HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/1994November 14, 1994
7:00 P.M.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California
Chakman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Daidd Meyer
Bruce r „e, br r,
Don ,, i
r , , ..g
Bob Huff
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Community
Development Office, located at 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, and are available for public inspection.
If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 396-5676 during regular business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the
City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or
accomodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting.must inform the Community
Development Department at (909) 396-5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
Please refrain from smoking, eating or dri.ni
in the Auditorium
'he City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper
and encourages you to do the same.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Monday, November 14, 1994
Next Resolution No. 94-25
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman David Meyer, Bruce Flamenbaum,
Don Schad, Franklin Fong, and Bob Huff
2. PRESENTATION: Presentation of Plaque to former Commissioner Lydia Plunk
3. 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 voluntaryl. There is a five minute
maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission.
4. 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:
4.1 Minutes of July 25, August 1, October 17 and October 24, 1994
5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: None
6. PUBLIC HEARING:
6.1 VARIANCE No. 94-2 A request to construct a new three story single family
residence in excess of the maximum 35 ft. height limit. The site is located within
the gated residential community known as "The Country". The site is within a
hillside area and current the site is developed with a foundation. The project
site is approximately one acre in size and is located in Zone R-1-20,000. The
zoning will not be affected as a part of this request.
Applicant: Frank Piermarini, 2100 Reservoir, Pomona, CA. 91766
Owner: Jeff and Regina Jan, 1553 Deer Crossing, Diamond Bar, CA. 91765
1
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project is
Categorically Exempt pursuant to § 15303 Class 3(a).
RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Planning Commission
open the public hearing, receive testimony, and adopt the attached Resolution of
Denial with the Findings of Fact.
6.2 Conditional Use Permit No. 93-7 (1) This is a request for an Extension of
Time for operation of a temporary unmanned cellular communication facility
consisting of a 75 ft. wood monopole at a site adjacent to the SR 57 Freeway in
an existing commercial development located at 21308 Pathfinder Road. The
repeater station was approved by the Planning Commission on December 13,
1993, to restore communication services to the area because of the interruption
of service formerly provided by a facility located at Diamond Bar High School.
The applicant is pursuing a permanent site via separate application. The project
is located within Zone CPD, Commercial PIanned Development, and will not
change as a part of this request.
Applicant: L.A. Cellular, Box 6028, Cerritos, CA 90702
Property Owner: Rinehart Management Company, P.O. Box 4428, Covina, CA
91723
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project is
Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301(b).
RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Planning Commission
open the public hearing, receive testimony, and adopt the attached Resolution of
Approval with the Findings of Fact.
7. OLD BUSINESS: None
8. NEW BUSINESS:
8.1 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OF TREE PRESERVATION
ORDINANCE
8.2 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE
8.3 REORGANIZATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
8.4 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES
9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
1111WAW111%
11. ADJOURNMENT:
E
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR *1
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 25, 1994
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. at the
South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, Diamond
Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Meyer.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Meyer; Vice Chairwoman Plunk;
Commissioners: Flamenbaum, and Fong
Commissioner.Schad arrived at 7:12 p.m.
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano; Associate Planner Rob Searcy;
Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Interim City
Attorney Michael Montgomery; ' Engineer
Consultant Mike Myers; and Administrative
Secretary Marilyn Ortiz
Absent: None
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS None
Chair/Meyer indicated Agenda Item changes as follows: Item #3
is moved.to item #1.
I. Zone Change No. 92-2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51169
Conditional Use Permit'No. 92-3 Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3 and
Environmental Impact Report No. 92-2.
In response to Chair/Meyer, AP/Searcy reported that on June
13, 1994 the Planning Commission concluded the Public Hearing
on this application and directed staff to prepare resolutions
and conditions for approval. That meeting was continued to
July 11, 1994. The Planning Commission, at that meeting,
continued the application to this evening so that they could
take care of business related to the General Plan.
This project is located at the terminus of Blaze Trail and
includes a residential subdivision for thirteen (13) custom
homes and one (1) vacant lot.
July 25, 1994 Page 2 Planning commission
Also included for the Planning Commission is a copy of a memo
from Triad Geotechnical Consultants which was delivered to, the
City at about 3:45 p.m. today, July 25, 1994 in response to
questions raised by C/Fong at the July 21, 1994 meeting.
Staff feels that the draft conditions address all of the
issues related to the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, to the
Conditional Use Permit for hillside development, for the Oak
Tree permit, and for the zone change. Additionally, there is
verbage which addresses the certification of the environmental
document. This has been circulated to the public for the past
six or seven months. The conditions of approval address items
which vary from inclusion of the SEATAC final report which is
the committee charged with reviewing projects in Significant
Ecological Area 15. The conditions also cover items such as
the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which were required
to comply and conform to the adjacent gated community known as
'/The Country Estates".
Also included are items.which address hours of construction,
CUP conditions of approval, and items which relate to final
product development during the period of time in which the
homes will be developed. These homes, at the time of
development, will go through development review process before
the Community Development Director. The applicant ha's agreed
to box and relocate the oak tree. In addition, there is a
condition which speaks to the removal of black walnut and the
habitat which is formed by those black walnuts, on site. This
condition would provide that the City be the recipient of an
..in lieu fee which is measured from judging the value of the
replacement trees at a 2 to 1 ratio. The value of those trees
is then calculated, the number of trees which may be planted
on-site in a viable habitat is determined, and the difference
between the total number of trees and the trees planted on-
site is then determined with a dash value. The cash value is
placed with the City for either off-site mitigations or -for A
program which deals with the education of the community with
respect to the value of oak trees and their habitats.
Responding to Chair/Meyer's request, Lex Williman, Planning
Director, Hunsaker and Associates, 10179 Huennekens- Street,
San Diego representing Unionwide,. and Jerry Yeh, applicant,
indicated they have read the resolutions and conditions of
approval. Mr. Williman stated that except for a few minor
clarifications from staff they have no problem with the
conditions as currently written.
C/Fong asked staff to respond to Exhibit "B" of the
engineering requirement with respect to approval for building
July 25, 1994 Page 3 Planning Commission
construction and public improvement after the grading is
completed and requirement or condition for issuing approval of
afinal compaction report, final grading and geologic map.
In response to C/Fong, Engineer Meyers indicated that
condition #43 will be added as follows: "After completion of
the rough grading, final compaction report as graded maps
shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
Engineer."
In response to C/Fong, ICA Montgomery explained the
correlation between the Vesting Map and the 1992 General Plan
indicating that during the window period of the 1992 General
Plan the developer satisfied the requirement of the Vesting
Map. Therefore, as C/Flamenbaum pointed out, the letter from
the Homeowner's Association is too late. The hearing has been
held, the vote has been taken, and the developer is entitled
to resolution..
In response to C/Fong, AP/Searcy restated that staff received
the memo at 3:45 p.m. and forwarded it to the Planning
Commission. It has not been reviewed by Leighton and
Associates.
Responding to a request for discussion on the geotechnical
aspects of the project, Engineer Meyers indicated that there
will be full resolve of the matter prior to continuance of the
project.
In response to C/Flamenbaum, ICA Montgomery explained that a
citizen may address the Planning Commission on any agenda
item. The address on the agendaitem will be limited to
whether or not the Planning Commission will take the proposed
action; however, an agenda item. cannot be used to revisit
matters which have already been concluded.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Lane, Diamond Bar, stated he did
not feel it was appropriate to have closed the Public Hearing
when all of the information has not been presented to the
public and to the Planning commission. In addition, Mr. Smith
stated that on several visits to City Hall, he was unable to
acquire the information for study and because of apparent
contradictions, all of the paperwork should be forthcoming..
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, Diamond Bar, requested
definition of Vesting and Tentative.
July 25# 1994 Page 4 Planning commission
Responding to Max Maxwell, ICA Montgomery referred to his memo
which_ explains how th.e.permitp ..fall, into _the periods of the
General Plan and that it was in relation to the South Pointe
application and the various maps. He referred Mr. Maxwell to
Government Code 66424.5.
Responding to Chair/Meyer, Tom Smith, Michael Brandman
Associates, 17310 Redhill, Irvine, stated that it is not
uncommon to have things come up post project approval. In
those instances, you handle them on a case by case basis,
investigate solutions, and compare them with the current
documentation and determine whether additional documentation
is required. - Quite often these issues that come up in the
field are simply resolved through the application of standard.
engineering practices and through the satisfaction of uniform
building code requirements. In general, more environmental
evaluation may not be needed, but it has to be considered.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by VC/Plunk
recommending certification of Environmental Impact Report No.
92-2 and approval of Hillside Management and -significant
Ecological Area Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3 and Oak Tree
Permit No. 92-3, for a project located in northern Tonner
Canyon, within SEA No. 15, southerly and easterly of
Steeplechase Lane and Wagon Train Lane, in Diamond Bar,
California, and making findings in support thereof. Motion
carried 5-0.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, Fong, Schad, vice
Chairman Plunk, and Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN:. COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by C/Schad
recommending certification of Environmental Impact Report No.
92-2 and approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51169,
for a project located in northern Tonner Canyon, within SEA
No. 15, southerly and easterly, of Blaze Trail Drive, in
Diamond Bar, California, and making findings in support
thereof. Motion carried 5-0.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, Fong, Schad, - Vice
Chairman Plunk, and Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
July 25, 1994 Page 5 Planning Commission
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by C/Schad
recommending certification of Environmental Impact Report No.
92-2 and approval of Zone Change 92-2, a request for a
reclassification of a portion of real property currently
designated as Zone A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture) to R-1-40,000
(single family residence) zone, for a project located in
northern Tonner Canyon, within SEA. No. 15, southerly and
easterly of Blaze Trail Drive- in Diamond Bar, California, and
making findings in support tLreof. Motion carried 5-0.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, Fong, Schad, vice
Chairman Plunk, and Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
C/Flamenbaum asked for concensus of the Planning Commission to
have the City Attorney respond to the letter from "The Country
Estates" asking for CC&R enforcement.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
2. Parcel Map 22102; request to subdivide 4.39 acre parcel
located at 1575 ,Valley Vista -Drive,, Diamond Bar into two lots.
One lot will contain 3.5 acres and the other lot will contain
.89 of an acre.
In response to Chair/Meyer, AP/Seardy stated this is an
application for a lot split within the Gateway Corporate
Center. The zoning for this center is C-M-BE-U/C which is a
unilateral contract, the only one of its kind in the County,
which basically codified the CC&Rf s that exist over this area.
This project has been remanded back to the Planning Commission
by the City Council as a result of a decision rendered in
January, 1992. At that public hearing the Planning Commission
denied the project based upon the design and a lack of
information to determine whether the Map"s approval would
create a non-viable lot. As a result, the City Council
directed the staff and applicant to take a second look at the
project to determine if it could be reconfigured to guarantee
a viable and productive lot split. As a result, the applicant
submitted a redesigned parcel map to the City and included a
conceptual plan of what an office building of approximately
2500 to 2700 square feet would look like. Based upon a review
of these items, staff held a one-stop meeting. As a part of
the review, staff critiqued the 'conceptual design as it,
relates to the creation of the two parcels and made certain
July 25# 1994 Page 6 Planning Commission
the parcel had adequate ingress and egress; that the lot
coverage was not excessive; and the proposed landscaping would
fit into the character and,nature of the subdivision, as well
as the Gateway Corporate Center. Gateway Corporate Center has
design guidelines. The design guidelines are an outgrowth of
the unilateral contract and the CC&Rls which exist in this
area, as well as, policies which have evolved over this City's
five year history. Staff determined that the current
subdivision is a viable lot. This lot is no smaller than the
smaller lots in the Gateway Corporate Center. Smaller lots
can be exhibited by looking at the Cole Development, which is
at Bridgegate and Gateway Center Drive. That mixed use
complex looks like a small cluster of buildings and has lots
which are considerably smaller than the proposed lot.
AP/Searcy further stated that staff has reviewed ithis project
making certain the public improvements which exist on the site
are either present or will be placed on site once a
development project comes before the City. Staff has
determined that the lot split is -viable and will not create
additional significant impact. Therefore, staff has prepared
a negative declaration for review and approval. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission open the public
hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing, and
adopt the Resolution of Approval.
In response to C/Schad, AP/Searcy indicated that there are no
development plans at this time and the reason for going ahead
with the subdivision would be to make the lot saleable.
Currently, the 3.5 acre portion of the proposed subdivision is
developed with a two-story office building. It is self-
contained
elf-contained within the parameters of that site. It is an
independent parcel. It appears there are currently two
independent pads. The proposed site is a completely graded
and unimproved site.
Responding to Chair/Meyer, AP/Searcy indicated that the C -M
Zone does not have a minimum lot size. The maximum FAR for
commercial site is approximately .5. The maximum height for
current CM Zoning is thirteen (13) times the buildable area.
The Gateway Corporate Center design guidelines restrict the
height in the project area to three stories.
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing open.
Linda Czarkowski, representative of Specialty Equipment Market
Association (SEMA) had nothing further to add at this time and
offered to entertain any questions.
July 25, 1994 Page 7 Planning commission
In response to Chair/Meyer, Linda Czarkowski indicated she has
read and understands the conditions for approval and can
comply with the conditions.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, Diamond Bar, asked if the
subdivision applies to the current proposed General Plan and
not the 1992 General Plan to which AP/Searcy responded that it
is, in fact, a non -vesting Map. It is a Tentative Map subject
to the conditions in effect at the time of approval.
Mr. Maxwell voiced his concerns that this proposed lot may be
valuable and because of its location and visibility from the
freeway, requested that the Planning Commission control the
building of another access road which will extend the growth
of the Gateway Corporate Center.
Responding to Chair/Meyer, Linda Czarkowski indicated that Mr.
Maxwell's fears are unfounded. Contained in the plans which
were submitted, specialty Equipment, Market Association
included the possibility of sharing the.same driveway which
the SEMA building currently has, so there would be no
additional driveway or any additional roads. With respect to
signage on any building which may be built, the owners are
regulated by the CC&Rls of Gateway Corporate Center and the
building codes.are quite strict in that regard.
CDD/Destefano indicated that for purposes of clarification,
the lot in question is immediately adjacent to the existing
SEMA building. It is essentially a graded pad, and
development would take place on. the 38,500 proposed square
feet of that existing pad. Depending upon the market
conditions, the financial feasibility, tenant requirements,
etc., a building on that site would range from approximately
10,000 to 20,000 square feet, staying within the floor area
ratio maximums of the Gateway Corporate Center and the current
development trend within the Gateway Corporate Center. There
are no trees on the site which would be affected by
development. It is presently a flat, rough graded pad.
Signage is controlled by the City's sign code which currently
allows for wall signage commensurate with size of the
building's frontage. This building is not likely to have any
significant
nificant visibility from the freeway. Free standing
signage is currently limited to six (6) feet in height and
therefore, would not be seen from the freeway. As the
applicant's representative indicated, there is no access
proposed in terms of streets from this site to any other part
of our community. Access would be wholely preserved by the
July 25, 1994 Page a Planning commission
driveway configurations contemplated, present and future, off
of Valley Vista Drive.
CDD/DeStef ano stated that, finally, the Planning Commission
will review any future development proposed on this site. The
City has a development review process which requires Planning
Commission review of all new commercial construction. This
may include an office building which might be presumed to be
located'at the site sometime in the future.
In response to a question by C/Fong regarding the effect of
the subdivision on existing parking for a two story building,
AP/Searcy indicated that there is no impact on the parking as
a result of this project and, with respect to future
development, it would be considered part of the development
review process before the Planning Commission.
AP/Searcy further stated in response to C/Fong that the
primary difference between this project and the project
previously rejected by the City Council is located in shifting
the lot line to the center of the ingress and egress which
currently serves the SEMA building. This guarantees there
will be one only ingress and egress for both lots and there
will be a shared access agreement which will be required. In
addition, there is no zone change or variance applied for as
a part of this application.
VC/Plunk stated that she is struggling with approval of the.
lot split without plans.
Chair/Meyer indicated that he would like to see that the
street improvements completed to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director. In response to Chair/Meyer, City
Engineer/Meyers indicated that his department has reviewed•the
site and the improvements have been completed. He further
stated that there currently exists a gap in the sidewalk
through the frontage of the project; however, there is some
discussion whether a sidewalk is desirable at the front of
this project. The City is reluctant to encourage pedestrian
traffic to focus ata point of crossing where there is no
intersection. Street lights are in. There is a condition
which requires the extension of sanitary sewermainline'and
construction of alateral to this pad.
Chair/Meyer stated that the wording in the resolution states
only to "show the proposed sewer hookup". He recommended the
wording should be changed to "install the sewer hookup". City
Engineer/Meyers concurred.
July 25, 1994 Page 9 Planning Commission
Motion to adopt Resolution.No. 94-18 made by Chair/Meyer and
seconded by VC/Plunk recommending conditional approval of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 with the following changes:
Condition F be changed to indicate that a sewer hookup shall
be provided for Parcel No. 2 to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer; condition G, that all drainage devices shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in
compliance with the hydrology calculations; reciprocal
ingress/egress easement shall be recorded on the map between
Parcel No. 1 and Parcel No. 2 along the common property line;
and street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. Motion was passed 4-1.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Flamenbaum, VC/Plunk,
Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:34 p.m,
RECONVENED: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:52 p.m.
CDD/DeStefano indicated that he has presented the audience and
the members of the Planning commission with a graphic which is
Figure No. 1 in the Introduction section of the General Plan.
This graphic outlines the community participation program, as
well as the specific dates of the General Plan Advisory (GPAC)
meetings. Since the most recent Planning Commission meeting,
the City Council has taken up the issue of, and the schedule
for, the adoption of the General Plan. The City Council
discussed this matter on July 19, 1994 and concluded that they
will table their review of the General Plan until the Planning
Commission completes its efforts. He further stated that
because of the October 31, 1994 termination date of the Office
of Planning and Reasearch extension of time letter, the
deadline for the Planning Commission to complete the General
Plan will be moved ahead. He stated that the Planning
Commission will soon receive information regarding the new
deadlines.
CDD/DeStefano advised that tonight's discussion will be about
the Public Health and Safety Element. He introduced Patrick
Mann of Cotton/ Be land /Associates. Mr. Mann has been assisting
the City in dealing with this element and will present the
element to the Planning Commission this evening.
J
July 25, 1994 Page 10 Planning Commission.
