lot line adjustment which will effect lots #46, #47, #48, & #49 of the parent tract. The concern of the lot line adjustment is that since the Sasak* Corporation does not have a development agreement, it has revoked all the protection that the development Agreement would render to Mr. Forester and equally'to Mr. Patel. DCA/Fox suggested the following language: "Adjustments to lot lines of lots mutually agreed upon by the City Engineer and applicants for Tract #Is 51253 and 51407 shall be designated on each tentative tract map and shall be recorded on each final map." Jan Dabney stated that he is in concurrence with the language suggested by DCA/Fox. The Planning Commission also concurred with the suggested language. VC/Meyer inquired how the secondary access for,the Arciero project will be provided. Jan Dabney stated that the current presentation on the Master. Plan is to allow emergency secondary access to the commercial site. , There will be a full street section that will'be turf blocked or landscaped to discourage commercial traffic or cut through traffic coming through the Arciero tract. In addition to that specific access, Mr. Arciero is providing pedestrian access through a trail up to the South Pointe School. Mr. Arciero meets the County requirements for a tract this size, with this circulation pattern. The entire systet allows you to get out to Brea Canyon Road. Hardy Strozier suggested that another sentence be added to condition #52, on page .7, Condition of Approval under Streets, to read, "said access shall be improved across enclave 4 (the commercial site) to Brea Canyon Road until such time said temporary access shall be improved across enclave 4 to Brea Canyon Road until such time that the enclave 4 is improved with its temporary access." the City Engineer concurred with the suggested language. May 24® 1993 Page 22 VC/Meyer inquired if increasing the street section of street A, - along the -southerly portion of the commercial site to include an 8 foot wide raised landscape median for that street would work under the grading plan proposed. Jan Dabney stated that the property is owned by the City and if the City desires to widen the road, it would not b6 a dramatic impact to us. However, if it is increased dramatically, then, because of the slope situation, the -commercial is cut down and/or there won't be a perpendicular access to the street. However, we do not want street A to have any commercial, traffic or connection to that commercial site whatsoever unless emergency. VC/Meyer inquired if Mr. Forester will participate in building a reasonable street intersection to connect to Shepherd Hills. Jan Dabney stated that since Sasak Corp. does not have a development agreement, there is no assurance from anyone that we will be protected. The only way to reduce the grade enough to help Mr. Budke with the design'problems is for those 6 or 7 lots, on that piece of land, to have both sewer and drain down that. hill to Morning Sun. But there is no vehicle to allow us to guarantee that when we are ready to develop that access will be set aside and available to us. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED to recommend Adoption of the resolution recommending that the City Council certify the EIR and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400., as amended. ROLL CALL• AYES: COMMISSIONERS' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. Grothe. None. None. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED to recommend adoption of the resolution recommending that the City Council certify the EIR and approval of the South Pointe Development Agreement for Arciero & Sons, as amended. ROLL CALL: May 24, 1993 Page 23 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS:- Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED to recommend adoption of the resolution recommending that the City Council certify the EIR and approval of the South Pointe Development Agreement for RnP,- as amended. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. Grothe. None. None. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED to recommend adoption of the resolution recommending that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 to develop a 94 lot subdivision consisting of 90 single family residential parcels, as amended. 'ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Plunk, - VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum- Grothe. None. None. Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by C/Grothe and FAILED. to continue the matter to the next regularly scheduled meeting. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk and Grothe. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, , VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. C/Plunk and C/Grothe departed the meeting at 12:20 a.m. Chair/ Flamenbaurd recessed the meeting at 12.:20 a.m.. The meeting was reconvened at 12:30 a.m. CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report for Tentative Tract No. 51253, Oak Tree Permit and CUP for Hillside Development for the Sasak Corporation May 24,, 1993 Page 24 project. Staff was directed, at the last Planning Commission meeting, to look at an alternative design dealing with the issue of bringing street A up f rom Shepherd Hills Road... Upon evaluation, it was determined that such a design would indicate a large retaining wall of about 20 feet in height at Shepherd Hills Road and Morning Sun Avenue. Staff determined that such a wall would not be appropriate, nor would some of the other alternatives reviewed in previous meetings. It is staff's recommendation that, inasmuch as the new 21 lot design meets the minimum criteria for Enclave 1 of the proposed South Pointe Master Plan and both adjacent developers have agreed to the respective tract designs, that the Commission review and recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 as revised for 21 lots, as well as recommend approval for the Hillside CUP and the Oak Tree Removal Permit. James Budke, the Design Engineer representing Mr. Patel, stated that 2 or 3 other modifications, as recommended by the Commission, were reviewed with staff, but regardless of the layout, the large retaining wall would have to remain, which is not aesthetically pleasing nor effective from