Patrick Mann, Cotton/ Beland/Associates stated that the changes
ma ' de by GPAC in the Public Health and Safety Element are
limited to the noise portion of the element. These changes
expand the noise element from recognizing only those areas
where noise is a severe problem, to recognizing there is.value
in preserving a quiet community and establishing standards for
what is desirable, not only what is unacceptable. In doing
so, he further stated, GPAC established goals for various land
uses which are lower than the absolute standards which were
set. GPAC required that new projects mitigate the noise
impacts, provided that noise mitigation measures be
imperically testable and field verified, and required that the
City regularly update its information on noise levels.
Afterreviewing the comments'of the GPAC including changes
which were made, Mr. Mann stated that he has recommendations
for specific language changes to two of the strategies
contained in the Noise
Element.
The first change is Strategy 1.10.3, Page IV -10: for the
language following the final. "or" in the last -line of the
strategy read as follows: "or to significantly, adversly,
effect the existing CNEL of those neighborhoods." This would
allow some discretion at the time of approval of the
development.
The second item is Strategy 1.10.11, Page IV -11 and the
recommendation is to replace the entire strategy with the
following language: "The City shall utilize the Noise
ordinance to eliminate unecessary noise which would interfere
with the peace and quiet of the community, orthe normal use
of the Jand. The ordinance shall use noise -standards
appropriate to each potential noise problem and shall not be
limited to the CNEL standards of Table IV -1.11 Mr. Mann
indicated that this gives discretion to deal with specific
noise problems in ways which are appropriate to the noise
problem.
In response to c ' oncerns raised by C/Flamenbaum, Mr. Mann
indicated that he believes the CNEL is a very appropriate
method for regulating noise in the General Plan where the
Planning Commmission is attempting to establish standards for
location of land uses. This is the specific language used in
the strategy which adopts the CNEL table in the Noise Element.
C/Flamenbaum further expressed his concern regarding the noise
types, citing a constant freeway noise to which one might
July 25, 1994 Page 11 Planning Commission
adjust, versus the intermittent noise of a machine shop which
might have an air hammer.
Responding to C/Flamenbaum, Mr. Mann referred to his specific
recommendation to have a noise ordinance which allows
flexibility in dealing with other specific types of noise
problems. The CNEL is well designed to deal with problems of
a transportation noise. When we have a noise ordinance, this
more specifically deals with problems which arise from
specific human activities which are not necessarily related to
a type of land use or transportation corridor and unique
noises. He further indicated that there is no single measure
such as the CNEL which can account for all of the different
characteristics of types of sounds.
C/Schad stated that he would like to see the CNEL eliminated
since it is not a true condition of sounds. He referred to
Table IV -1, Page IV -12 and indicated that GPAC had made many
recommendations to alleviate some of the levels of sound. which
are shown in the chart. He prefers to see the table utilized
in the General Plan.
CDD/DeStefano referred the Planning Commission to the Master
Environmental Assessment (MEA) about noise in terms of sending
and receiving points. He indicated that II -G-1 lists
everything from 0-145 dBA's. He cited several specific
examples which are contained in the MEA. CDD/DeStefano
reiterated that the Noise Element is one of the seven
California State mandated elements of the General Plan. It is
designed to identify and apprise noise problems within the
community. He further stated that the idea is that the noise
levels are used as a guide for establishing land uses. The
Safety Element, State mandated, establishes the policies and
programs which deal with all of the risks associated with the
seismic conditions, geological conditions, flood, fire, etc.
This element also deals with emergency evacuation procedures
and response time for public safety services and equipment.
CDD/DeStef ano stated that one of the things the Planning
Committee needs to do is to forward the document to the
Division of Mines and Geology which has been done and that we
are awaiting a response from them with respect to any mapped
or known facilities within our community. We do not have
mines and geology that the Department of Conservation is
interested in which we are aware of at this time. This is why
you see the notation following the element which indicates
there are no issues and no areas of discussion for Diamond
Bar.
July 25, 1994 Page 12 Planning commission
CDD/DeStef ano further indicated that one of the other items
within the Public Health and Safety Element are a number of
changes which were made after 1984 which deal with seismic
issues. Between the Policy Document, the Master Environmental
Assessment, which sets the foundation for the policy document,
and the Environmental Impact Report, we believe we have
presented to you an element which meets the test of the State
requirements and, as Mr. Mann has pointed out, has been
reviewed by GPAC and brings forward their recommended changes
dealing primarily with the issue of noise.
VC/Plunk questioned the accuracy of the figures shown on the
map and the table, and the fact that the figures do not match
the chart. C/Schad agreed and questioned the accuracy'of the
map.
In response to VC/Plunk and C/Schad, Mr. Mann stated that the
map is based upon a computer program which estimates noise
levels based upon the number of vehicles passing by a given
point at a given time and the distribution of those vehicles
over the 24 hour period. He further indicated that it does
not reflect the topography, and the shielding from existing
structures. He stated that it is a very simplified Map which
represents the noise level at an unshielded site from the
traffic on the roadways.
In response to CDD/DeStefano, Mr. Mann stated that map does
not have to agree with the table. The map is a best estimate
to define what the expected noise levels would be based upon
the simple computer program and simply provides some. guideline
for locating future residential or other noise sensitive uses
with respect to the transportation corridors.
Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open on the Public
Health and Safety Element. -
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig, Diamond Bar, stated that he finds
it offensive that Mr. Mann has come back to the Planning
Commission with another recommendation. He indicated he would
like to see something implemented in this document guiding
future members of this Planning Commission and the City
Council and that is why the Chart is specific. He requested
that the Planning Commission accept this section as is.
Tom Van Winkle, 21103 Gerndahl, Diamond Bar, stated that the
concerns of the Planning Commission are valid. If the
Planning Commission finds it difficult to determine what the
report means, a clerk or City employee may have the same
July 25, 1994 Page 13 Planning Commission
difficulty determining what is to be done to comply with an
Ordinance. Mr. VanWinkle told the Planning Commission they
need to be aware that the levels of noise in Diamond Bar are
severe, and in many locations are unacceptable. He asked that
a standard be included in the element which states that when
new property is developed the goal be maintained and, in
addition, guidelines be established for further redevelopment
or correction of these areas.
Chair Meyer declared the public hearing closed.
Chair/Meyer asked for input from the Planning Commission.
C/Fong suggests that the Planning Commission add verbage
regarding landslides and earthquakes. He further suggested
that in the first paragraph under Geology and Seismisity, the
Planning Commission re -word the first sentence to read:
"Diamond Bar is located in a dynamic geological region.,, In
addition, C/Fong recommended that the last part of the last
sentence read: "Local soils are mainly derived from
weathering of the bedrock units."
C/Fong futher recommended that the Planning Commission insert
an additional paragraph following the opening paragraph to
read as follows: "There.
are numerous existing landslides and
potential unstable hillside areas in Diamond Bar."
C/Fong asked that the Planning Commission add the following
words to the first sentence of second paragraph: "Diamond Bar
is also located in a part of Southern California which is a
highly seismically active region where there are a number of
major faults."
C/Fong requested that the second sentence on Page IV -3, No. 5,
Emergency Services and Facilities, second sentence, last word,
change 15 mile drive to read 1115 mile radius".
VC/Plunk requested the following additions, corrections:
Page IV -3, No. 5, last sentence should be changed to read:
"The City has recently developed a response plan for
emergencies."
Page IV -3, No. 6, last sentence should be changed to read:
"As per State Law, the City has developed a Household
Hazardous Waste Element."
July 25, 1994 Page .14 Planning commission
C/Flamenbaum Page IV -4 Item No. 1 bottom of the page, delete
the word "adequately" so that the sentence will read: "The
City needs policies to protect existing and future residents
from local geologic and seismic related threats."
C/Fong suggested the following changes:
Geology and Seismisity, the first sentence, change to read:
"Because of the high seismic and diverse geologic conditions,
etc.
Next sentence "The City needs policies to protect existing and
future residents from local geologic and seismic related
hazards."
C/Flamenbaum Issue Analysis on Page IV -5, No. 3 and 4 strike
"in the Diamond Bar area and in Diamond Bar."
VC/Plunk V, Issue Analysis, No. 5 last sentence should read:
"The City needs to implement the Disaster Preparedness Plan to
respond to regional or local emergencies."
C/Fong suggested the following changes on V-7:
Objective 1.1, last word, last sentence replace "events" with
"hazards" to read as follows: "ground shaking and other
geologic hazards."
Strategy 1.1.1, replace the word "seismic" with the word
"earthquake" to read: "----maximum credible earthquake
event."
1.1.2 reword paragraph as follows: "As required by the
Uniform Building code, require site specific geotechnical
investigation be performed to determine appropriate design
parameters for construction of public and private facilities
in order to minimize the effects of any geologic and seismic
hazard on such development."
Insert Strategy 1.1.3 to read as follows: "Adopt a Grading
Manual to supplement the City of Diamond Bar grading code with
detailed information regarding rules, interpretation,
standards specification, procedures, requirements, forms and
other information applicable to control excavation, grading
and earthwork construction and provide guidelines for
preparation of geotechnical reports in the City."
July 25, 1994 Page 15 Planning Commission
Change Page IV -8, Objective 1.5, to read:. "Minimize the risk
and fear of crime through physical planning strategies.
Create a high level of public awareness and support for crime
prevention."
Page IV -9, Objective 1.7 to read: "Implement effective
emergency preparedness and response programs."
Page IV -10, Strategy 1.10.3 adopt •Mr. Mann's suggestion:
Change the last phrase to read: "or to significantly
adversely affect the existing CNEL of those neighborhoods."
Page IV -11, Strategy 1.10.4 C/Flamenbaum suggested wording
"Natural noise barriers such as hillsides shall not be
modified without evaluating the noise impact to surrounding
residential areas."
Page IV -11, Strategy 1.10.8 C/Flamenbaum suggested to read:
"As part of the future General Plan review, or every five
years., the Noise Contour Map shall be updated."
Page IV -11, Strategy 1.10-10 delete the words "Page - I-1
Page IV -11, Strategy 1.10.11 adopt Mr. Mann's suggestion to
add prior to 1.10..11 and, add another column to the Noise
Standards Table which would be a "Maximum Hourly LEQ
Standard", and, in each case. where there is a maximum exterior
CNEL standard, establish the maximum LEQ to be that same noise
level. In addition, for residential use, establish an evening
maximum hourly LEQ to be 60 decibels. These changes would be
consistent with the noise weightings which are used in
calculating the CNEL value.
CDD/DeStefano indicated that the discussion of CNEL and LEQ is
worthy of more presentation. He stated that it is his belief
that GPAC was concerned about the CNEL standard as being a 24
hour weighted average, and whether or not that is an
appropriate measurement tool to set a policy. He further
indicated that he believed that GPAC was moving toward an LEQ
or noise equivelant level standard.
In response to CDD/DeStefano, Mr. Mann explained that the CNEL
esentially takes all of the sound energy that you receive over
a period of time, puts it in a big bucket, and averages it.
A minute which has -'a level of 80 decibels adds ten times as
much energy to that bucket as a minute which has an average of
July 251 1994 Page 16 Planning Commission
70 decibels. The higher noise levels contribute strongly to
the CNEL which you measure. It is an.attempt to combine all
of the noise and report in a way humans respond to.. It does
not necessarily deal with specific and unique. noise situations
that have unusual characteristics.
Chair/Meyer charged Mr. Mann to investigate the concerns of
C/Schad and C/Flamenbaum and'return to the Planning Commission
with his suggestions.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that Mr. Mann return with his
suggestions to the Planning Commission and be available for
questions the Commission may have. In addition, CDD/DeStefano
recommended that the commission add a map which shows the
existing noise contours.
Motion by VC/Plunk and second by C/Flamenbaum to move the next
meeting to Monday, August 1, 1994 at'7:00 p.m. at the SCAQMD.
Motion carried 5-0.
Planning commission items: - None
Informational Items: - none
Motion by C/Schad and C/Fong to adjourn. Motion carried 5-0.
Respectfully,
James DeStefano
Secretary
Attest:
David Meyer
Chairman
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 40
AUGUST 1, 1994
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. in the
SCAQMD Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner
Schad.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Meyer; Vice Chairwoman Plunk;
Commissioners: Flamenbaum, Fong, Schad
Also present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano; Associate Planner Rob Searcy;*
Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Interim City
Attorney Michael Montgomery;* Administrative
Secretary Marilyn Ortiz and Patrick Mann of
Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. .
Absent: None
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. ADOPTION OF THE 1994 GENERAL PLAN
James DeStefano reported that Patrick Mann, consultant from
Cotton/Beland/Associates, provided the Planning Commission
with additional information as requested during the last
discussion of the Noise Table found in the Public Health and
Safety Element of the 1992 General Plan.
Chair/Meyer announced that the public hearing portion of the
Public Health,& Safety Element has been completed and
directed staff to provide additional input regarding the
units of measurement for the noise level.
Chair/Meyer referred to the memo from Mr. Mann recommending
the use of the CNEL standard although it lacks uniformity
throughout the.state. Chair/Meyer asked C/Flamenbaum. and
C/Fong if their questions regarding the CNEL standard were
answered satisfactorily. C/Flamenbaum responded
affirmatively.
August 1® 1994
Page 2 Planning Commission
C/Fong asked for an explanation of the higher CNEL level
allowable for Hospitals compared to the lower CNEL levels
for libraries and residential areas. He believes that
hospitals should have a lower level or at least levels
comparable to libraries or residential level.
Patrick Mann explained that the interior CNEL levels for
these uses were set by the GPAC in their deliberations. The
hospital provides higher noise levels in living areas and
lower levels of noise in sleeping areas than the library
use. The noise levels are quite low as set in the table and
it is believed they would provide adequate protection for
those land uses.
C/Fong responded he has no other questions or objections.
Chair/Meyer questioned whether the CNEL standards
recommendations are achievable or do they prohibit
development.
Patrick Mann stated that the maximum exterior CNEL standards
that are not to be exceeded are achievable in most cases.
The exterior CNEL objective for quiet areas may not be -
achievable in many areas exposed to freeway noise. GPAC
added this type of standard to the element that originally
contained only the maximum exterior CNEL Level.
Chair/Meyer questioned the outcome of an environmental
review studying the noise generally associatedwitha
project, if the project did not achieve the standards in the
General Plan. Would it require an environmental impact
report because of inability to mitigate it to this level of
considered non -significance? I
Patrick Mann responded that a -judgment determination would
have to be made about whether the magnitude of the variation
was sufficient to require an environmental impact. In the
residential areas the maximum exterior CNEL is probably
achievable. There may be places in commercial, industrial
and offices areas where the 70 dBA CNEL standard could not
be achieved because of an existing freeway noise condition.
Chair/Meyer asked if this would give rise to an argument to
prohibit development in those areas. Patrick Mann responded
that it could.
Chair/Meyer addressed the conflict between the CNEL standard
(70 dBA) of the General Plan for industrial areas and terms
of the General Plan encouraging a balanced growth. He
stated it appears that if the current levels are not
attainable, then a proposed development that added noise to
August 1, 1994 Page 3 Planning Commission
the area would provide the basic argument against issuing
any development permits.
Chair/Meyer suggested that as a major source of noise, we
need to recognize that freeways have higher noise levels
than other parts of the city and treat them as unique
situations, possibly requiring differential treatment.
Patrick Mann extended further Chair/Meyer's comments that
the 71 Freeway will eventually become a full-fledged
freeway. In his opinion the noise from it will Carry over
into Tres Hermanos combining with the Pomona noise. Using
the chart in the EIR as a basis of measurement, it must be
decided what levels are adequate to'attain our goals.
C/Schad pointed out that noise levels vary according to the
time and peak of traffic. Tire planing creates the most
significant noise on the surface of the road; the faster
cars go, the nosier it gets. Peterson Park is a good
example of the inverse funnel affect. Due to its geology
and location near the freeway, the sound in this area is
actually amplified to levels of 85-90 decibels. C/Schad
stated that he had recommended a chart at the last meeting
which reduces most of these levels by approximately 5 dBA.
Patrick Mann reminded the Planning Commission that the chart
C/Schad spoke of dealt with interior noises. The problem
Chair/Meyer brought up is exterior noises.
Chair/Meyer asked Mr. Mann if, for example, we wanted to
expand the use of Peterson Park, would the standard be used
which implies that the park uses adds additional exterior
noise? If the goal is 70 dBA and the park already exceeds
that, would there then be case basis to deny development of
the park?
Patrick Mann replied that development could be denied. For
instance, if an application from the Parks and Recreation
Department was received to put in three new bathrooms, it
would have to be denied.
Chair/Meyer reiterated the need to recognize that when
considering exterior standards, freeways and their immediate
adjoining areas should be treated differently.' Primarily
due to the unique situations freeways present as a major
source of noise that run throughout the city.
Patrick Mann suggested a freeway adjacent criteria.
Chair/Meyer continued, saying that if a development will add
to the exterior noise and the goal is 70 dBA in commercial
August 1, 1994 Page 4 Planning commission
and industrial areas, then the City is limited from adding
any more commercial industrial, because it would increase
the present dBA which already exceeds the goal.
Discussion ensued regarding the effects of reducing noise
levels on future development. James DeStefano stated that
the General Plan can always be amended. He stated that a
more valid point is why send it through with wrong
recommendations.
ICA/Montgomery recommended an upper and lower limit be
provided on the chart, as a guideline and judge each case on
specific merits through the public hearing process.
Patrick Mann stated that in the preparation of the GPAC
noise element, a table with different categories of
significance for noise for varying land uses was presented
to the committee. What might now be provided is to add
another column, separating what is clearly unacceptable for
these land uses and what would normally be unacceptable.
Levels could be exceeded if there were unique circumstances
or efforts made to provide additional sound insulation,
appropriate to the land use. To some extent the commercial
and industrial areas where the land is exposed to noise
between 70 and 75 dBA can be utilized for those types of
uses instead of other uses. For office and commercial
buildings, above 75 dBA would normally be unacceptable for
those uses. However if adequate or special sound insulation
is included in the design, and those uses do not depend on
outdoors space substantially, the noise level could be
acceptable.
C/Schad stated that the table presented by Cotton/Beland
sets time frames which allows for accumulation of sound.
Although he prefers Table IV -I on page IV -12, dBA's should
be slightly reduced, it would be acceptable to him if the
figures shown were used as maximum allowable CNEL.
Motion was made by C/Schad, seconded by C/Flamenbaum to add
an additional row to Table IV -1 called "Freeway Adjacent
Commercial/Industrial/Office Areas" using 65 dBA for the
exterior CNEL objective and 70 to 80 dBA for the maximum
exterior CNEL and the interior at 45 dBA.
CDD/DeStefano suggested as a strategy that additional
verbiage be.added to 1.10.12 to read: "New development
should not exceed the standards outlined within Table IV -1.
If new construction. does proceed, a detailed analysis of
noise reduction requirements must be made and needed.noise
insulation features included in design."
August 1, 1994 Page 5 Planning commission
Motion was amended by C/Schad and seconded by C/Flamenbaum
to include CDD/DeStefano's suggested strategy 1.10.12 and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that a maximum interior CNEL level of
40 dBA be added to the chart for recreation and quiet,
passive areas.
Motion was made by C/Schad, seconded by C/Fong to amend
Table IV -1, Recreation: Quite, Passive Areas: add 40 dBA to
the maximum interior CNEL .
The motion carried 4-1 with the following vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Schad, Fong, Chairman Meyer,
Flamenbaum
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
V/Chair Plunk
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
Motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Flamenbaum, to
change Strategy 1.10.3 on page IV -10 to read "New
construction, excluding additions and remodels that do not
expand the existing floor area of the dwelling by 25% shall
not be.permitted to cause exterior CNEL level of surrounding
residential neighborhoods to exceed those limits stated in
Table IV -1-4
CDD/DeStefano suggested Strategy 1.10.3 be changed to read
"New construction, including additions and remodels
exceeding 25% of original floor area, shall not be permitted
to cause the exterior CNEL level of surrounding residential
neighborhoods to exceed those limits stated in Table IV -1,
or to significantly, adversely effect the existing CNEL of
those neighborhoods." -
The motion carried 4-1 as follows:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong, Flamenbaum,
Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: V/Chair Plunk
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Chair/Meyer inquired whether there were any additional
changes or questions. None were expressed and.Meyer
declared the Public Health and Safety Element completed.
RECESSED: , Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
August 1® 1994 Page 6 1 Planning Commission
RECONVENED: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:12 p.m.
CDD/DeStefano introduced Karen Warner,
Cotton/Beland/Associates, stating shehad-participated in
the GPAC workshop process and would be presenting the
Housing element, GPAC issues and the issues before the
community.
Karen Warner stated that the Housing Element is the most
complicated element. It is the only General Plan element
required to undergo State review. The Department of Housing
and Community Development.(HCD) is required to prepare
written findings as to whether in their opinion "A housing
element is in substantial legal compliance". The courts tend
to side with the State. The -goal is to achieve the State's
approval of the Housing Element. Only 40% of cities state-
wide have a State approved Housing Element.
If a housing element is not in state compliance and someone
chooses to challenge the City on the basis of.an inadequate
General Plan and the courts find on the side of HCD that you
have an inadequate housing element, courts can shut down the
City. Essentially the State can take away all discretionary
actions of the City until the element is brought under
compliance. This happens fairly infrequently, but it does
happen and tends to happen to cities that have redevelopment
agencies and have some money involved.
Ms. Warner went on to explain Diamond Bar's situation. The
last housing element was prepared in 1993. Significant
revisions were made to the element at that time in response
to the State's comments. The State had one outstanding
concern which was the lack of adequate sites. The state
defines.adequate sites according to density categories.
All cities are given their regional share of housing needs
divided among income categories. Diamond Bar's regional
needs figure is 781 dwelling units. This is divided up into
117 units for low income, 182 units for low income, 144 for
moderate income and 338 units for upper income. The Housing
Element needs'to demonstrate enough land zoned at densities
that the state considers high enough.to provide
affordability to that number of units in those income
categories.
In response to C/Flamenbaum, Ms. Warner stated that the
income categories are based on the County median. A very
low income household is defined by HUD by 1993 standards for
a family of four in Los Angeles County as earning 50% or
below the County median of $24,150. A low income household
August 1, 1994 Page 7 Planning Commission
earns between.50% and 80% of the county median which is
essentially between $24,000 and $38,650. Moderate income is
between $38,650 to $57,950 and that's essentially up to 120%
of the County median.
The rule of thumb that the State uses in urban areas to
achieve affordability to these income levels is a minimum of
25 units/acre for the very low income category. Diamond Bar
has a need of 117 units. For the low income category, a
density criteria of 18 units/acre is used. Both of those
categories need to be available for rental. For the
moderate income, a density criteria of 8 units/acre is used
and can be ownership or rental. Diamond Bar has a need of
144 units.
Part of the process when cities are initially assigned these
numbers is that cities have 90 days in which to review the
numbers and make an appeal to Southern California
Association of Government (SCAG) if they feel the numbers
are inaccurate. Diamond Bar was just incorporating at the
time and wasn't able to take advantage of that opportunity.
After the 90 day appeal period is up, there's no adjustment
to the figures. In working with these numbers and these
density criterias from the state, GPAC realized there was an
issue regarding the land use policies in Diamond Bar for
lower density housing and limited multi -family housing.
GPAC considered the following options to achieve State
approval:
OPTION ONE: to leave the site inventory as it stands in the
Land Use Element and for the City Council to adopt findings
showing why the document is in substantial compliance
e with
the law based on a variety of physical and infrastructure
constraints to multi -family development.
OPTION TWO: to show greater commitment in the Tres Hermanos
specific plan area for the multifamily units that would be
required under your regional housing needs.
OPTION THREE: to increase the densities under the medium and
high density land use categories to the 18 and 25 unit/acre
minimum.
OPTION FOUR: (in combination with some other programs) to
adopt an Inclusionary Housing ordinance which says that in
all projects of a, certain size that the developer will be
required to set aside a certain portion, commonly 15%, of
the units as affordable to,lower income households.
AUCJUSt 1® 1994 Page a Planning Commission
OPTION FIVE: try to adopt more proactive programs so that
affordable housing is,achieved without providing a
significant increase in density city wide. (Proactive
Density Bonus Ordinance)
Ms. Warner reported, GPAC agreed by a.majority on option #1.
Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open.
Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove Dr., praised Karen
Warner for her presentation. He stated that we have an
opportunity to meet HCD's requirements. He expressed his
concern to protect the canyons. He recommended adding a
mixed use density at 25 units/acre and to identify this on
the land use map. He also recommended the remainder of the
land use in Tres Hermanos be designated as University
Specific Plan identifying the mixed use around the reclaimed
water lake.
Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane; pointed out a
change on page 11-14, Table 11-4 Potential Development, and
asked for clarification.
CDD/DeStefano stated that Mr. Maxwell is referring to the
original Page 11-14 and the changes that occurred on the
July 13th ERRATA SHEET. The reason the rural/residential
vacant acres changed and the dwelling units,changed is 1)
the number of rural residential acres were lowered as a
result of turning some of those properties into GPAC's
recommended Open Space Category; 2) The dwelling unit
numbers were lowered because the pr ' evious table reflected a
higher density. The number 136 is referring to an estimated
1 unit for every 2.5 acres, which is,an assumption based
upon the known fact that the majority of these vacant
remaining hillside acres are at about 30% slope or greater
ter
and the relationship to the GPAC strategy of a ratio of 1 to
2.5 acres to 1 to 2.75 acres when rural residential
properties exceeded a slope of 30%. -
Barbara Beach Courchesne, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills
Rd., referred to Page 11-16, Paragraph 1, Line 5 where it
states that Tres Hermanos could be built at densities higher
than 16 units/acre. She stated GPAC wished it to remain that
way. She suggested Diamond Bar work with the State to
convince them that because of Diamond Barls.topography 25
units/acre may not be feasible. If it is the Planning
Commission or the City Council's desire to build at that
density, they should first take a more careful look at
available facilities and services..
August 1, 1994 Page 9 Planning Commission
She wants it on record that the GPAC never intimated that
they wanted to make it difficult for development to occur in
Diamond Bar. GPAC wants country living atmosphere and high
quality types of developments and growth. That does
sometimes create difficulty and certainly creates expense,
but it is not an anti -development.
Gary Neely stated he wanted to make clear that his comments
do not relate to very low income, low income or moderate
income housing, but upper income housing. He pointed out
some inconsistencies
istencies in the document. On Page 11-22, in
order to be .consistent with the Circulation Element there is
a star on the section of Diamond Bar Blvd. located between
Pathfinder and Brea Canyon Cutoff that indicates it is
operating at level of service E or F. That intersection is
not currently identified as operating at that level of
service.
Mr. Neely also pointed out inconsistencies regarding the
Housing opportunity Map on Page 11-15 and the Vacant Land
Sub . ject to Development Restrictions Map on Page 11-24.
Chair/Meyer thanked Mr. Neely for his presentation and
commented that it was thoroughly investigated and very well
presented.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at.9:20pm.
RECONVENED: The meeting was reconvened at 9:32 p.m.
C/Flamenbaum inquired whether, in terms of the HCD housing
requirements, there is a density requirement or just number
of units..
Karen Warner replied that there is a number of units
required and there is a density criteria. As long as the
criteria for the income is met, any density achievable is
OK.
Chair/Meyer requested everyone take a few minutes and focus
on what the philosophy of the Planning Commissioner should
be in terms.of review of the Housing Element. He stated
that only 40% of the cities in the state of California have
been able to meet the State's criteria. He also noted that
the Planning Commission has been presented with the GPAC
presentation of the Housing Element which is a constraints
type of approach indicating that it's impossible for the
City of Diamond Bar to comply with the numbers given by SCAG
August 1® 1994 Page 10 Planning Commission
because of a number of unique elements that are particular
to Diamond Bar.
Chair/Meyer continued,, there may be a third approach -Which
would be a combination of both, indicating a willingness to
comply with the State goals but also outlining and
elaborating on the constraints of the City. This may make
it unrealistic to try and obtain the 781 units that have
been allocated to the City. Chair/Meypr asked the .
Commissioners to think about their philosophy And take a few
minutes to share it.
C/Flamenbaum responded that it's a shame that our children
can't live in the city in which they were raised. We should
try to do what we can to comply with State requirements to
aid low income families.
C/Schad agreed with C/Flamenbaum.
V Chair/Plunk stated she thinks Diamond Bar should try to
comply.
Chair/Meyer stated if the Commission is going to -comply, the
densities will need to increase. There should really be an
investigation in terms of the constraints as hillside
properties, circulation, etc. We should also do what's
possible to make a valiant effort to comply with our RHNA
(Regional Housing Allocation) goals. He further stated his
approach would be to take combination of the both -to take a
compliance approach and certainly identify the constraints
of this community so when the round of new RHNA numbers come
up we can actually present some viable input at that time.
C/Fong stated he doesn't think it's possible to comply 100%.
He continued on with questions on Table 11-4 , Page 11-14.
CDD/DeStefano brought up another alternative equally fraught
with.public policy issues and issues of balance and possible
political turmoil. That is the issue of changing some of
the currently designated commercial or industrial properties
that are now vacant, to residential, using Gateway Corporate
Center as an example. There is a need to provide more jobs
in Diamond Bar . There is a great imbalance in terms of jobs
and housing. Diamond Bar is an export city, exporting
labor, sales tax, etc.; we would be reducing our inventory
of commercially developable properties and the economical
development return that the City gets on that, in terms of
taxation, jobs and etc. It is an opportunity that presents
itself.
August 1, 1994 Page 11 Planning Commission
Chair/Meyer suggested going through the Housing Element page
by page.
Chair/Meyer commented on citizen participation on Page 11-2
stating it should be 38 members not 36.
C/Plunk requested that staff check for validity of the
sentence on Page 11-4, Paragraph 2; "Both the City's Code
Enforcement officer and the Building official indicate that
Diamond Bar has very few units that are considered
substandard, and all are suitable for rehabilitation."
Chair/Meyer suggested that additional documentation be added
to the Table on Page 11-5 showing the.income level reflects
1994 figures.
C/Fong, Page 11-14 footnote (1) under Vacant Land Acres for
Specific Plan should be footnote (2).
V Chair/Plunk commented this chart should be revisited.
There is also a need to talk about the slope densities
before discussing rural/residential.
C/Flamenbaum expressed concerns about Table II-4_making
making an
assumption of 2.5 acres per unit as reflected in footnote
(1).
CDD/Destefano stated that the 2.5 acre per dwelling unit was
an assumption based upon the known facts regarding many of.
the remaining vacant rural/residential properties that are
at or may even exceed 30% slopes. Based ' upon the chart in
the Land Use Elements, 1 - 2.5 acres was picked as a medium
point to come up with a number.
Chair/Meyer noted 11-14 was an important section and would
have to be revisited
C/Flamenbaum, noted on page 11-15 Housing Opportunity Areas
doesn't,reflect the land use categories that are called out.
Rural/Residential has an average of 2.5 acres per unit.
Then we say 0 - 1 dwelling unit per.acre and that isn't
shown anywhere. On the map it says 1 unit per acre.
Karen Warner responded that the map should either say
maximum units/acre to clarify that's the upper end of the
density range or be modified to use the actual density that
was used for the basis of calculating dwelling units. In
the Rural it would be the 2.5 acres/unit average. That's
why it says 1 unit/acre for Rural, because that is the
maximum. Either of those two could be used.
August 1® 1994 Page 12 Planning Commission
CDD/DeStefano suggested a 3rd alternative would be to list
the actual Slope Density Table, under Rural/Residential or
the 1 unit/acre category. Take Table 11-4 as base and change
the map to reflect the table.
V Chair/Plunk had questions regarding an apparent conflict
between the maps on 11-22 and 11-24.
CDD/DeStefano responded that the maps represent a graphic
portrayal of what the text is saying. The surgical .
precision with which one speaker has examined these maps is
not necessary for a map in the.General Plan at this scale.
CDD/Destefano suggested, it would be useful to the staff for
the Commission to determine which maps they desire and then
direct staff which inconsistences to reconcile.
V Chair/Plunk suggested the Commission go through the
document and revisit the maps. The other Commissioners
concurred.
C/Fong, stated * on page 11.-16, 2nd Paragraph, that 676 units
does not include Tres Hermanos which is currently designated
Agricultural.
CDD/DeStefano stated C ' /Fong is correct. Tres Hermanos is not
included because there are 11011 dwelling units allocated for
Tres Hermanos. The area is'supposed to remain agricultural
for the foreseeable future based upon this General Plan with
the intent that a specific plan be prepared in the future.
CDD/DeStefano responding to an inquiry by C/Flamenbaum
stated that the Hillside Ordinance does not contain a slope
density formula. It would require modification to the
Hillside.Management Ordinance to insert such a slope density
formula. It would dramatically alter the number of dwelling
units that would be permitted on the steeper slope
properties.
C/Flamenbaum questioned what would be the existing units per
acre that would be permitted under the existing Hillside
Management Ordinance.
CDD/DeStefano stated that it would be the underlying zoning
plus whatever environmental constraints the site has instead
of considerations as a result of the Hillside Management
Ordinance that cause a lessening of the density.
CDD/DeStefano continued that the previous General Plan's
Rural/Residential classification had a density of 1
unit/acre and there were several hundred more acres
August 1, 1994 Page 13 Planning Commission
classified Rural Residential. Those two factors created the
majority of the 1,900 additional dwelling units that were
anticipated within that plan. By lowering the density and
reducing the number of rural residential acres, the figure
drops dramatically'down to 676.
C/Flamenbaum stated that previously 1,220 dwelling units
could have been built on the existing land that was
classified Rural Residential. Today, the net result is 136
dwelling 'units can be built based upon what we think the
existing slope is, resulting in an apparent 90% reduction.
He asked ICA/Montgomery what the landowners could do to the
City.
ICA/Montgomery answered, that ratio would be considered a
reasonable down zoning with no cause of action as long as
there is a reasonable use of the property. One would have to
be denied all reasonable use of their property and those
definitions have been skirted back and forth.
V Chair/Plunk.questioned what happens if the court decides
that the City is denying the reasonable use of property.
ICA/Montgomery replied that the test on that is what is
reasonable and down zoning to 1 unit per 20 acres has been
approved. The benefit of the doubt goes to legislative
body.
V Chair/Plunk, asked whether the slope classification, was
taken from another city.
CDD/DeStefano replied that it was brought forward by GPAC
members.
C/Schad responded that this was heavily debated for several
days by GPAC. This was their final conclusion on it. He
stated he thinks it is a good ratio and should remain as is.
Motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Fohg that the
slope density formula should only apply to rural
residential. The motion failed 3-2 as follows:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad & Fong
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, V /Chair Plunk,
Chair/Meyer
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Chair/Meyer questioned whether there should be a Slope
Density Formula at all.
August ll 1994 Page 14 Planning Commission
C/Schad, expressed his belief that Diamond Bar should have a
Slope Density Formula because of the geology of the city in
general, and to maintain the rural appearance.
Chair/Meyer asked the commissioners if the slope density
formula should apply to all property.' The response was no.
CDD/DeStefano pointed out there is another alternative that
has yet to be expressed and which is to permit density
transfers. Concentrate the density on the areas that you
deem to be suitable for development while maintaining in
perpetuity the balance of the development site. This would
apply to the remaining vacant land and how to deal with that
in terms of preservation, element and in this case housing
issues, etc.
Chair/Meyer asked the if the commissioners want a Slope
Density Formula?
C/Fong replied since it is what the people want, it should
be left in.
Chair/Meyer stated, *"The question is - Should there be a
Slope Density Formula?"
C/Flamenbaum said NO; C/Fong, C/Schad, and Chair/Meyer said
YES; and V/Chair Plunk -ABSTAINED
Chair/Meyer directed the Commissioners to think about the
Slope Density Formula, what the percentages ought to.be and
the impact on housing before the next meeting.
V Chair/Plunk directed Staff to advise the Commission of
Slope Density Formulas in different 'Cities and what they
are.
Chair/Meyer advised that the next regularly scheduled
Planning Commission meetings are the 8th and 22nd of August.
He asked that the Commission consider having an additional
General Plan meeting on Monday, August 15, 1994.
Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by V/Chair Plunk to continue
the General Plan deliberations to Aug. 8th and reopen the
General Plan public hearing on Aug. 8th, V/Chair Plunk.
seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
August 11 1994 Page 15 Planning Commission
ADJOURNMENT:
Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried
unanimously to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:15
p.m. to Monday,. August 8, 1994, at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully,
James DeStefano
Secretary
Attest:
David Meyer
Chairman
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 17, 1994
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:14 p.m. at the
South Coast Air Quality Management District Board Room, 21865 E.