an engineering point of view. He reviewed the various problems associated with the design. There is no benefit or compelling reason to locate this intersection at Shepherd Hills Drive. The tentative map, designed with 21 lots, presented at the May 6, 1993 meeting, is the preferred design. VC/Meyer pointed out that the earlier project presented this evening had a similar design as this one, and that received staff's approval but this one is being recommended against. We have a responsibility to those people on the cul-de-sac to try to preserve the neighborhood as best as possible. The traffic will dump on Morning Sun. VC/Meyer concurred that the. design presented is bad in terms of the improvements that would have to be made. However, it appears that the research has not been allowed to go far enough. The.engineering analysis should have gone beyond the property boundary, to look where a series of retaining walls may be installed on the RnP project to lower some of the grades and reduce the impacts at the alignment. The Master Plan should have considered the impacts caused on the surrounding communities, and should have attempted to minimize them. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. May 24, 1993 Page 25 Barbara Beach Cushane, a resident, expressed her concern that the South Pointe Master Plan was heard last on the agenda, giving a perception that the citizens of this community come last. Agenda items should be taken in the order listed, barring a significant emergency. She stated that when changes are made to a proposal or project, a public hearing shouldbe reopened to provide an opportunity to respond to the changes. She then pointed out that much effort has been made to protect the quality of life of those living on Morning Sun, and the same consideration should be given to all citizens of Diamond Bar. Elizabeth Hodges, residing at 1604 Morning Sun, stated that the following individuals have commented on the inadvisability of putting.a street through to Morning Sun: Frank Menesees, a section head of 'the LA County Department of Regional Planning, commented in Chapter 5, page 8 in the EIR; Todd Chavers,. Chairman of the Traffic Commission; John Beke, a member of the Traffic Commission; and Carl Blum, Assistant Deputy Director County of LA Department of Public Works, Planning Division. She stated that since Mr. Budke has pointed out how difficult it is to develop Mr. Patel's property, then perhaps it should not be developed. DonSchad read a variety of letters from 7th graders concern with the environment and with overdeveloping the community. Max Maxwell stated that he did receive a response from Mr. Beier stating that the statement made in the article regarding cougars was incorrect. Mr. Maxwell then stated that since there is no General Plan, then the item should be tabled. He inquired how the RnP property was changed from Building Restricted/Park to it's current classification. Chuck Bowler, residing on Morning Sun,, suggested that if the plans were modified to tie the road in with the one with RnP, moving all the homes over so that there is back to back lots, the project would be more aesthetically pleasing. There should not be a double sided row of homes. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. VC/Meyer stated that though the project does not fit well, and does not seem to take into consideration other. constraints of the site, it May 24® 1993 . Page 26 will probably function. He then made the following comments: the condition of the $18,000 dollars of off site sidewalk area to be installed in the County should be in the recommended conditions; paying the minimum Quimby Act fees is not paying a fair share for burying the blue line stream, and tearing out all the Oak Tree; and additional assessment should be made that will be used. directly for the improvements of the park site that will be provided on the RnP site.. He then inquired if, at the end of this project, if the City will end up with a developed park site that is functional, or just a level pad. CDD/DeStefano stated that the City will have a graded active park site, plus a significant amount of revenue coming from the other two developers in term of their park improvement fees. The formula used for the Quimby Act fees is based upon the value of the property and other things. The fees will be in the range of about $1,500/DU. VC/Meyer suggested that another $3,500 dollars'per lot be added for open space fees to be used directly for the improvement of the park. ICE/Wentz, in response to VC/Meyer's inquiry if there is another design solution for that intersection, stated that, from an engineering point of view, the May 6, 1993 design is the most practical of the alternative designs. presented. That particular design may also discourage some of the cut -through use being anticipated through that area. other innovative things could also be done in the entire development area to help discourage the potential problem of cut -through traffic. CDD/DeS ' tefano, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, stated that, on the present proposal, there is a significant slope between lots #13 through #16 and the RnP property that may be an appropriate location to replant a majority of the 'series of oaks. Hardy Strozier pointed out that the mitigation Monitoring Program can provide an opportunity to do off site mitigation for the Oak Trees. Motion was made by C/Li to deny the project. The Motion DIED for lack of a second. VC/Meyer stated that there has been a significant amount of opposition.to the entire project itself, May 24, 1993 Page 27 and perhaps they should be allowed an opportunity to back up their commitment to total preservation. MPT/Papen has expressed some interest in.putting a bond issue on the next election to generate the revenue, to acquire open space, and perhaps the Commission should recommend that the Council entertain this option. *. Motion, was made by VC/Meyer to recommend to the City Council to entertain the feasibilityof putting a- bond issue on the next election to purchase open space. DCA/Fox stated that it would be advisable that the Commission not take action on something not on the agenda. The Motion DIED for lack of a second. Motion was made by Chair/ Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Meyer and CARRIED to approve the resolution for Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 for the 21 lot subdivision, as amended with the additional assessment of $3,500/DU for off site park developments, and the $1,800 dollars for off site sidewalks. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: V C / M e y e r a n d Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk and Grothe. Motion was made by Chair/ Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Meyer and CARRIED to approve the resolution on the Hillside Management Ordinance CUP and,Oak Tree Removal Permit, as amended by staff. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: V C / M e y e r a n d Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk and Grothe. REORGANIZATION: Motion was made*by Chair/ Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Meyer and CARRIED to table the matter to the next,meeting. Chair/Flamenbaum requested that the matter of recommending to the City Council to float a bond A 1r, r1M "JLXLILA� A May 24', 1993 Page 28 act for the purposes of purchasing open space within the City of Diamond Bar be placed on the next agenda. Chair/ Flamenbaum also requested that staff put on the agenda as soon as possible the proposed changes to the Towne Center Plaza entrance. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 1:40 p.m. Respectively, James DeStefano Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman DATE: June 10, 1993 TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners FROM: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 91---7'&) (1) The Planning commission held a public hearing for CUP 91 (1) on May 24, 1993. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning commission directed staff to amend the conditions of approval, prepare a Resolution of Approval and bring the resolution back to the commission at the next meeting. Staff has prepared the resolution and amended the conditions of approval as dire-cte'd by the commission. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt PC Resolution No. 93 -XX. BILLIARD HALL.MEM PC RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-8 (1), TO EXTEND THE HOURS OF OPERATION OF A BILLIARD HALL LOCATED IN THE COLIMA PLAZA, AT 20627 COLIMA ROAD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN'SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. Jung Ho and Yeon Ho Kim, 11275 Bethany Dr., Alta Loma, California, have heretofore filed an application to amend CUP No. 91-8 for approval to operate a billiard hall between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution referred to as "the application". (ii) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. On.said date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its ordinance No. 1, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of- the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, in- cluding the subject application, within the City of Diamond Bar. (iii) The city of DiaMbnd Bar lacks on operative General Plan. Pursuant to the order issued by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, action was taken on the subject application as to the consistency with the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar. (iv) ' On May 10, 1993 the Planning Commission, of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application, continued to May 24, 1993 and concluded said public hearing on that date. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Plan- ning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Mard HaU Amendment 1 Part A, of this Resolution are true.and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby certifies that the environmental . analysis conducted previously, specifically, the Negative Declaration prepared and certified for Conditional Use Permit No. 89551, . does not require supplementation, amendment, or subsequent analysis, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines. promulgated thereunder, 3. Based on the substantial evidence presented to this commission during the above -referenced public hearing on May 10, 1993, and concluded on May 24, 1992, and in conformance with ordinance 'No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The billiard hall is located at 20627 Colima Road in the Colima Plaza and was approved by the Planning Commission on September 23, 1991. (b) The unit is located in building #1 and the unit is currently in operation. (c) The use as proposed with the extension of the hours of operation is compatible with adjacent uses,- is not inconsistent with the development standards of the C-2 Zone and is compatible with the commercial center. (d) , The surrounding land uses to the north and are single family residential in nature, the land use to the east is commercial and the site is bounded to the north by the Pomona Freeway. (f) Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Ordinance No. 4 (1992) substantial evidence exists considering the record as whole, to the determine that the conditional use permit modification, as conditioned herein, will not be detrimental to or interfere with the General Plan adopted or under consideration by the city. (g) The proposed use will: (1) not adversely affect the health, peace and comfort of persons residing or working in the area by intensifying the use of the Ballard Hall Amendment 2 neighborhood center; (2) not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the project by increasing the hours that commercial uses will operate thus generating traffic over longer periods; (3) not jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to public health, safety or general order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area; and 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to the following restrictions as to use: 1. The billiard room is approved and shall be in substantial compliance with the submitted plans marked "Exhibit All dated 9/23/91, except as modified herein. 2. The hours of operation for the billiard room are limited the hours between 11:00 a.m. and 2:oo a.m. daily unless otherwise restricted. 3. No one shall be admitted under the age of 18 without parent or guardian. Identification must be shown upon entrance or prior to engaging or playing on a billiard table. 