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Meyer.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Meyer; Vice Chairwoman Plunk;
Commissioners: Flamenbaum, Schad, and Fong
Also Present: Community Development Director James
De5tefano; Associate Planner .Rob Searcy;
Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Interim City
Attorney Michael Montgomery; Engineer
Consultant Mike Myers; and Recording secretary
Carol Dennis.
Absent: None
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PIIBLIC COMMENTS:
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, Diamond Bar asked for an
update on how the Planning Commission will proceed with the
final review of the General Plan and suggested hearing each
element for the benefit of those who wish to speak. He also
wanted to know when the Commission would be discussing the
addendum to the EIR;, the letter from the Walnut Unified
School District and from the Boy Scouts.
Mr. Maxwell -read from.a July 12, 1986 newspaper article which
referred to the ground breaking of the Gateway Corporate
Center and that the total build -out had not taken place by
1991 as indicated in the article.
CONTINUED PIIBLIC HEARING:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 94-2
October 17, 1994 Page 2 Planning Commission
This is a request to relocate an existing dry cleaning plant
which provides retail services to other dry cleaners as well
as the general public. The, dry cleaner is moving to a
different unit within the same commercial center located on
the northeast corner of Grand Avenue in the Ralphs Center.
Applicant requested a continuance to October 24, 1994
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing open.
Martha Bruske, 600 South Great Bend Drive, Diamond Bar asked
what the City considers an existing dry cleaning plant which
provides retail services to other dry cleaners and how many
there are in Diamond Bar. She recommends a no vote.
Chair/Mayer declared the Public Hearing closed.
Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Schad to continue the
item to October 24, 1994, 7:00 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
2. Variance No. 94-2
A request to construct a new three story single family
residence in excess of the maximum 35 ft. height limit at 1553
Deer Crossing, Diamond bar, CA 91765. Applicant requested
continuance to November 14, 1994.
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing open.
There being no testimony, Chair/Meyer closed the Public
Hearing. I
Moved by.C/Schad, seconded by C/Flamenbaum to continue the
item to November 14, 1994.
3. ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN
CDD/DeStefano stated that staff has compiled all of the
changes that the Planning Commission has recommended to date
using the format which has been utilized since the process
began in July, 1994. In addition to members of the
Commission, this document has been distributed to
approximately 70 interested parties. In addition, staff has
provided a copy of the addendum to the Environmental Impact
Report and a copy of the Draft Resolution recommending City
Council approval of the Draft General Plan.
CDD/DeStefano recommends that the Planning Commission review
the General Plan invite public testimony as is deemed
October 17, 1994 Page 3 Planning Commission
appropriate prior to the Commission's final decision on the
document.
Cha ir/Meyer stated that the Planning Commission received a
letter from the Los Angeles Area Council for the Boy Scouts of
America requesting a modification in the land use designation
of their property within the Commission's sphere of influence.
In addition, the Commission has received two letters from the
SASAK Corporation indicating discomfort in the Land Use
Designation of their property, and one letter from Bramelea
indicating dissatisfaction for the proposed Land Use
Designation of their property.
CDD/DeStef ano indicated that Bramalea and SASAK are asking for
a Land Use Designation of RL with a PD attachment.
ICA/Montgomery reported that he has answered the letters with
respect to the issue of "taking" and does not feel there is a
"taking" with the present Land Use Designation.
C/Flamenbaum stated that he has met with Mr. Johnson from
Bramalea and it is his understanding that Bramalea seeks to
execute the MOU as a combined PD/OS designation.
CDD/DeStefano responded that the property has a development
restriction and Bramaleals belief is that it is does not
constitute an Open Space easement. The current PD/OS
designation on the Map does not permit them to develop the
Memorandum of. Understanding.. Bramelea would prefer a
residential density and open space under a planned development
overlay which would allow them to develop according to the
Memorandum of Understanding.
Responding to C/Flamenbaum, CDD/DeStefano cited Tres Hermanos
as the example for Agricultural specific Plan, the intent of
the designation in the General Plan is Agricultural. However,
in the future and with increasing development pressure it is
anticipated that the landowner will wish to pursue development
of the property. When that occurs, the City will request a
specific plan. Chair/Meyer is correct in stating that at
some point, a General Plan change would be required.
ICA/Montgomery stated that if Bramalea has a Map Restricted
open.Space they would have to have a General Plan, "A Zone"
and a Public Hearing which would permit them to modify the
designation.
CDD/DeStefano stated the Bramalea property on Diamond Bar
Boulevard consists of approximately 50 acres of residentially
October 17, 1994 Page 4 Planning Commission
zoned property that is not restricted by Map or Deed
notations. The developer also has several hundred restricted
acres on either side of the 50 acres. The MOU attempts to
allow for development on about 70 of those High Crest acres
which will allow for up to 130 homes. In exchange for this,
the City is to receive all of the perimeter open space as
public land. If the Planning Commission is interested in this
concept, CDD/DeStefano indicated that the Commission may wish
to designate the use of the property more specifically
RR/OS/PD and indicate that the 70 acres along High Crest would
be permitted a maximum of 130-135 dwelling units.
Chair/Meyer asked if the current Land Use Designation
prohibits the developer from filing an application or specific
plan on the entire 400 acres.
CDD/DeStefano responded that it does not.
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing open on the Draft
General Plan.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, Diamond Bar, stated he feels
specific planned development is an opportunity to abuse any
part of the program and suggests that the designation for
Bramalea be OS and RR where specific building is planned.
Responding to Mr. Maxwell, Chair/Meyer pointed out that the
strip of land along the freeway in the South Pointe Master
Plan has been designated Public Right -of -Way.
Mr. Maxwell stated that he believes the RL designation on the
Land Use Map should be modified so that Lot 61 can be seen as
touching.Grand Avenue. The Tres Hermanos plan is acceptable
because they have been working on a specific plan.
Responding to Mr. Maxwell, Chair/Meyer stated that with
respect to the Boy Scout area in Tonner Canyon, Agriculture
designation had been dropped. Mr. Maxwell stated that this is
not acceptable and recommends the designation be returned to
Agriculture.
Regarding the General Plan, Page 1 Introduction, Mr. Maxwell
says he believes the first line, which was stricken by the
Planning commission should be put back in. He also stated
that the significant ecological area on the West side of the
57 near the Brea Canyon cutoff is farther North than shown on
Page 8.
October 17, 1994 Page 5 Planning commission
On Page 1-2, referring to the 2,751 acres left to be
developed, Mr. Maxwell stated he believes this figure is
incorrect. Responding to Mr. Maxwell, Ms. Warner indicated
that she used the figures which were available. Chair/Meyer
asked that this be reviewed and verified.
On Page 1-4 and 1-5, Mr. Maxwell pointed out that it appears
that nothing has been done about Parks and Recreation and Open
Space in separating it. He feels that these are two separate
issues and would like to see it broken out and separated in
the Chart.
Mr. Maxwell continued to Page 1-7 referring to Map and Deed
Restrictions, he stated that the paragraph under issue
analysis in the middle of the page should be stricken.
Referring to the last paragraph, Mr. Maxwell says he believes
transfer of development rights should be sold.
Mr. Maxwell stated that he wants
s "encourage development of
Gated Communities" dropped from the General Plan.
Referring to Page VI -6, Strategy 2. 1. 1 "promote the
intensification of the sales tax generating potential, of
existing -future commercial areas within the City", Mr. Maxwell
says, in his opinion, this needs to be rephrased.
On Page 1-8, freeway visibility should have been addressed and
specify which parcels are freeway visible, Mr. Maxwell stated.
Responding to Mr. Maxwell's confusion regarding changes,
CDD/DeStefano referred Mr. Maxwell to the notation on the
cover of the General Plan which has been used since inception.
Mr. Maxwell stated he believes that the last sentence, Page I-
10 Strategies: 1. 1. 1 a. "The dwelling units per acre in RURAL
RESIDENTIAL (RR) -zone shall be dependent upon topography
(slope grade) as shown in Table 1-3.11 should be left in the
General Plan.
Referring to Page I-11, f. fourth line "at 25 percent." Mr.
Maxwell stated that 25 percent is way too high and should
start in a 15 to 20 percent bracket.
Page 1-12, 1.1.8 should be eliminated from the General Plan,
Mr. Maxwell stated.
Mr. Maxwell indicated that Page 1-13, Strategies 1.2.5, won't
sell in Diamond Bar.
October 17, 1994 Page 6 Planning Commission
Mr. Maxwell stated he hopes the Planning Commission will
delete Page 1-14, Strategies 1.3.2.
Chair/Meyer asked Mr. Maxwell if he feels Diamond Bar business
should not be visible from the freeway. '
Responding to Chair/Meyer, Mr. Maxwell stated that Diamond Bar
is a bedroom community and there are specific areas such as
the Gateway Center which was supposed to have been fully
developed.
Chair/Meyer pointed out that there has been a recession.
Responding to Mr. Maxwell's confusion regarding the General
Plan document, Chair/Meyer stated that the Planning Commission
has been asked to deliver a document to the City Council in
the manner -presented and that staff has been following the
original outline.
Mr. Maxwell continuing to Page I-17, 1.5.5, land entitlements,
stated that he feels this is wrong.
Mr. Maxwell pointed out on Page V-12, second paragraph, fourth
line that "three travel lanes" should read "four or five
travel lanes".
Regarding Page VI -3, C. third paragraph, Mr. Maxwell asked if
the sentence, "A master drainage plan will need to be
developed for the City and its sphere of influence." refers to
Tonner Canyon as part of the sphere of influence.
Mr. Maxwell stated that he will provide a•copy of the Walnut
Tree Ordinance for the Commission's review. He feels a
Hillside Ordinance or Tree Ordinance should be implemented in
Diamond Bar immediately and included in the General Plan.
Robert Huff, 1641 Fire Hollow, Diamond Bar stated he believes
most citizens are in favor of the Memorandum of Understanding
from Bramelea; however, there is concern that they will
somehow get around the memorandum and develop the property
even further. He stated that he would caution the Commission
not to restrict Bramaleals ability to enact the MOU and would
encourage the Commission to 'consider 'CDD/DeStefano's
recommendation of RR/OS/PD which would accomplish both
objectives.*
Referring to Land Use, Mr. Huff indicated that the General
Plan is more restrictive that he would like to see. In the
Circulation Element, Page V-18 and V-15 regarding bicycle
October 17, 1994 Page 7 Planning Commission
trails it appeared that the Traffic and Transportation
Commission had indicated Grand Avenue as a possible bike
route.
Responding to Mr. Huff, C/Flamenbaum stated that V-18 and V-19
refer to current bike routes and that there are. several
instances in the General Plan where the verbage "put more bike
routes in" occurs. Chair/Meyer added the Plan also indicates
"to hook up with the regional system", as well.
Chair/Meyer referred Mr. Huff to Page V-28, Strategy 1.2.8.
Mr. Huff, referring to Page V-26, Strategy 1.1.4, stated that
he understands why the plan is restrictive with respect to
Tonner Canyon. However, he feels that an. environmentally
sensitive by-pass road should be located somewhere in the area
as one of the solutions to the long-term traffic problems in
Diamond Bar area.
Mr. Huff closed by stating that he feels the document has been
improved by the Planning Commission and offered his thanks for
the Commission's efforts.
Responding to Chair/Meyer, CDD/DeStefano stated that he is not
aware of anything in the Circulation Element which would
preclude review of a by-pass road in conjunction with a
specific plan for Tres Hermanos. The larger issue is whether
a road goes in and where it does because each of the involved
cities has a completely different view.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, Diamond Bar requested the
Commission to recommend to the City Council that the General
Plan be placed on the ballot.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed
the public hearing and returned the matter to the Planning
Commission for consideration.
RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:32 p.m.
RECONVENE: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:48 p.m.
3. ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN, continued.
Responding to Chair/Meyer, CDD DeStefano recommended
improvements to the Acknowledgements page to include some
other staff members.
October 17, 1994 Page 8 Planning Commission
Regarding Page 11 of the Introduction, I. GENERAL PLAN FORMAT,
the first line should be amended to read: "The 1994 Diamond
Bar Draft General Plan is divided into three documents for
ease of reference" and add 11 Document 3®® sub -heading "Master
Environmental Assessment (adopted 7/14/92)." Add to the last
sentence under Item #2, "and is incorporated as referenced as
part of the 1994 General Plan."
CDD/DeStefano indicated that the List of Tables and List of
Figures within the Land Use Element needs to have language to
make the tables consistent with the tables within the text.
Table I-1 should read: "Citywide Existing Land Uses; Table
1-2 should read: "Sphere of Influence Existing Land Uses";
Table 1-4 should read: "Land Use Development Capacity
Summary."
Page 1-28, Land Use Element, third paragraph, Item 2, third
line should be corrected to read. For example, Figure 1-3
illustrates that a 10,000 square foot building on a 40,000
square foot lot yields a FAR of 0.25:1.11
Page I-11, Land Use Element, strategy 1.1.1 f., eliminate the
last five words so that the last sentence read: "Average
slope is defined as follows:".
Page 1-12, 1.1.6, sixth line change the sentence to read:
"This designation carries with it a maximum development
potential of one single family unit per existing parcel unless
construction was previously restricted or prohibited on such
properties by the County of Los Angeles."
CDD/DeStefano stated that within 1.1.6, •sub -section a. is
already stated in the Resource Management Element, fourth
bullet on Page III -11. Staff recommends that it be eliminated
from the Land Use Element.
The following are generally clean-up items: Under Land Use
Element 1-17, change Strategy 1.5.4 to 1.5.3; eliminate the
words "Move to Page III -10, objective 1.2, Strategy 1.2.111
following Strategy 1.5.5, which has been eliminated; under
Strategy 1.5.6, delete (combined w/1.5".4); following strategy
1.5.5 strike (1.2.9 moved from 1-13 & 1-16).
Staff further recommends that the Planning Commission discuss
the Boy Scouts' request, the Bramalea request, and the SASAK
request.
With respect to the Map, Page 1-25, the Commission may wish to
redesignate the South Coast Air Quality Management District
October 17, 1994 Page 9 Planning Commission
Building as a Public Facilities Land Use classification. The
real issue is the Commission's vision for the future of
Diamond Bar and whether you envision SCAQMD being here fifteen
to twenty years from now. In addition, the area of the Post
Office should also be designated a Public Facility'. it is
presently designated as Commercial Office.
Regarding Table 1-4 on Page 1-26, staff has provided the
Planning Commission with an errata sheet with the proper
calculations which match the text and match the Housing
Element.
Following discussion by the Planning Commission, a motion was
made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by Chair/Meyer to leave the
Land Use Designation for South Coast Air Quality Management,
as shown on the map.. The motion carried 4-1 with roll call as
follows:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Fong, Schad, Flamenbaum
Chair/Meyer
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
VC/Plunk
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
In response to Chair/Meyer, CDD/DeStefano stated that, from
staff's perspective it is. important to implement the
Memorandum of Understanding with respect to the Bramalea
property. For purposes of clarification the Commission* may
wish to designate the property RR/OS/.with the PD and add the
following strategy: "Encourage, formation of a Planned
Development, or a specific Plan, for approximately 400 acres
located East of Diamond Bar Boulevard, North of Grand Avenue,
South of Gold Rush, and at the terminus of High Crest Avenue.
Appropriate land uses may include 135 units of single family
residences concentrated along the anticipated extension of
High Crest Avenue, with the balance of the property to remain
in -open Space uses-"
Following discussion, a motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, and
seconded by Chair/Meyer to change the designation on the two
Bramalea parcels to RR/RL/OS/SP. Following discussion, the
motion was modified by C/Flamenbaum, to RR/OS/SP.
Chair/Meyer restated the motion as follows: The portion of
land which is designated RR and consists of 50 acres will be
increased to 70 acres and the designation changed to RL/SP,
and to change the designation from PD/OS to OS/SP on the
remaining land. The motion as modified and restated was
October 17, 1994 Page 10 Planning Commission
seconded by C/Schad. The motion carried 4-1 with the roll
call as follows:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS Fong, Flamenbaum, Schad,
Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Plunk
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
A motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by C/Schad to
adopt a strategy as follows: Strategy 1.6.5, Page I-18, Land
Use Element and renumber the existing 1.6.5 as 1.6.6.
"Develop a specific plan for the 400 acres known as the
Bramalea property located East of Diamond Bar Boulevard, North
of Grand Avenue, South of Gold Rush, and at the Terminus of
High Crest Avenue. Appropriate land uses may include single
family residential dwelling units concentrated along the
anticipated extension of High Crest Avenue with the balance of
the property to remain in Open Space uses." The motion
carried unanimously 5-0.
A motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and .seconded by C/Fong to
leave SASAK as is. Motion carried 3-2 with the roll call as
follows:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Flamenbaum, Schad
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Plunk, Chair/Meyer
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
A motion was made by C/Flamenbaum to,leave the Boy Scout Land
Use Designation as SP. The motion died for lack of a second.
Responding to a discussion by members of the Planning
Commission, CDD/DeStefano stated that the Boy Scouts are
asking for an AG/SP designation, which is similar to Tres
Hermanos.
A motion was made by C/Fang and seconded by C/Schad to change
the Boy Scout Land Use designation as AG/SP. The motion
carried 4-1 with roll call as follows:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Fong, Schad, VC/Plunk,
Chair/Meyer
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Flamenbaum
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSI.ONERS:
None
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
October 17, 1994 Page 11 Planning Commission
CDD/DeStefano added the following item to staff Is recommended
corrections: Mr. Maxwell is correct in stating that Lots 1
and 61 should both be designated OS.
Page I-9 of the Land Use Element, Section 2.a. Natural
Resources, add to the last sentence after the word "resources"
the following: "or on areas subject to hazards such as
flooding (refer to flood hazards map in the Master
Environmental Assessment."
On Page I-27 of the Land Use Element, Table I-5, add a column
entitled "Population at General Plan. Buildout" 1156,600
persons" and add footnote 10(5) Population based on 3.17
persons per occupied dwelling unit." CDD/DeStefano stated
that the present population of Diamond Bar is approximately
55,000.
Referring to the Housing Element, Page II -15, CDD/DeStefano
indicated that Table II -4 which is on the first Page II -15; be
renumbered Page II -15a, and where the TOTALS are indicated at
the bottom of the table, new corrected figures will be .entered
based upon the revised calculations. Under Land Use Category
Specific Plan, eliminate one of the (1) and change footnote
(2) to footnote (1). The Unit Totals will be changed to
approximately 1,213 with the Bramalea number added.
The next page, also known as Page II-15.should be renumbered
Page II -15b.
Page II -22 with the text becomes II -22a and the next page with
the map which is also numbered II-22,becomes II -22b.
CDD/DeStefano reported that concludes the changes to the
Housing Element.
RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 10:18 p.m.
RECONVENE: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 10:28 p.m.
CDD/DeStefano indicated the following changes to the Resource
Management Element: Page III -5, Item 4. Water Resources, add
a final sentence to read: "A complete discussion of water
resources is contained in the Master Environmental
Assessment." The second paragraph under Item 4. Water
Resources, fifth line, the end of the sentence that says "in
excess of these levels." add a sentence to read: A discussion
of peak demand water supply requirements is contained in the
Master Environmental Assessment."
October 17, 1994 Page 12 Planning commission
C/Flamenbaum suggested that on Page 111-5, Item 4. Water
Resources, second paragraph, line seven that "on the order" be
deleted so that the sent - ence reads; .(Beginning at line five)
"A Master Plan of Water is being prepared by the Walnut Valley
Water Municipal District which estimates a buildout population
for Diamond Bar of.approximately 75,000 residents, which is
higher than the estimated buildout of the City."
Moving to Public Health and Safety Element, Page IV -,2 under
Item 1. Geology and seismicity, third paragraph, end of the
first sentence, staff directs the Planning Commission to add
the following sentence: "A discussion and maps of geologic
hazards are contained in the Master Environmental Assessment."
Page IV -3, under Item 5. Emergency Services and Facilities,
add a final sentence to the paragraph which reads: "Minimum
road widths and clearances around structures as related to
emergency access and fire prevention are - specified in the City
Code."
CDD/DeStefano concluded his remarks with respect to the Public
Health and Safety Element and moved to the -Circulation
Element, Page V-1. At the bottom of the page indicating "The
Circulation Element addresses the following issues: add a
sentence after 11. Goods Movement" which reads: Public
Services and Facilities are described separately in the Public
Services and Facilities Element."
On Page V-28, under Strategy 2.1.8 which discusses the
bikeways and based upon the earlier discussion, staff
recommends adding the following: "The City shall develop a
Master Plan of Bikeways."
In response to questions from the Commission, City Engineer
Mike Meyers stated that "bikeways" is the more common term to
include bike paths and all of the Class I, Class II and Class
III. Some are bike lanes, bike paths, etc. and bikeways is
the common term; however, we are using bike routes in our
Designated Bicycle Routes Map so it could be stated either
way.
CDD/DeStefano stated that this concludes recommended changes
from staff.
Regarding the Environmental addendum, Chair/Meyer questioned
the validity of Page 12, second from last paragraph, 1994
General Plan (Impact: Significant but mitig4ble) ' The 1994
General Plan Land Use Element begins with this sentence: "It
October 17, 1994 Page 13 Planning Commission
is the desire of the City of Diamond barto maintain a rural
and country living environment."
Chair/Meyer further requested that Page 13, third paragraph,
line 5, (3) be corrected to read: "replace fresh drinking
water for wildlife when natural water areas are removed or
blocked;" also seen in the Resource Management Element, Page
III -11, bullet four.
Chair/Meyer asked if Page 13, third paragraph, line 8, (5) had
been modified.
CDDjDeStefano responded that a similarly worded strategy was
kept in the General Plan, Page 1-17, 1.5.3.
Chair/Meyer questioned the verbiage on Page 15, second
paragraph, fourth line, (1).
CDD/DeStefano responded that the wording is found on Page vi -
5, Strategy 1.1.6, as follows: "Require all new housing
development in Diamond Bar to be CONNECTED TO a public sewage
system."
CDD/DeStefano indicated a typographical error on Page 1 of the
Addendum Number 2 under (a) (1) and that it should be
corrected to read: None of the conditions described in
Section 15162 calling for a preparation of a subsequent EIR
have occurred;"
Chair/Meyer referred to 'the Draft Resolution No. 94 -XX, Page
3, item d. and indicated that the Commission is presenting a
recommended 1994 Draft, that the words "as,amended" should be
stricken. so that the paragraph reads: "The 1994 Draft General
Plan is consistent with the State of California policies,
rules, regulations, and guidelines;" Also on Page 3,
paragraph 3 and 4, lines 3 and 3 and 4 respectively, strike
"as amended".
C/Schad indicated that he would like a request for Tree
Ordinance placed on a future Planning Commission agenda.
C/Fong indicated the following changes and corrections: Under
Land Use Element, Page 1-4, - Table I-11 under Parks/Rec the
Percentage of Total City Acres seems to be incorrect and
therefore, the totals do not add to 100% and insert "City in
the far right column heading so that it read: "Percent ,of
Total City Acres".
October 17, 1994 Page 14 Planning Commission
Page I-5, under bottom left. hand column TOTAL, underline
(Within Sphere of Influence) and strike the underline from the
second column total of 3,591.0.
Page 2-16, Strategy 1.4.6 and 1.4.7 add an (s) to school at
the end of each sentence.
Page I-19, Strategy 2.1.1 a. add to the end of the sentence,
"and properly addressed." so that it reads: "Prior to
approving new development or the intensification of existing
development within the City of Diamond Bar, ensure that the
environmental consequences of the proposed action have been
recognized and properly addressed."
Page I-24 F. Land Use Plan, fourth line, strike the second
"Table" after Use Plan Development Capacity Summary Table and
under second paragraph of 1. Land Use Designation, verify the
number 15 land use designations. CDD/DeStefano responded that
it should read 16 land use designations.
C/Fong continued to Page I-26 and I-27 of the Land Use Element
and suggested that the Table's should be renumbered to I-3 and
I-4 respectively, and that the Dwelling & Units column heading
on Page I-26 should be fixed to show Dwelling on one line.
With respect to the Housing Element, C/Fong offered the
following changes: On Page II -22b, remove Brea Canyon Cutoff
from the map.
C/Fong suggested the following changes in the Public Health
and Safety Element: Page IV -2, B. 1., Geology and Seismicity,
restate the first sentence to read as follows: "Diamond Bar
is located in a dynamic geological region,, underlain by
several thousand feet of sediments which were laid down over
the last 25 million years."
Following the first sentence of Paragraph 3 on Page IV -2, B.
1. add a sentence to read: "A discussion and map of
geological hazards are contained in the Master Environmental
Assessment."
City Engineer Michael Meyers indicated the following changes
to the Circulation Element: Page V-17, 4, a. indent Class I,
Class I and Class I Bikeway paragraphs and bring the sentence
following Class I Bikeway paragraph to left margin and correct
the sentence to read: "Figure V-3 shows Existing Designated
Bike Routes in the City of Diamond Bar."
October 17, 1994 Page 15 Planning commission
On Page V-18, correct Legend on the map to include Class I
designation.
On Page V-22 show Walnut Drive designated as Truck Route to
coincide with the legend.
C/Fong indicated the following changes with respect to the
Public Services and Facilities Element. Page VI -6, Strategy
2.1.1, third line correct spelling of "intensification" (add
an o).
Page VI -7, add a first line before strategies at the top of
the 'page to read: "Objective 2.3 Promote a balance of public
and private provision of services and amenities to the
community."
A motion was made by VC/Plunk and seconded by C/Schad to Adopt
the Resolution to adopt the 1994 Draft General Plan as
amended. The motion carried unanimously 5-0.
A motion was made by VC/Plunk and seconded by C/Flamenbaum
requesting transmittal of a letter to City Council indicating
the approximate cost for the 1994 Draft General Plan document.
The motion carried 4-1 with the following roll call.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Schad, Flamenbaum,
VC/Plunk
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Meyer
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
CDD/DeStefano thanked the Planning Commission on behalf of the
staff. .
C/Schad offered thanks to the staff on behalf of the Planning
Commission for their support.
Chair/Meyer declared the meeting adjourned at 11:22 p.m.
Respectfully,
James DeStefano
Secretary
Attest:
David Meyer
Chairman
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 24, 1994
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. at the
South Coast Air Quality' Management District office, Diamond Bar,
California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Meyer.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Meyer; Vice Chairwoman Plunk;
Commissioners: Schad and Fong
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu;
Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery,
Engineer Consultant Mike Myers; Senior Engineer
David Liu; Assistant Engineer Anne Garvey; and
Recording Secretary Carol Dennis
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-3
This is a request to relocate an existing dry cleaning plant
which provides retail services to other dry cleaners as well
as the general public. The dry 'cleaner is moving to a
different unit within the same commercial center located on
the northeast corner of Grand Avenue in the Ralphs Center.
Property Location: 1164 Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar,
CA 91765
AP/Lungu pointed out the Applicant is the.business owner, Mr.
Jong Hoon Shin.
AP/Lungu stated that Conditional Use Permit No. , 94-3 is a
request for approval to relocate an existing dry cleaning
establishment currently located at 1164 Diamond Bar Boulevard
in the Ralphs Shopping Center at the southeast corner of Grand
Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard. The establishment was
previously located to the West of Ralphs where Block Buster
Video will be located and the dry cleaner will relocate to the
space just West of the Boston Store. The reason for the move
is to accommodate BLOCKBUSTER Video.
October 24, 1994 Page 2 Planning Commission
The proposed Project is located in a C-3 zone and, a dry
cleaning establishment is allowed. Upon approving the tenant
improvements, the applicant informed the City that the dry
cleaning plant operates as a retail plant taking in dry
cleaning for other establishment, as well as his own.
Pursuant to Code 22.28 210, a retail dry cleaning plant is
required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. The dry cleaning
establishment, will be located in a unit which is 1,330 square
feet which is adequate for the use. The equipment includes
one dry cleaning unit, four pressing units, a spotting board,*
and a conveyor for hanging clean garmets. In addition, there
is an existing 4211 water tower. The maximum number of
employees will be four and the hours of operation will be
Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and on
Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
The required and provided number of parking spaces for the
Ralphs Center is 436 and this Project will not impact parking
requirements currently imposed. Ingress and egress is
adequate for the proposed use. Signage is not a part of this
application.
South Coast Air Quality Management District requires an Air
Pollution Control Permit to operate a dry cleaning plant for
the purpose of controlling the amount of perchloroethylene
that is released into the atmosphere during the dry cleaning
process. . This Permit is renewed annually and records
concerning the dry cleaning process must be available to South
Coast Air Quality Management District for review as required.
The applicant has applied and received all required permits.
I
The proposed Project has been determined not to pose a
significant impact on the environment and, as such, a negative
declaration has been prepared according to the guidelines of
the Environmental Quality Act. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission open the Public Hearing, receive public
testimony, and approve the Negative Declaration on the
attached Resolution with the Findings of Facts and Conditions
as listed.
Responding to Chair/Meyer, CDD/DeStefano stated that the
Conditions in the Staff Report are not the same Conditions
which are applicable to the Conditional Use Permit for the
existing location. The existing dry cleaning operation has
been in the Ralphs Shopping Center since the first occupancy
of the Center. At that time, the Conditional Use Permit
process was not a part of the Los Angeles County Code.
Chair/Meyer declared open the Public Hearing.
October 24, 1994 Page 3 Planning Commission
Stan Heikkinen, General Manager, Nikko Capital Corporation,
3961 Mac Arthur boulevard, Suite 105, -Newport Beach, CA 92660
stated that he agrees with the conditions and.indicated that
this is a change for better in that Nikko Capital Corporation
has provided Mr. Shin with all new equipment which complies
with the lastest standards of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District.
C/Schad inquired if there are sufficient safeguards to prevent
toxic fumes from leaking through the walls.
Mr. Heikkinen responded that there are, since the new
equipment which the landlord purchased for the tenant complies
with the standards.
Chair/Meyer declared closed the Public Hearing.
Motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Fong to Adopt the
Resolution as presented. Motion was carried unanimously.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-1(1)/DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 94-1
The Conditional Use Permit application is a request for the
development of Phase 1 of a Medical Complex with professional
offices and urgent care facilities pursuant to Conditional Use
Permit No. 91-1 approved by the Planning Commission in
February, 1993.
CDD/DeStefano stated that this is a review of a modification
proposed to a Conditional Use Permit for the Intercommunity
Medical Plaza Project which was approved by the Planning
Commission approximately 18. months ago.' The Architectural
Review is presented as a component of the Development Review
Application for Phase 1 of the three Phase Project. This
Project of approximately 425,000 square feet is phased in over
a twenty year period. An Environmental Impact Report was
processed in 1991 and 1992 and approved in 1993 with the
umbrella Conditional Use Permit.
The applicant is requesting an extension of one year in
addition to the two year extension within the Conditional Use
Permit approved in 1993. In addition, the applicant seeks a
modification of specific components of the Phase 1 Review to
the Conditional Use Permit.
This Project is a 43 acre development, of which 26 Acres are
flat and located at 887 Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, East of
Calvary Chapel. The property is zoned Residential and
Commercial with Residential zoning on the undeveloped hillside
October 24, 1994 Page 4 Planning Commission
portion. The Project site is about 150 feet below the
Montef ino Townhome Project and is abut. 70 to 80 feet above the
Calvary Chapel. The -current and -prior Draft General Plan's
have incorporated this site as office Professional with a
Planned Development overlay. The concept of the Planned
Development is that this site, along with the Calvary Chapel
property and property extending to Copley Drive, would be
incorporated within a Master Plan.
The applicant has conducted value engineering and has made
modifications in design with respect to use and architectural
treatment. Construction is scheduled to begin the first part
of 1995.
In 1993 the Planning Commission approved a Diagnostic and
Treatment Center of Approximately 25,000 square feet. This
proposal is to increase the Center by about 3,200 square feet
to a total of about 28,000 square feet. The Commission
previously approved a Medical office building of approximately
40,000 square feet. This modification incorporates an
application to approve a Medical office Building of about
45,000 square feet, an increase of about 5,000 square feet.
The prior application for Phase 1 incorporated a Hotel or
Recovery Center of approximately 13,500 square feet and 20
beds. The Phase I Project as now proposed is a Recovery
Center of about 14 beds and it is included as a part of the
Diagnostic and Treatment Center.
The original approval for .Phase I incorporated a*Helipad which
is now omitted from the Phase 1 components. In total, the
78,000 square 'foot original approval has been reduced to
approximately 73,000 square feet in the proposed
modifications. As a result of further engineering, a new
driveway from Grand Avenue has been proposed. This will
require the construction of retaining walls which will range
in height from about three (3) feet to a maximum of about 21
feet. At a future date, this proposed drive will be used as
a main entrance serving this development, as well as future
development on the Calvary Chapel property. When the Master
Plan is complete, this proposed drive will serve as a
connection to Golden Springs Drive. The Project contains the
same basic setbacks. The original approval incorporated a
height maximum of 75 feet. The proposed structure closest to
Grand Avenue has a maximum height of about 24 feet and the
primary building further West of Grand Avenue has a proposed
height of about 49 feet.
The City engaged Marc Blodgett, David Evans and Associates,
Inc. who performed an assessment of this Project modification.
October 24, 1994 Page 5 Planning Commission
They concluded, As a result of this Project's Environmental
Impact, there is no further work required as a result of this
proposed modification.
Two letters have been received from citizens who are concerned
about the impact of this Project. Donald Stangretti, 2970
Estoril Drive, Diamond Bar expressed concern about the view
from his home and the traffic impact on Grand Avenue and the
lack of access from the Project directly to Golden Springs.
CDD/DeStefano indicated that contained within the
Environmental Report for this Project is a series of
mitigation measures which deal with the completion of the
signal at 800 South Grand Avenue. There are conditions and
mitigation measures in, the original Hospital approval which
incorporates a development of a Circulation System that would
eventually lead to Golden Springs and the development of the
necessary drive aisles and signalization.
The Calvary Chapel Project had a number of conditions which
required them to work with the Hospital toward. the development
of a Master Plan and to provide the City with right-of-way and
fees to widen the intersection at Grand Avenue and Golden
Springs Drive and develop a signal on Golden Springs Drive at
the main drive aisle for the Church.
CDD/DeStefano referred to the second letter from the
Applicant, Citrus Valley Health Partners, indicating the
status of discussions with Calvary Chapel regarding the road
Specific Alignment and the Master Plan.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt two
Resolutions: one which modifies the previously approved
Conditional Use Permit for an extension of time; and one for
the proposed modified Architectural and Site Plan.
Chair/Meyer declared open the Public Hearing and invited the
applicant and/or representatives to speak.
Larry 'Tanouye, Contract Manager, Citrus Valley Health
Partners, stated that in the 19801s, American Health Care
Management purchased the subject property to build a 200 bed
Acute Care Facility. In the mid 19801s, American Health Care
Management entered into bankruptcy and about 1989, they were
ordered to divest themselves of all non -revenue producing
assets and Inter -community purchased the property shortly
thereafter. Upon purchase of the. property, two groups were
formed, a Physician Advisory Committee and a Community
Advisory Committee, in order to gain input since the members
were from Diamond Bar and the immediate 'surrounding areas.
October 24, 1994 Page 6 Planning Commission
Based 'upon about 17 meetings with the Community Advisory
Committee, eight meetings with the Physician Advisory
Committee, and two additional joint meetings with the public
present, the foundation for the Project was established.
April, 1994 when Inter -community merged with Queen of the
Valley Hospital, the Board of Directors of the new corporate
entity embraced this Project. Since hospitals are suffering
financially from an in-patient load, the focus for this
Project is on out-patient care.
Responding to CDD/DeStefano, Mr. Tanouye indicated that as a
condition Citrus Valley Health Partners was asked to
communicate with Calvary Chapel regarding an access road to
Golden Springs Drive. During an October 12, 1994 meeting with
Bernie Grant, he indicated that they have not formulated a
Master Plan and were unable to proceed with discussions.
Nick Rehnberg, Boulder Associates Architects, 4747 Table Mesa
Drive, Boulder, Colorado provided the Planning Commission with
a visual of the Master Plan Site Plan which was approved in
April, 1993 and shows the full 15 year buildout -of the site.
The revised site plan is for the Phase I buildout of the
Diag nostic Treatment Center and the Medical office Complex.
The proposed Project is the same elements of the original
Phase 1 and the square footage has been adjusted slightly.