4. Consumption or possession of alcohol is prohibited on the premises. 5. At least one (1) employee over the age of 21 shall be on premises at all times.* of operation. - 6. At least one (1) security person over the age of 21 shall be on premises during hours of operation. The security personmay be uniformed or un -uniformed and may be the owner of the business or his designee. A licensed uniformed security person shall be provided between the hours of 12:.00 midnight and 2:00 a.m. to the satisfaction of the community Development Director and the Sheriff Department. 7. The billiard hall shall comply with ' h the existing sign ordinance but in no Billiard Hall Amendment 3 circumstances shall the main public entrance or ( the windows which front onto the public sidewalk be covered in any manner on more than 10 percent of each individual surface or in any manner which would prohibit visual access into or out of the unit to the satisfaction of the City. 8. The project shall comply with all C-2 Zone, Building and Safety Department, and CUP No. 86284 requir.ements except as amended herein. 9. This grant will immediately expire if not exercised within one (1) year from the date of this approval. An extension of time, not to exceed one (i) year, may be requested in writing not less the 30 days prior the date of expiration. 10., All special events shall be required to have the proper permits obtained from the Planning Department or Planning Commission, prior to scheduling or conducting the event. 11. All business licenses which are required for this use must be obtained prior to opening for business. , All such licenses must be renewed as appropriate and noncompliance with this condition is grounds for revocation of this grant. 12. The City reserves the right to review the Conditional Use Permit, and any amendment thereto at a public hearing, at any time and modify the conditions herein listed, as deemed appropriate. 6. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, to Jung Ho and Yeon Ho Kim at the address as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 1993 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. LOW Bruce Flamenbaum, chairman Billiard HO Amendment . 4 ATTEST James DeStefano, Secretary I, James DeStefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolu- tion was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning com- mission of the city of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning commission held on the 14th day of June, 1993, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:] Meyer, Flamenbaum, Li NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] Grothe, Plunk ABSTAIN: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:] Billiard Hall Amendment 5 INV TO: chairman and Plann.ing'Cbmmission FROM: James DeStef ano, Community Development Di SUBJECT: REVIEW OF FY 93-94 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PtROG (CIP) . FOR CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 65401 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE DATE: June 10, 1993 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - California Government Code Section ' 65401 requires the Planning commission to review public works projects proposed for the ensuing - fiscal year and determine compliance with the City's General Plan prior to the adoption of the CIP Program by the City council. City staff, has prepared the attached CIP list which 'briefly outlines each proposed project. The project list includes park improvements and a variety of street improvement projects. Staff has reviewed the CIP and finds that the projects listed are. consistent with Ordinance 4 as,adopted by the City. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 93 -XX approving the FY 93-94 CIP. JD:GAW:kng P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE 1993-94 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals (i) The City of Diamond Bar, California, has prepared a proposed. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 1993-94, as described in Exhibit "A".. (ii) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as 'a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. on said date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City 1 . Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 4 (.1989), thereby adopting the Los Angeles, County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject application, within the City of Diamond Bar. (iii) The -City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Pursuant to the order issued by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, action was taken on the subject application as to the consistency with the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar. (iv) . On June 14, 1993, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar considered the CIP Program; and (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the CIP as proposed has ' been determined to be Categorically Exempt by the City of Diamond Bar and is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and; 1 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, based upon the findings set forth below, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. (a) There is a reasonable probability that the CIP as proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered and studied by the City; (b) There is. little or no.probability that the proposed CIP will. not be of substantial detriment to, or interfere with, the proposed general plan; and (c) The CIP complies with all other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, regulations and standards. 4. This Resolution shall serve as the Planning Commission's report to the City Council regarding the. conformity of the land acquisition project to the draft general plan as required by California Government Code Section 65402. 5 Based on the findings and conclusions set. forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 above, this Planning commission hereby approves the 1993-94 Capital Improvement Program as proposed which conforms to Exhibit "All dated June 10, 1993. 6. The Planning Commission secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to Transamerica Realty Services. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, 1993 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission on the .14th day of June, 1993 with the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS: 0 EXHIBIT "A" Capital Improvement Program (F.Y. 1993-1994) STREET IMPROVEMENTS 'PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Area 4 Slurry Seal Slurry Seal 2. Brea.Canyon Road:- Fountain Springs to Widening Cold Springs 3. Diamond Bar Boulevard:- Golden Springs Sidewalks to Goldrush Drive 4. Diamond Bar Boulevard: -Grand Avenue Rehabilitation/Recon to Brea Canyon Road struction 5. Golden Springs Drive: -Brea Canyon Road Rehabilitation/Recon to Grand Avenue struction 6. Grand Avenue: -Golden Springs Drive to Rehabilitation/Recon East City Limits , struction 7. Golden Springs Drive Medians:-Gona Ct. Rehabilitation/Recon to West City Limit struction TRAFFIC CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS 8. Diamond Bar Blvd. at Shadow Cnyn./Fountain Springs 9. Golden Springs at Carpio 10. Golden Springs at Golden Prados 11. Golden Springs at Prospectors 12. Grand Avenue Signal Synchronization 13. Pathfinder at Brea Canyon Road PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS 14. ADA Parks Retrofit 15. Basketball and Tennis Court Improvements 16. City Park Signage Retrofit 17. Pantera Park Design and Development 18. Peterson Park Lights MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES 19. Handicap Access Ramps:- Along various major/ commercial arterials. 8/-E Capital Imp. Programming 1 .=-Capital Improvements rrog°^amming Local jurisdictions use both police and corporate powers to serve their residents. Planners have traditionally relied upon the police powers to protect public health, safety and welfare through zoning and subdivision regulations. The corporate powers of local government, however, also have impact on land use meuom facilities^which'— have long termphysical streets and highways, public bi��os. water and ewer lines, and park and recreation facilities. Capital improvements programming is the multiyear planning of public infrastructure improvements. Since local government can seldom facilities through anannual operating budget, numerous techniques have evolved to finance capital improvements over a longer period. The total in- vestment, thorefona, includes not only the cost of purchase nrcfdesign and - construction, but also the cost oflong term financing. Financing techniques include the use of current operating budgets, various types of bonding, special dietriots, special asaossnnenia, state and federal grants, and tax increment financing. The capital improvements program must take a longer view than the annual budget prooess, and must anticipate when new public facilities will be needed orwhen existing facilities must bereplaced. � r The capital improvements program is a valuable implementation tool for carrying out the general plan. Because the general plan establishes policies intensity, of future the capital improvements v4 for thedireodon. and rate growth, program is instrumental in maintaining the local government's control of do- - a|o nt Government Code Section GS4O2requireothat aoquiohinnnrdia- ` ^~' �� real planning agency for conformity whh the general plan. Acquisition includes dedications for street, park or other public ` purposes as well as construction of public buildings or structures. Disposal includes Special districto, school districtn, and joint powers agencies must also refer their d |inn rovements programs to the planningagency ofeach affected city or county for review of consistency with the applicable general plan. How these capital improvements projects fit the goals and policies of the general plan will determine to a large extent the success of the planning program. a \L |innprovementoprogramina|ooaueefu|p|anningtoo|.Thoaysii- The capital improvements program is also a useful planning tool. The avail- abi|ityufpub|iofani|itienounaarvnaaabaniaforapprovalordenia|ofdevo|- ability of public facilities can serve as a basis for approval or denial of devel- opment proposals. In many cases, the costs of public improvements are borne opnnentpropooa|a.|nrnanycasea.th000ntnnfpub|ioimp/ovemontsaroborne bythe private developer and eventually passed through tothe home buyer nr the commercial/industrial user. In other oanaa' local government will pay im' provemont costs for developments which will provide significant employment � opportunities, increase sales tax revenues, orfurther adopted goals and poli- cies. The prioritized capital improvements, therefore, must beflexible to respond todevelopment opportunities, vet must beguided bvthe long term benefits which will accrue tothe local jurisdiction and its residents. � There are four basic steps indeveloping acapital improvements program: �project identification, prioritization, reconciliation,dad ion. Needed capital improvements should be identified and reliable preliminary cost estimates should be prepared. Once identified, projects should be listed according to | . need This should include why each pr�motiaimportant and what the o0na nooavviUboif itienrionot funded. The next step kshureconcile this prioritized listing into acomprehensive cupuu/ m/p'uvmxe//s program w/xu/ coordinates improvement scheduling and recognizes the constraints of mun- cipe|finafinancing. Finally, the capital improvements program should be formally reviewed and adopted by the local government. DATE: June 9, 1993 TO: chairman and Planning commissioners FROM: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning commission Reorganization 00' 'Vd, r,0'!Owh�ob The reorganization of the Planning commission is required to take place on an annual basis* We recommend.that the procedure for the election and nomination ofa Chairman and -Vice Chairman will follow the established process of past transitions. Essentially, the chairman will step down - and relinquish the control of the meeting to the Planning commission Secretary. The Secretary then opens the floor for nominations for the position of Chairman. After filling the position, the Secretary then will return control of the dais to the Chairman to receive nominations for the Vice Chairman position. This will conclude the reorganization of the commission. BILLIARD HALL AMENDMENT 1 [91 . 11,1111171, TAW - A, t, �3