The proposal is for a three-8tory Medical Office Building and
a single story Diagnostic Treatment Center. The Diagnostic
Treatment Center is proposed to have Urgent Care Center, Out-
patient Surgery, Out-patient Imaging and about 23 Hour Care
Beds (Extended Stay Beds). The building has been pushed back
away from the edge of the site, in lieu of'the original scheme
which would obscure more of the roof plan from the residential
plateau above (Montefino Townhome Complex). Also, A service
drive, mobile docking bay and service entrance have been
located along the back of the building for the same effect.
The original building was anticipated to be four-story,
stepping down to three -stories at the edges with a series of
vertical towers marking the front of the building. The
revised scheme is a three-story Medical Office Building, with
more subtle vertical The
and a one-story Diagnostic
Treatment. Center. The majority of the materials in the
originally proposed material palet have been retained.
In response to C/Schad, Mr. Rehnberg indicated that ambulances
will not come into the docking bay area since there is not an
Emergency Room/Trauma Center proposed for Phase 1. This area
is designed to accommodate only out-patient services.
October 241 1994 Page 7 Planning Commission
Facilities for ambulances services is contemplated for Phase
2 as part of the Acute Care. There is no ' thing scheduled for
Phase 1 which would generate any sort of offensive odors.
C/Fong asked Mr. Rehnberg to describe the Phase 2 and Phase 3
future developments and how they relate to the Phase 1 Project
Plan.
Mr. Rehnberg responded that Phase 2 was envisioned as a sixty
(60) bed in-patient tower which would be located toward the
rear of the site with additional acute diagnostic tools, such
as additional imaging space, and cafeteria space (required for
licensing an Acute Care Hospital) and Phase 3 building would
be a mirror image of Phase 1 building.
Responding to VC/Plunk, CDD/DeStefano indicated that the
proposal includes approximately 376 standard parking spaces
out of which approximately 45 are handicapped spaces. This is
an increase from the prior Phase 1 proposal. When this
project was first contemplated there was a policy to avoid the
use of compact parking stalls even though they are permitted
under the Diamond Bar City Code. With regard to Page 7, 20E
of the EIR No. 91-4/CUP 91-1, this condition will remain a
part of the proposed Phase 1 modification.
VC/Plunk asked if the Traffic and Transportation Commission
had been contacted for input regarding the proposed Phase 1
changes.
SE/Liu responded that the Traffic and Transportation
Commission has not been consulted.
Richard* Jankowski, 22801 Chardonnay Drive #2, asked if the
sound of diesel trucks, etc. from the service drive close to
the hillside will impact his property on a 24 hour basis.
With the addition of the proposed MRF and Target in the
immediate area, Mr. Jankowski is very concerned that there
will be a major impact to traffic on Golden Springs and Grand
Avenue.
Responding to Mr. Jankowski, Mr. Tanouye stated that in an
out-patient setting service deliveries will be made between
the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing closed.
C/Flamenbaum asked why the applicant was asking for a one-year
extension in lieu of a two year extension.
October 24, 1994 Page 8 Planning Commission
Mr. Tanouye responded that the applicant would prefer a two
year extension.
In response to C/Flamenbaum, Mr. Tafiouye indicated that the
applicant would entertain a condition stating that routine
delivery service would be performed during regular business
hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p1m.
Responding to C/Fong, Nick Renburg stated that there will be
consideration give to a crib wall in place of the proposed
straight vertical wall.
C/Schad voiced concern that the roof air-conditioning system
might raise the decibel level at the top of the hill in the
Montefino Complex.
Nick Rehnberg responded that lower decibel equipment will be
considered for the rooftop.
RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:22 p.m.
RECONVENED: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:37 p.m.
In response to Chair/Meyer, Senior Engineer David Liu
responded that the intersection modification at Grand and
Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand and Golden Springs will be
completed in conjunction with the traffic signal
synchronization and resurfacing projects along Grand Avenue in
March or April, 1995. Engineering is working with the Public
Works Department for the development of the synchronization
and traffic signal modifications which includes a dual left
turn lane for northbound Golden Springs Drive at Grand Avenue.
In addition, with. the addition of the right turn lane from
Golden Springs Drive onto Grand Avenue, the bike lane was
eliminated from Grand Avenue southward, however, with the
additional 15 foot right-of-way which will be acquired from
the Calvary Chapel, the bike lane will be re-established.
Although no specific dedication of land along Grand Avenue is
reflected on the applicant's site plan, it is reflect ed on the
Street Improvement Plans for the CIP Project.
Chair/Meyer indicated that there have been problems getting a
Master Plan from Calvary Chapel with respect to the Precise
Alignment for access to Golden Springs and Copley Drive.
Applicant has attempted to discuss the issue with Calvary
Chapel to no avail.
SE/Liu responded that with respect to time and method for
October 24, 1994 Page 9 Planning Commission
acquiring secondary access to
recommend an alignment study
location. Such a study may
$5,000 and there are no funds
budget for such a study.
the proposed facility, he would
for the internal system at the
cost anywhere from $2,000 to
currently allocated in the City
In response to SE/Liu, Chair/Meyer stated it is his
understanding that the applicant has talked with Calvary
Chapel and Calvary Chapel told the applicant that the Precise
aAlignment is not a priority to them and that they do not have
a Master Plan. He further indicated that in order to consider
this discretionary action, there must be a concrete plan to
obtain the precise alignment and asked if there might be
another option available.
In response to Chair/Meyer's question of the importance of a
Precise Alignment, SE/Liu responded that it is important from
a circulation standpoint and from an egress standpoint.
Without knowing what the final resolution between the two
property owners might be, it is difficult to speculate what
will take place. The City has indicated the need for' the
secondary access.
Chait/Meyer asked if the City has the authority to adopt a
precise alignment and complete a Master Plan for the street to
which CDD/DeStef ano stated that this may. be imposed upon a
property owner by the City.
Chair/Meyer suggested that the City adopt an aggressive stance
and that the funding for such a poshtion, study, and Precise
Alignment be provided by the applicant with the potential for
reimbursement by the City, and, as a result of the study, that
the fees incurred by Calvary Chapel be reimbursed when the
Church applied for entitlements and development of their site.
Chair/Meyer also recommended a two-year extension of the
Conditional Use Permit for this Project.
With respect to the retaining walls, Chair/Meyer further
recommended that a condition be added requiring the
implementation of a crib wall using standards outlined in the
City Hillside ordinance, or redesign the parking lot and
eliminate the 18 foot high retaining wall at the intersection.
Chair/Meyer indicated that there is a Noise Ordinance in place
which recognizes and protects citizens and neighborhoods with
particular emphasis on the evening hours.
Chair/Meyer asked for consensus for granting a. two year
October 24, 1994 Page 10 Planning Commission
extension of the Conditional Use Permit. ICA/Montgomery
recommended against it since notice had been given for a one
year extension. The Commission referred the matter of the
retaining wall to City Engineering and City Planning.
In response to C/Flamenbaum, SE/Liu indicated that the precise
alignment Traffic Study would cost under $5,000. The Planning
Commission directed the City to move forward with a Traffic
Study be conducted and presented to the Planning Commission
prior to issuing Building Permits for this site.
C/Flamenbaum recommended citing the Noise Ordinance in
recommending approval.
In response to VC/Plunk, CDD/DeStefano stated that there is a
condition in the original approval of the Conditional use
Permit which states that "roof finish material shall have a
uniform color so as to reduce reflectivity. Additionally, all
roof mounted equipment must be painted a color to match the
roof finish materialit.
CDD/DeStefano stated that the first resolution is to approve
the extension of time for the Conditional Use Permit and for
the modification to the Conditional Use Permit for Phase 1.
Also, strike the words "Certifying Environmental Impact Report
No. 91-411 from the heading and, within the resolution, strike
Exhibit B referring to a statement of overriding
considerations. The conditions which the Planning Commission
suggested as possibilities should be added to the Conditional
Use Permit. He further recommended that Condition No. 9 read:
"The proposed retaining walls along the main drive aisle shall
be re -designed to incorporate a series of stepped retaining or
cribb walls. The use of crib walls may be permitted and that
walls designed in excess of six ( 6 ) feet shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission." Staff further suggests
Condition No. 10 to read: "Applicant shall incorporate
additional landscaping to obscure the view of all perimeter
retaining walls.,, Condition No. 11 is a staff suggestion as
a result of the Commission's discussion regarding noise
issues. The Noise Ordinance is based more on Weighted
averages so that a single occurrence such as a truck making a
delivery at 3:00 a.m. may be more difficult to determine and
enforce. The c 1 ondition could read as follows: "The applicant
shall prohibit deliveries between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to
6:00 a.m.", for example. Condition No. 12 could read: ."The
applicant shall contribute $5,000 prior to the issuance of
Building Permits toward the development of a City initiated
secondary access/alignment study.ft
October 24, 1994 Page 11 Planning Commission
Chair/Meyer stated that he would like to incorporate language
as follows: "Prior to the issuance of building permits, a
Precise.Alignment for secondary access to Golden Springs Drive
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission."
SE/Liu referred Chair/Meyer to Item No. 18 of the original
Conditional Use Permit. The Item states that the applicant
shall submit a Transportation Management System Management
Plan for approval by the Community Development Director and
the Public Works Director prior to Certificate of occupancy of
Phase 1.11 1
Chair/Meyer stated that he wants something much more
definitive in the way of a map, plan, topography map and
complete understanding of engineering feasibility and location
of secondary access. This should be a base document for
planning of incremental implementation for Phase 2 and 3 prior
to the start of construction. He further stated that this
document could also be ultimately used for condemnation and
the access road would be built at public expense.
Responding to questions from the Planning Commission, SE/Liu
indicated that there are two aspects of a Precise Alignment
Study. One aspect is from an engineering prospective and the
other is from civil engineering prospective.
C/Flamenbaum suggested inserting a condition that any work
done on the hilside must comply with the Hillside Management
Ordinance.
Motion was made by VC/Plunk and seconded by C/Schad to adopt
the Resolution as amended. Motion was carried unanimously.
Regarding the Architectural Review, C/Flamenbaum recommended
the elimination of Conditions 8, 9 and 10 on Pages 5 and 6
since they are found in Conditional Use Permit No. 91-1, Page
6, Items 7, 8 and 9.
CDD/DeStefano recommended two additional changes to the
Development Review Resolution. Eliminate from the heading
"Certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 91-4 and". On
Page 2 of the Resolution, Recital J3, add the following words
to the last sentence: "Adopted April 12, 1993.11
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by C/Schad to
adopt the Resolution as amended. motion was carried
unanimously.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
October 24, 1994 Page 12 Planning Commission
C/Schad requested that the Tree Ordinance* be placed on the
November 14, 1994 agenda for the Planning Commission.
CDD/DeStefano indicated that a general discussion could be
held on November 14, 1994. When it comes before the Planning
commission, it can be debated and adopted for future Public
Hearing.
VC/Plunk recommended a study of Tree. City USA for the same
meeting.
4. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
CDD/DeStefano introduced Carol Dennis as the new minutes
Secretary. Council approved a contract for Carol two weeks
ago and she is working with the Planning Commission and one
other Commission.
CDD/DeStefano acknowledged the presence and assistance of
David Liu and Anne Garvey for review of the Hospital Project.
CDD/DeStefano thanked his staff and Cotton-Baland for all of
the work they have done on the General Plan.
Chair/Meyer stated that he wishes to write a letter to the
City Council regarding the General Plan which will commend the
GPAC for its participation and to indicate to the City Council
that there is consensus but not unanimity on all of the
Elements of the General Plan and to wish them godspeed on the
adoption of the General Plan. He would like to do this at the
formal presentation of the Draft General Plan to the City
Council on November 8.
Chair/Meyer declared the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM No. 6.1
DATE: November 9, 1994
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner
RE: Variance No. 94-2
The applicant has submitted a revised plan to the City which seeks to bring the project closer
to conformance with the development code. The applicant has worked with staff to look at
alternative methods of bringing the design of the project into conformance with the height
requirements of the development code. The applicant has incorporated a retaining wall on
the western property line and adjacent to the structure on the eastern elevation in order to
raise the elevation of the exterior grade around the structure. The result of this design
feature increases the average finished grade (AFG), the plane used as the point of measure of
the height.
The applicant appears to have adjusted the design of the front elevation as exhibited on the
Topography Survey Map of the plans. This change is not reflected in the floor plans or the
front elevation and requires the applicant to clarify this discrepancy for staff. The east
elevation has a window deleted from the design because of the rise in finished grade. The
west elevation has the most substantial change in grade, nine feet at the area closest to the
front elevation. There is no change to the architectural treatment in this area.
As revised, the applicant has additionally incorporated an access around the structure via a
stairway along the eastern boundary to the rear portion of the residence in response to the
Fire Department's concerns. The applicant is proposing to treat the walls in a manner to
reduce the obtrusiveness and massiveness. The applicant is also proposing an extensive
pallet of landscaping to be incorporated into the project site to mute the visually negative
aspects of the project and to assist in fire protection. An irrigation and sprinkler system
which should assist in slowing any fires that may be generated in the vegetation in the
canyon below is also being designed for the project.
Conclusion:
Staff has reviewed the revised project and determined that the revised project more closely
reflects the development criteria that the City has applied to infill hillside residential
development although the project exceeds the development standards. The design is intended
to maximize the available area but the cost is nonconformance with development standards.
The applicant is however cognizant of the constraints of the design and has attempted to
incorporate methods other than a redesign to bring the project closer to code compliance.
The project proposes extensive landscaping to offset the use of retaining walls and the
massive rear elevation and proposes steps to assist in decreasing .life and safety concerns.
Staff has concluded that the project is more viable than when first submitted to the City
although it does not comply with the height restrictions.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive testimony,
close the public hearing and adopt the Resolution of Denial.
ATTACEMENTS:
Draft Resolution of Denial
October 10, 1994 PC Staff Report
Application
Project Plans
CALETTERMPORTSWAR94-2.MEM
If 1
1140+11,
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMNIISSION OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING VARIANCE NO. 94-29 A
REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
IN EXCESS OF 35 FT. IN HEIGHT AND THREES STORIES,
LOCATED AT 22104 RIMFIRE LANE IN THE COUNTRY
ESTATES, IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
(i) Frank Piermarini, acting as Agent for Jeff and Regina Jan,
has filed an application for Parcel Map No. 24031, for property located as described in
the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Parcel Map ap-
plication is referred to as "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. 14,
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.
Accordingly, action was taken on the subject application, as to consistency to the future
adopted General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of an Office of Planning
and Research Extension granted pursuant to California Government Code Section
65361(a).
(iv) On October 10, 1994 the Planning Commission of the City
of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and
continued to and conluded said hearing on November 14, 1994.
(v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
B. Resolution.
1
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the PlanoA'
Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the '
acts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true
and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to the Planning
Commission during the above public hearing and oral testimony
provided at the hearing, the Planning Commission hereby
specifically finds as follows:
(a) The site is located at 22104 Rimfire Lane in the private
gated community known as The Country Estates.
(b) The project relates to a site comprised of approximately
1.9 acres is traversed by a 9,148 sq. ft. flood hazard area
and a 61,416 sq. ft. restricted use area. The site is
primarily covered with natural grasses and oak trees on
the lower elevations of the site.
(c) The subject site is surrounded by residential development
to the south, east and west, and vacant undeveloped land
to the north;
(d) The subject site is bounded by Wagon Train Lane,
Steeplechase Lane, and Rocky Trail Road;
(e) That because of special circumstances or exceptional
characteristics applicable to the property, the strict
application of the code does not deprive such property of
privileges enjoyed by other property In the vicinity and
under identical zoning classification; and
(f) That the adjustment authorized will constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the
property is situated; and
(g) That strict application of the zoning regulations as they
apply to such property will not result in practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the
general purpose of such regulations and standards; and
40'
(h) That such adjustment will not be detrimental to the pu
health, safety or general welfare, or to the use, enjoymen e0l>
or valuation of property of other persons located in the
vicinity; and
(i) That the Appica.tion is not consistent with applicable goals
of the contemplated draft General Plan; and
(h) That the design of the project and the proposed
improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat;
(i) Notification of the public hearing for this project has been
made in the San Gabriel Valley Daily Tribune and the
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1
and 2 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council deny the application for Variance No. 94-2.
The Planning Secretary Shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by
certified mail, to Frank Piermarini and Jeff and Regina
Jan the address as set forth on the application.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED1 I 1 DAY OF
NOVEMBER 14, 1994BY TBE,PLANNING COMMISSION OF
1WER CITY OF • BAR.
•
David Meyer, Chairman
let
1, James DeStefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of e,
Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 14th day of November, 1994, by the following vote -to -
wit:
AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:]
NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:]
ABSTAIN: [COMMISSIONERS:]
ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:]
Attest:
James DeStefano, Secretary
4
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 3
REPORT DATE: October 4, 1994
MEETING DATE: October 10, 1994
CASE/FILE NUMMER: Variance No. 94-2
City of Diamond Bar
COMMISSION
Staff Report
APPLICATION REQUEST: A request to construct a 7,808 sq. ft. single family residence in
excess of the 35 ft. height limit and three story limitation, on a
1.9 acre site that currently is developed with an abandoned
foundation and frame.
PROPERTY LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
BACKGROUND:
22104 Rimfire Lane
Frank Piermarim
2100 S. Reservoir
Pomona, CA 91766
Jeff and Regina Jan
1553 Deer Crossing
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
An abandoned foundation and frame are currently located on-site. The abandonment of the previously
approved plans for the single family residence approved by Regional Planning in 1989 prior to
incorporation, is the, result of litigation surrounding a violation of CC&Rs and subsequent litigation
that ruled the residence in construction encroached into the 10 ft. CC&R required setback. As such,
construction halted and no activity has taken placed on the site for several years.
The residential plans submitted to and approved by Regional Planning exhibited a two story single
family residence in compliance with codes in effect at the time and which were adopted by the City of
Diamond Bar upon incorporation and extend to this day. The project was approved with substantially
less square footage than the currently proposed 7,800 sq. ft. residence.
APPLICATION ANALYSIS:
The subject site can be characterized as a hillside lot with slopes ranging from 2:1 to 1.5:1 as the lot
falls westward into a ravine. The lot possesses a flood hazard area that extends along two thirds of
C:\LETTERS\REPORTS\VAR94-2.STY
1
the western property line. Additionally, approximately 73 percent of the site is within a Restricted
Use Area. Together these areas establishes a large degree of development restrictions on the site. The
project site has stands of oak trees located at the rear of the property, down slope from the existing
foundation. The remainder of the site is covered with natural grasses. The site possesses an
extremely limited level area which is located adjacent to the street and does not provide an area
capable of supporting habitable structures.
The proposed residence is a design which is based on utilizing the foundation currently located on-site.
The applicant has stated that it would be cost prohibitive to design a project that would require the
alteration, modification, or removal of the foundation. The submitted design therefore incorporates
the existing footprint but seeks to substantially increase the square footage of the residence. In order
for this to occur, the applicant's design increases the number of stories and the overall height of the
structure.
Within the confines of the submitted project, the applicant has added amenities such as an indoor
swimming pool, exercise room, sauna, guest room and wet bar on the bottom level and the addition of
a covered patio The applicant is also proposing storage area under the stairs and along the southern
elevation. The residence provides a master suite, additional bedrooms, and a library on the top floor
and a three car garage, great room, kitchen, dining room and living room are proposed for the main
floor.
The exterior materials presented for the residence include a stone -veneer front elevation with La
Habra "X-23 Aspen" plaster siding. The wood trim will be Dunn Edwards "240 -Expresso" and the
roof material is proposed as Country Slate taupe concrete tile. The arched entrance will display
double front doors with glass insets. There is a bay window located just off the front door which is
incorporated into the living room. There are two fireplace chimneys located on either side of the
residence. The roof is designed with a 12:12 pitch which adds significantly to the overall height of
the proposed structure.
The rear elevation of the is residence is massive. This elevation exposes in excess of 65 feet of
building face. The applicant has provided a preliminary latidscape plan which does not provide
enough specific information to determine the extent to which the visual'impact could be reduced. The
side elevations exhibit over 50 feet of structure and the landscape plan also does not adequately
address the immediate benefits of the incorporation of plant materials.
The applicant did not provide a calculation for the average finished grade (AFG) which is a
calculation used for the basis of height measurement. As such, staff calculated the AFG, and has
determined that the proposed structure is approximately 50 ft. above this line of demarcation and more
than 60 to 65 feet above grade over the majority of the residence. The zoning code restricts the
height of residential structures to 35 ft. above AFG and a maximum of two stories and a cellar. The
proposed height does not conform to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted and implemented
by the City. Pursuant to the UBC, there is a three (3) story limit, per Table 5-D, "Maximum Height
in Stories".
Within "The Country" there are many parcels which exhibit similar qualities and topographic features
C:\LETTERS\REPORTS\VAR94-2.STY
2
to the subject siie. Adjacent residences have not been constructed in a similar fashion to this proposed
house. A review of the Planning Department files does not indicate that any modifications to height
restrictions have been granted in the immediate area of this project site.
Since incorporation, the Diamond Bar Planning Commission has taken action on two single family
residential projects that requested relief from the height standard imposed on structures. The Planning
Commission approved the first application in 1990 for a residence which averaged 39 ft. above AFG
or 11 percent over the code limitation. The Commission admonished staff that every effort should be
made to work with applicants to develop a project that conforms to development standards, particular
as they relate to height. The Commission also went on record as stating that a Variance application
asking for relief based on the design of the project rather than because of the extreme peculiarities the
site were not seen to be valid.
The second variance request for a single family residence met the 35 ft. height limit but did not
conform to the number of stories pursuant to the zoning code and the UBC, and exhibited 56 ft. above
natural grade. The application was denied by the Commission with stated findings that the request
had not met the test of establishing evidence that denial of the variance would place an undue
restriction or burden on the property owner and that approval would grant a benefit not enjoyed by
other properties.. This decision was based on the applicant's assertion that to redesign the project
would not deliver the desired product and the applicant's refusal to look at alternative scenarios.
The applicant presented this project to staff for a preliminary review and received comments relating
to the project not being designed to code requirements. The applicant then submitted a Variance
application for the project to the City.
Grading
The applicant is not proposing any grading or retaining walls as a part of this project. In the absence
of grading and the provision of retaining walls, the site will provide for limited pad area for recreation
except in .the front yard area.
Conclusion:
Staff has found the project to not be in conformance with the developed standards applied within the
City. Although the site presents topographic difficulties, the approval and initiation of construction on
a previously project confirm the fact that a design, in conformance with development standards, can
be attained. The Planning Commission has approved one Variance application for relief of the height
restrictions for a project which exceeded the development standard by an average of four feet. In a
subsequent review, the Commission held that the applicant must make every effort to conform to the
code, with considerations for topography being taken into account.
This project is not within the range that the previous applications presented to the Commission have
fallen. The subject application presents a design request that exceeds the previously granted and
denied applications. Staff has reviewed the project and offered suggestions and recommendations to
the applicant on the project which sought to reduce the negative aspects of the design.
C:\LETTERS\REPORTS\VAR94-2.STY
3
Staff also has a concern that if the Planning Commission were to approve a request of this magnitude,
staff would be faced with several applications that reflect a similar design or request for relief. Staff
can not support this variance application in light of the policies and development standards which have
been codified in ordinances such as the Hillside Management Ordinance and approval of projects such
as the JCC/Diamond Ridge Development and most recently, the Yeh Development project. These
actions clearly sought to limit massive home construction by maximizing pad sizes, limiting retaining
walls, and implementing increased setbacks from the top of slopes and building pads.
Staff has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) section 15303.
PUBLIC NOTMCATION:
This application was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune
on September 16, 1994. Thirty (30) property owners within a 300 foot radius of the site were mailed
notices of the public hearing on September 20, 1994.
That the requested use at the location proposed will not:
(a) That because of special circumstances or exception characteristics applicable to the
property, the strict application of the code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed
by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; and
(b) That the adjustment authorized will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent withthe limitations. upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which
the property is situated; and
(c) That strict application of the zoning regulations as they apply to such property will
result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general
purpose of such regulations and standards; and
(d) That such adjustment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general
welfare, or to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in
the vicinity.
The staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive testimony, and
adopt the attached Resolution of Denial with the Findings of Fact.
C:\LETTERS\REPORTS\VAR94-2.STY
4
PREPARED BY:
Robert Searcy, Associate Planner
Application
Site Plan
Draft Resolution of Denial
C:\LETTERS\REPoRTs\vAR94-2.STY
5
CITY OF DIAMO . INP -61-1-R
DEPARTMENT OF kNNING
21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190
(714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-3"� 7
WJUANCE APPLICATION
Record Owner(s)
Name;�-4ti. 'U
(Last nfime first)
Case# Vlq-tL q-7,
File 0 1a fi
�04ee $ S' 00
Receipt 1549 S
B
Applicant Applicant's Agent
Address. L Z-24Z.5,t�,ez-)
City
Z ip-2/
Phone IV 4-1 Z 0;b^
(Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures
of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.)
CONSENT:
request.
I consent to the submission of the application accompanying this
owners
Dat "// 47,
CERTIFICATION: 1, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that
the information herein . provided is correct to the best of my knowledge.
Printed
Locat
cant or
reet address or tract
of
and
between 7-4-0og
(Street)
I
(Street)
Date
Zoning_ HNM--
Project size (gross acres) [VV Project Density
Previous Cases
Present Use of Site eFsYz9 62-2 7-/ X)
Use applied for e!l L) J -r A /;p
Domestic Water Source
company/District
Method of Sewage Disposal- Sanitation District. .4.,-)
V
In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall
substantiate to the satisfaction of the Zoning Board and/or Commission, the
following facts:
A. That the requested use at the location proposed will not:
1. Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare or persons
residing or working.in the surrounding area, or
2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of
property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, or
3. Jeopardize, endanger or other wise constitute a menace to the public
health, safety or general welfare.
NONE FO THE ABOVE'WILL AFFECT THIS PROJECT
B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other
development features prescribed in this Ordinance, or as is otherwise
required -in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding
area.
,YES IT tIS ADEQUME. ,
C. That the proposed site is adequately served:
1. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary
to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate,
and
2. By other public or private service facilities as are required.
D. That there are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics
applicable to the property involved, such as size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings, which are not generally applicable to other
properties in the same vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
TOPOGRAPHY MAKES LOT UNUSEABLE FOR POOLE OR
RECREATION YARD. SEE I'D" BELOW.
E. That such variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial
property right of the applicant such as that possessed by owners of other
property in the same vicinity and zone.
YES
F. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or be injurious to other property or improvements in
the same vicinity and zone.
YES. NEIGHBORS AGREE WITH DESIGN.
DBCEA ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE HAS APPROVE PROJECT
(SEE COPY ATTACHED).
'SLOPES EXCEED 1-1/2:1. DUE TO THE SEVERITY OF TOPOGRAPHY, THE
YARD ON THIS PROPERTY BECOMES UNUSEABLE,. THE.CELLAR OR LOWER
I
FLOOR BECOMES THE LOST YARD (SO TO SPEAK) AND RECREATION AREA FOR
THIS RtSIDENCE.,
FROM MY 21 YEARS EXPERIENCE OT BUILDING IN THE,11COUNTRY ESTATES"
AND FROM AN ECONOMIC STANDPOINT, THE VALUE OF THE RESIDNECE WOULD
BE,DELUTED IF BUILT WITHOUT THE CELLAR AS DESIGNED ANDTHEOWNERS
ARE NOT WILLING`TO MOVE FORIOARD IF THE DESIGN DOES NOT MEET
THEIR CRITERIA. THEREFORE,,THE LOT BECOMESWORTHLESS WITHOUT
AN APPROVAL AND THE EXISTING FOUNDATION REMAINS AN EYESORE TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
Staff Use
Project No.
------------------
------------------
INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
Project Applicant (Owner): Project Representative:
in it " /n IL s, 'J6 -r
ngxl�
ADDRESS
J27
PHONE #
ADDRESS
2 -
PHONE #
1. Action requested and pro . iect description: 3 STORY -ROME
5 (ABOVE 35' HT.) VARIANCE REQUESTED.
2. Street location of project:
RIM FIRE LANE
I
3a. Present use of site: EkI9TING,RESIDENTIAL LOT- FOUNDATION EXISTING
3b. Previous use of site or structures: NONE
4. Please list all previous cases
(if any)' related to this project:
5. Other related permit/approvals required. BUILDING PERMIT
Specify type and granting agency.
2.1
0
Are you planning future phases of this project? Y CN
If yes, explain:
Project Area: Covered by structures, paving: 7,000 sq. ft.
Landscaping, open space: 1-1/2 acres
Total Area:
Ntimber of floors: 3
9. Present zoning:
10. What energy -conserving designs or material will be used?
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in
the attached exhibits present the data and information required
for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that
the facts, statements. d information presented are true and
corre�t to he best of y kno e e and belief.
—;LDa a ignature
For:
AND MRS. JEFF JAN
1. Environmental Setting --Project Site
a. E-Kisting use/structures_
b. Topography/slopes Slnppa
*c. Vegetation WEEDS
*d. Animals RABBITS SQUIRRELS
*e. Watercourses NONE
f Cal'tural/historical resources NONE
9. Ot her
2. Environmental Setting -- Surrounding Area
a Existing uses structures (types, densities):
b. Topography/slopes 1 -1/2:1 -slopes
*c. Vegetation WEEDS
*d. Animals RABBITS, SQUIRRELS
*e. Watercourses NONE
f Wtural/historical resources NONE
9. Other
=2
Answers are not required if the area does not contain natural,
undeveloped land.
3. Are there any major trees on the site, including oak trees?
YES NO
If yes, type and number: TO BE LEFT UNDISTURBED.
4. Will any natural watercourses, surface flow patterns, etc., be changed
through project development?:
YES NO
If yes, ex ain:
5. Grading:
Will the project require grading? YES
If yes, how many cubic yards?
Will it be balanced on site? YES NO
If not balanced, where will dirt be obtained or deposited?
6. Are there any identifiable landslides or other major geologic hazards on
the property (including uncompacted fill)?
YES NO
If yes, explain:
7. Is the property located within a high fire hazard area (hillsides with
moderately dense vegetation)?
YES NO
Distance to nearest fire station:
8. Noise:
Existing noise sources at site:
Noise to be generated by project:
Fumes:
Odors generated by project:
Could toxic fumes be generated?
10. Water and sewer service:
Does service exist at site?
If yes, do purveyors have
capacity to meet demand of
project and all other approved
projects?
Domestic
Water
Cy * N
Public
Sewers
Y N
N Y N
If domestic water or public sewers are not available, how will these services
beprovided?
Residential Projects:
11. Number and type of units: 605mm Sa / X) � e- +C�i' ;,< K
12. Schools:
What school district(s.) serves the property?
Are eTLng school facilities adequate to meet project needs?
YES
S NO
If not, what provisions will be made for additional
classrooms?
Non=Residkntial projects:
13. D*stance to nearest residential use or sensitive use (school, hospital,
e c.)
14. umber and floor area of buildings:
17C
15. J Number of employees and Ishifts:
16./ maximum employees per shift:
17J Operating hours:
Identify any:
End products
Waste products
Means of disposal
19. Do project ope ations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as
oil, pectic' es,,chemicals, paints, or radioactive materials?
YES NO
If yes, explain
20. Do your opees require any pressurized tanks?
YES NO
If yes, explain
21. Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on-
site. N/A
22. Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach
the nearest highway?
YES
I fY e s ex�i
p
5
ti
k
11k. i Mn. JTr Jou Metidracr
P MARIM
r.d hagitrr CwMYiq
CONC8t7UAL
ISIJIL4t eIn. It
aiw w er
I1NL OR M
romm4k C. ww
if�l Mbd.L�ruA
k• . c..nw
"•• •••""�•�•
LANDSCAPE!l AN
w. r. Qr
efs d" 064M
IY� �M �lNM IMtl. �1
it
dva
_ Mr. & Mn. Jeff Jw4 Haidaac AdJId RWiwr. 4+a 7*aW+•� c. -Ain
i CONCEPTI IAL La A T— 3"m PIEMARJM ENTERPRSE4 vm hGblbw. s A
N r f ula Rk. ht L— :1w 1 RRMVO/R /nY . c`� Ms.
C-- POONA. CA 917" ""�• "�
i LANDSCAPE: PLAN
Agenda Item 6.1 —VAR No. 94.2
Plans found in project file.
AGENDA ITEM N0. 6.2
DATE: November 9, 1994
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner
RE: Conditional Use Permit No. 93-7(1), Extension of Time
Applicant: L.A. Cellular
The applicant has submitted a request for an extension of time to operate a temporary
repeater facility located at 21308 Pathfinder. The temporary site was approved by the
Planning Commission on December 13, 1993 for a 75 foot wood monopole and structure to
house the repeater equipment. The applicant requested the temporary facility at this .location
because of the termination of services once provided from a facility at Diamond Bar High
School. The applicant was in the process of negotiating with the school district to relocate at
the high school in addition to a couple alternative sites.
The importance of this facility as a tool to assist the Highway Patrol, Sheriff Department,
and Fire Department, in addition to regular customers, was stressed by the applicant. This
value was underscored as the temporary facility went online shortly before the Northridge
earthquake struck Southern California. The community did not experience -the disaster
without service provided by the facility.
The original grant extended the life of the permit for a period of six (6) months from the date
of installation with a six month extension. The applicant submitted the request to extend the
life of the permit to continue operations until a permanent site can be obtained. Currently,
the City is processing two L.A. Cellular applications for permanent sites. The proposed
locations are: Gateway Corporate Center, Raddison Hotel, and Diamond Bar Boulevard/Brea
Canyon Road adjacent to the 57 freeway. The public hearing dates for these applications
have not been set.
Conclusion:
Staff has reviewed the application and determined the repeater station is operating in the
manner prescribed by the Conditional Use Permit granted by the Planning Commission. The
applicant is requesting to continue operating on a temporary basis until a permanent site can
1
be secured. No additional uses or expansion to the facility is proposed as a part of this
application.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a six month extension of time for
CUP 93-7 (1), Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Resolution of Approval
Correspondence date from L.A. Cellular dated October 12, 1994
December 13, 1993 PC Staff Report and approved Resolution dated December 13, 1994
Project Plans
a-WzrnMs=F0MCVFP6-7A-WM
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX `
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMNIISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-7(1) AND CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION (SECTION 15303, CLASS 3), AN APPLICATION TO CONTINUE
OPERATION FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED SIX. (6) MONTHS FROM THE
DATE OF APPROVAL, OF A TEMPORARY UTILITY FRANCHISE FOR AN
UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATION FACILITY, CONSISTING OF A 215
SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE HOUSING EQUIPMENT AND A 75 FOOT WOOD
MONOPOLE LOCATED AT 21308 PA THF NDER ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS
IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals
(i) The applicant, acting as the property owner's agent, L.A. Cellular,
Box 6028, Cerritos, CA 90702 and the property owner Rinehart Management Company,
P.O. Box 4428, Covina, CA 91723 have heretofore filed an application as described above in
the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the project, located at address
indicated in the title of this Resolution, shall be 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. 14, 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 bf 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. Accordingly,
action was taken on the subject application, as to consistency to the future adopted General
Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of an Office of Planning and Research Extension
granted pursuant to California Government Code Sections 65360 and 65361(a).
(iv) On November 14, 1994, the Planning Commission of the City of
Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and conclude the
public hearing on that date.
(v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
1
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 facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct;
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project identified above in this
Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and guidelines promulgated
thereunder, pursuant to Section 15303, Title 14, Article 19 of the California Code of
Regulations;
3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having
considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes
and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed
project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning
Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse
effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based
upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of
adverse effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations.
4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above -
referenced public hearing on November 14, 1994, and concluded on that date,
including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in con-
formance with the terms and provisions of California Government Code Sections
65360 and 65361(a), this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
(a) The applicant's request is for approval to continue operation for a
period not to exceed six months of a temporary unmanned cellular
communication facility consisting of a 215 square foot structure housing
equipment and a 75 foot wood monopole. The repeater station restored
on a temporary basis, communication services to the area because of
the interruption of service formally provided by a facility located at
Diamond Bar High School.
(b) The application applies to a site located at 21345 Pathfinder Road,
Diamond Bar. The project site is approximately 25,000 square feet and
0
developed with a 14,800 square foot two-story office building
project site is within the Commercial Planned Development (C
and has a draft General Plan land use designation of ap-
Zone�
Commercial/Office (C/O).
(c) Generally, the following uses and zones surround the site: to the north
is the Single Family Residential-minimum lot size 8,000 square feet (R-
1-8,000) Zone; to the south and east is Single Family Residential-
minimum lot size 7,500 square feet (R-1-7,500) Zone; and to the west
is the Orange (SR 57) Freeway.
(d) The nature, condition, and size of the site has been considered. The
site is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed project.
(e) The City is operating without a General Plan. Therefore, the
Commission has reviewed the proposed project as a short term utility
franchise in conformance with the California Public Utility Code
Section No. 6264.
(f) The proposed project will not adversely affect the health, peace, .
comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding
area or be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of
property of other persons located in the vicinity of the -site or
jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to public health,
safety, or general welfare.
(g) The proposed site is adequately served by Pathfinder Road and Brea
Canyon Boulevard.
(h) The Planning Commission originally granted approval of the
Conditional Use Permit on December' 13, 1994.
(i) The approval of this project is conformance with the draft General Plan
and will not be in conflict with draft General Plan.
5. Based upon substantial evidence and conclusions set forth hereinabove, this Planning
Commission hereby approves this application subject to the following conditions:
(a) This grant is valid for six (6) months from date of this approval. An
extension of this grant may be requested in writing and submitted to the
Community Development Director 30 days prior to the expiration date
of this grant. An extension of time may be granted not to exceed 60
days.
3
Notwithstanding previous Subsection of this Resolution if
46,
(b)) II an Y ! the
Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to
Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment thereof shall be
made by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit or
any other entitlement.
c All conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit NO. 93-7 unless
_O PP
amended as a part of this action shall remain in full force and effect.
(d) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and
owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed
within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of
Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit
stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of
this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee
pays remaining Planning Division processing fees.
The Planning Commission Secretary shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution;
and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by
certified mail, return receipt
request, to: Linda Paul, L.A. Cellular, P.O. Box 6028,
Cerritos, CA 90702 and Terry Rinehart, Rinehart Management
Company, P.O. Box 4428, Covina, CA 91723.
• IUy I &IS13 to)• I WIN I Wallar • Z I r;..
BY:
David Meyer, Chairman
0
I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of
November, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: COUMSSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
James DeStefano, Secretary
Q% TTEn\RMLTN\CUP93-7(A).RES
5
L.A�A
CELLULAR
Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company
October 12, 1994
City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department
21660 E. Copely Dr.
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
RE: Extension of Temporary Site
Dear Planner:
L.A. Cellular respectfully requests an extension for our temporary facility, approved on
December 13, 1994, by the Planning Commission. This site was designed to provide vital
cellular telecommunications until a permanent site could be obtained.
Unfortunately, the selection of sites has not been as expedient as we had planned.
However, L.A. Cellular is currently in the planning process with one of two permanent
facilities which will allow us to remove this site should they be approved.
Hopefully, we will be able to process and build these proposed., sites while continuing to
provide uninterrupted cellular service to our mobile customers.
and Government Relations
Box 6028, Cerritos, California 90702-6028 (310) 924E-0000
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REPORT DATE:
MEETING DATE:
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
4
December 3, 1993
December 13, 1993
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 93-7
APPLICATION REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to
locate and operate a 75 ft. monopole and an
unmanned repeater station for a period not to
exceed six months within an existing
commercial development.
PROPERTY LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
BACKGROUND:
21308 Pathfinder Road
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
L.A. Cellular
17785 Center Court Drive, North
Cerritos, CA 90701-4574
Terry Rinehart
Rinehart Management Company
P.O. Box 4428
Covina, CA 91723
The project has been initiated as a result of the removal of an
unmanned repeater station and monopole fr0t the Diamond Bar High School
campus. The applicant is currently involved in negotiations with the
school district to locate the use, once again at the school. In the
interim period, the applicant is seeking to re-establish service to the
community and public safety agencies until a permanent location can be
secured.
L.A. Cellular provided service at the high school site for
approximately 15 years. Currently, there two other communication
utilities in the immediate vicinity of this proposed site. Those
facilities are also located at the Diamond Bar High School. One
facility is a cellular repeater station and the other is a radio
communication station approved by the Planning Commission in 1993.
The application as presented, amends Conditional Use Permit No. 921 (1)
granted by the County of Los Angeles in 1976 for the construction of
the two story office building which occupies the site. The project is
located in the CPD (Commercial Planned Development) Zone which requires
a Conditional Use Permit or, in this case, an amendment to the existing
Conditional Use Permit for land uses which were not contemplated in the
original 1976 grant. Additionally, the Conditional Use Permit is
required for the monopole.
APPLICATION ANALYSIS:
The temporary cellular repeater station is an unmanned 'station that
receives cellular phone signals, processes the impulses, and transmits
the signal to its destination. The power source for the equipment is a
utility generator that is contained within the equipment shelter.
The temporary cellular repeater station and 75 ft. monopole are
proposed for development on a lot approximately 25,000 sq. ft. in size.
The site is currently developed with a two story 14,800 sq. ft. office
building. The site provides 37 parking spaces for the development and
is currently experiencing a parking problem. The project is proposed
for the downward sloping southwestern portion of the site which over
looks the SR 57 Freeway.
Development of the immediate surrounding area is primarily of a diverse
commercial mixture which includes a gasoline service station, a vacant
office building, and a restaurant. Diamond Bar High School is located
to the east of the subject site in Zone R-1-7,500 and the SR 57 Fwy
abuts the site to the west. A single family residential development is
located across Pathfinder Road north of the site.
The project proposes a 75 feet monopole as measured from grade to the
top of the pole. A fourteen foot long whip antennae is proposed for
the monopole in addition to a possible microwave dish. Therefore, the
total height of the monopole structure with the whip is 89 feet. The
monopole will not employ a canopy around the antennas which is regarded
by many as actually drawing attention to the structure. The monopole
will be constructed of wood and will be located approximately 11 ft. to
the east of the proposed 215 square foot pre -fabricated shelter on the
upslope of the site. No light fixtures are proposed for the monopole.
The temporary unmanned equipment shelter is to be 'constructed on skids.
The material will be compatible with the office building and will not
be visible from Brea Canyon Road and Pathfinder Road and will be hidden
from view of the off -ramp by vegetation.
Fire suppression equipment is required on-site in the form of haylon
and standard fire extinguishing equipment. The repeater station is
designed with a fire suppressant system that is intended to reduce the
possibility and extent of possible damage. The facility is required to
be improved to meet the State of California's regulations regarding
standard fire equipment.
Servicing and maintenance of the unmanned facility is typically
scheduled from four (4) to 12 times a year. The demand for parking is
therefore minimal. At this location however, any additional parking
demand will exacerbate the existing parking problems. Staff recommends
that visits to the site for maintenance be scheduled at off peak hours
or weekends or that the property owners in the vicinity of the project
negotiate some type of shared parking agreement.
Subsequent to the on-site review of the existing facility, staff would
also recommend that the property owner slurry seal and restripe the
existing parking area. The parking area is in a state of disrepair as
there are potholes and the parking stall markings are faint.
The primary concerns that the, staff sought to address are
compatibility, aesthetics and health. The project has to be compatible
with the land uses within the residential zone and the commercial zone,
as these landuses are adjacent to the site. A possible issue was
interference with existing television, radio, satellite reception, or
other cable communications. The Federal Communication Commission (FFC)
has established parameters of service which seek to protect the
integrity of different forms of communication and this use is subject
to those regulations.
Staff has received one response from the public prior to this public
hearing. At the heart of the issue, the resident expressed concerns
for the health and safety of residents because of long term exposure to
cellular phone use and microwaves. In contacting the County Department
of Health and the County Department of Regional Planning, staff has not
been able to identify a' demonstrable adverse health effect from a
project of this type which utilizes both technologies. Additionally,
staff has reviewed the Code Enforcement files and has not identified
any complaints or problems concerning repeater stations or monopoles.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is
categorically exempt according to guidelines of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303, Class 3.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
This application was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and
the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on December 1,' 1993. Twenty-nine
property owners within a 500 foot radius of the site were mailed
notices of the public hearing on November 23, 1993.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF FACT:
That the requested use at the location proposed will not:
(a) Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of
persons residing or working in the surrounding area, or
(b) Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation
of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the
site, or
(c) Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to
public safety or general welfare; and
(d) That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading
facilities, landscaping and other development features
prescribed in this title, or as is otherwise required in
order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding
area; and
(e) That the proposed site is adequately served:
(1) By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved
as necessary to carry the kind and quantity .of traffic
such use would generate, and
(2) By other public or private service facilities as are
required.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional
Use Permit No.. 93-7 with the Findings of Fact and listed conditions.
PREP ED BY:
Robert Searcy, As
ciate Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Application
Site Plan/Floor Plan
Draft Resolution of Approval
Photographs
F:\LETTERS\REPORTS\CUP93-7.STY
PC RESOLUTION NO. 93-30
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-7 AMENDING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 921 (1) AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION (SECTION 15303, CLASS
3) -AN APPLICATION TO INSTALL A TEMPORARY UTILITY FRANCHISE FOR AN
UNMANNED CELLULAR COMMUNICATION FACILITY, NOT TO EXCEED A PERIOD OF
SIX (6) MONTH FROM THE DATE OF INSTALLATION, CONSISTING OF A1215
SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE HOUSING EQUIPMENT AND A 75 FOOT WOOD MONOPOLE
LOCATED AT 21308 PATHFINDER ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF.
A. Recitals
(i) The applicant, acting as the. property owner's
agent, L.A. Cellular, Box 6028, Cerritos, CA 90702 and the
property owner Rhinehart Management Company, P.O. Box 4428
Covina, CA 91723 have heretofore filed an application as described
above in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the project, located at. address indicated in the title
of this Resolution, shall be 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.
14, 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 Diamond 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 contempleted General Plan, pursuant to
the terms and provisions of ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of
Diamond Bar.
(iv) on December 13, 1993, the Planning Commission of
the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the application.
(v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
Tf
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 facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this
Resolution are true and correct;
2. The Planning commission hereby finds that the project
identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and guidelines promulgated
thereunder, pursuant to Section 15303, Title 14, Article 19
of the California Code of Regulations;
3. The Planning commission hereby specifically finds and
determines that, having considered the record as a whole
including the findings set forth below, and changes and
alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned..
upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there
is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the
project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse
effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the
wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this
Planning commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse
effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations.
4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the Planning
Commission during the above -referenced public hearing
conducted on December 13, 1993, including written and oral
staff reports, together with public testimony, and in con-
formance with the terms and provisions of ordinance No. 4
(1992) of the City of Diamond Bar, the Planning Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
(a) The applicant's request is for approval of a
temporary unmanned cellular communication facility
consisting of a 215 square foot structure housing
equipment and a 75 foot wood monopole. The
repeater station will restore communication
services, not to exceed a period of six (6) months
from the date of installation, to the area because
of the interruption of service formally provided
by a facility located at Diamond Bar High School.
(b) The application applies to a site located at 21308
2
Pathfinder Road, Diamond Bar. The project site is
approximately 25,000 square feet and developed
with a 14,800 square foot two-story office
building. The project site is within the
Commercial Planned Development (CPD) Zone and has
a General Plan land use designation of
Commercial/Office (C/O).
(c) Generally, the following uses and zones surround
the site: to the north is the Single Family
Residential -minimum lot size 8,000 square feet (R-
1-8,000) Zone; to the south and east is Single
Family Residential -minimum lot size 7,500 square
feet (R-1-7,500) Zone; -and to the west is the
Orange (SR 57) Freeway.
(d) The nature, condition, and size of the site has
been considered. The site is adequate in size to
accommodate the proposed project.
(e). The City is operating without a General Plan.
Therefore, the Commission has reviewed the
proposed project as a short term utility franchise
in conformance with the California Public Utility
Code Section No. 6264.
( f ) The proposed project will not adversely affect the
health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons
residing or working in the surrounding area or be
materially -detrimental to the use, enjoyment or
valuation of property of other persons located in
the vicinity of the site or jeopardize, endanger
or otherwise constitute a menace to public health,.
safety, or general welfare. ,
(g) The proposed site is adequately served by
• Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon Boulevard.
5. Based upon substantial evidence and conclusions set forth
hereinabove, this Planning commission hereby approves this
application subject to the following conditions:
(a) The 75 foot wood monopole excluding the microwave
dish and repeater station is approved as shown in
Exhibit "All dated December 13, 1993. Three copies
of the revised plot plan marked Exhibit "All and
conforming to such of the following conditions as
can be shown on a plan shall be submitted for
approval of the Community Development Director.
The property shall thereafter be developed and
maintained in substantial conformance with the
approved plans. The exterior material of the
3
enclosure shall be in substantial Conformance with
the exterior of the adjacent office building. The
applicant shall submit a materials board to the
City prior to issuance of a building permit.
(b) The applicant shall comply with all State, Planing
.and Zoning Division, Building and Safety Division,
and Public Works Department requirements.
(c.) This grant is valid for six (6) months from date
of installation and must be exercised (i.e.
construction started) within 60 days of approval
of this grant. An extension of this grant may be
requested in writing and submitted to the
Community Development Director 30 days prior to
the expiration date of this grant. An extension
of time may be granted not to exceed six (6)
months.
(d) Appropriate fire suppression equipment shall be
installed as a part of the components of the
repeater station located within the interior of
the communication facility.
(e) The monopole is prohibited from displaying of
signs or advertising.
(f) No exterior appendages shall extend from the
monopole that may be used as an aid to gain access
to the upper portion of the monopole, at a height
of less than 12 feet above grade.
(g) In the event that is facility causes interference
or disturbance with audio or television reception
of the residents within 500feet ' of the facility,
the applicant shall repair the facility within
five (5) working days of notification or cease
operation until the problem is rectified to the
satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
(h) The applicant shall slurry seal and restripe the
parking lot area of the project site according to
the requirements of the Planning Division and the
Engineering Department. Said improvements shall
be completed prior to the issuance of building
permits or final inspection.
(i) Notwithstanding any previous Subsection of this
Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game
requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section
711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment thereof
4
shall be made by the applicant prior to the
issuance of any building permit or any other
entitlement.
(j) The subject site shall be maintained in a
condition which is free of debris both during and
after the construction, addition, or
implementation of the entitlements granted herein.
The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse,
whether. during or subsequent to construction,
shall be done only by the property owner,
applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor
who has been authorized by the City to provide
collection, transportation, and disposal of solid
waste from residential, commercial, construction,
and industrial areas within the City. It shall be
the applicant's obligation to insure that the
waste contractor utilized has obtained permits
from'the City of Diamond Bar to provide such
services. '
(k) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose
until the permittee and owner of the property
involved (if other than the permittee) have filed'
within fifteen (15) days of approval of this
grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community
Development Department, their affidavit stating
that they are aware of and agree to accept all the
conditions of this grant. Further, this grant
shall not be effective until the permittee pays
remaining Planning Division processing fees.
(1) Applicant shall post a cash bond in an amount
approved by the City to insure the removal of the
monopole and all equipment within ' five (5) working
days of the expiration of this grant.
The Planning Commission Secretary shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution;
and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this
Resolution, by certified mail, return receipt
request, to: Linda Paul, L.A. Cellular, P.O.
Box 6028, Cerritos, CA 90702 and Terry
Rinehart, Rinehart Management Company, P.O.
-Box 4428, Covina, CA 91723.
�J
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF DECEMBER BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF,7THr,7 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission secretary, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed,
and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar,
at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th
day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 'Meyer, Plunk, Grothe, Flamenbaum
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
J,a bs DeStefanoA Secretary
6
I
§k � !
Bill
\| )) �� CELL SITE 1:45
[ / §k 21308 97e ROAD
'Oft
DIAMOND BAR. 7
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Assistant Planner q(t—
SUBJECT: Reorganization of the Planning Commission
DATE: November 10, 1994
The resignation of Vice Chairwoman Lydia Plunk creates a need to
select a new vice chairperson. As a result, the Planning
Commission should consider the election of a vice chairperson at
the November 14, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Pursuant to the
City of Diamond Bar's Planning Commission Policies and Procedures
Manual, the new vice chairperson will remain in office until the
first regular meeting in March 1995. At that time, the
reorganization of the Planning Commission will take place again.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the
reorganization of the Commission at the November 14, 1994 meeting
or another meeting in the near future.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Di lip
SUBJECT: Preparation of New Development Code
DATE: November 10, 1994
The creation of a new Development Code (incorporating zoning and
subdivision standards) is the necessary first step toward
successful implementation of the General Plan.
Zoning is a form of "police power", an inherent right of government
in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the
community. Zoning standards often incorporate the establishment of
zones (permitted uses from zoning district to zoning district) , and
standards related to such development issues as lot size, building
coverage, signage, parking, height, bulk and placement of
structures.
The subdivision of land incorporates provisions related to the
process of transferring raw land into streets and parcels. In
1907, the State Subdivision.Map Act became the first land use law
ever passed by the State Legislature. Local governments may
regulate the design and improvements together with regulations
governing the physical layout and appearance of new development.
Both "tools" are used to implement the General Plan.
Diamond Bar has, since incorporation, utilized the Los Angeles
County Zoning and Subdivision Code. The new Development Code
provides the opportunity to "tailor" zoning and landuse policy and
standards specific to the unique characteristics of Diamond Bar.;
The scope of work to prepare the Development Code should
incorporate an agreement as to what the basic "issues" are; what
existing "rules" are in place; a review of all relevant documents;
and consensus on procedural issues such as content, format and
review process.
Items proposed for Planning Commission Discussion include:
o Expectations of ' the new Development Code.
Identification of existing problem areas.
o Process and priorities for review of new code.
Document format and contents.
o Public participation program.
o Development of a formal work program setting forth task,
product, schedule, and budget.
JDS\mc0
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development D r
SUBJECT: Schedule of Future Meetings
DATE: November 10, 1994
The next regularly scheduled Planning commission P-"k8&-ftng is
November 28, 1994. At this time there are no scheduled agenda
items for that date. Similarly, there are no scheduled agenda
items for the December 26 meeting.
The following -scheduled for the December 12 meeting:
1. ' Ac OLI I ,,Use Permit for Pantera Park
2. Conditional Use Permit for coin operated car wash
3. Reorganization of the Planning Commission.
JDS\mco
Fila raulaw0fl by
on1and is ready for
destruction by City Clerk