HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/27/1990CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 27, 1990
The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar convened in a
regular session at 7:05 p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District
Board Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Walnut, California.
PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Lin, MacBride, Vice
Chairman Harmony and Chairman
Schey
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS:........
ALSO PRESENT: Bill Curley, City Attorney
Ron Kranzer, City Engineer
Jack Istik, Assistant City Engineer
Irwin Kaplan, Interim Planning Director
Robert Searcy, Assistant Planning Director
Dawn Anderson, Planning Technician
Steve Koffroth, City Intern
MINUTES:
Chairman Schey asked the Commission to consider the Minutes of the
Special Study Session and the regulate session on August 13, 1990.
Motion was made by Vice.. Chairman Harmony and seconded by
Commissioner Grothe to approve the minutes of the Special Study
Session on August 13, 1990 and to require the minutes of the
regular session be brought back before the Commission at the next
meeting for action. MOTION CARRIED unanimously.
MATTERS FROM THE PUBLIC:
There were none.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Resolution for CUP 90-0087: Chevron soil remediation.
2. Resolution for Zone Change 89-440: Hotel, restaurant and
three retail structures under a Development Agreement.
Chairman Schey asked that Resolution for 90-0087 be pulled from the
Consent Calendar.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Harmony and seconded by Chairman
Schey to approve Resolution for 89-440.
Ayes: Commissioner Lin, MacBride, Vice Chairman Harmony
and Chairman Schey
Nays: 0
Abstentions: Commissioner Grothe
Discussion was opened on Resolution for 90-0087.
Vice Chairman Harmony stated that since the August 13th meeting, he
has spoken with the Air Pollution Control District and has
additional information on the different processes available to
clean-up the contaminated soil. There are four (4) different ways
of doing this, none of these is the removal of the soil.
1. Abstraction Unit` where the vapors are abstracted through
carbon filters, which the applicant is applying for.
2. Combustion method which is similar to the absorption Unit
except for the vapors are burned'.
3 Absorption method where the vapors pass through a liquid which
absorbs the 'hydro carbons.'
4. Vapor Condenser where a compressor` condenses the vapors into
a liquid form.
All of these methods involve units with motors.
Mr. Gana, corner of Fountain Springs and Rising Star, Diamond Bar,
was concerned with the possible noise created by the remediation
equipment. Most of the noise in the area is created by the
transient traffic. He wanted to know why the applicants could not
enclose the remediation equipment in a brick building.
Chairman Schey stated that'the'applicant is required to construct
a wall around the remediation equipment.
Mr. Searcy stated that it was not specified as to what extend the
wall will be constructed.
Commissioner Grothestated that Chevron has submitted an
application to the Planning` Department and is making an attempt to
clean up the problem. Part of the Conditions of Approval was that,
at a future date the noise emitted from the remediation equipment
was found to be excessive, the applicant will take measures to
additionally mitigate the noise.
Motion was made by Vice Chairman Harmony and seconded by
Commissioner, Grothe to approve the Resolution for CUP 90-0087.
MOTION CARRIED unanimously.
^` PUBLIC HEARING:
2
1. Subdivision 90-0052 (Vesting Parcel, Map 22178), (continued
from August 13th meeting) a subdivision to create 12 hots on
13.35 acres in the CM -BE -UC (Commercial Manufacturing -
Billboard Exclusion -Unilateral, Contract) zone located at 21600
East Gateway Center Drive.
2. Subdivision 90-0041 (Vesting Parcel Map 22102), a minor
subdivision to create 2 parcels on 4.39 acres in the CM -BE -UC
(Commercial Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion -Unilateral
Contract) zone located at 1575 -South Valley Vista.
Chairman Schey proposed to open both hearings at the same time
and take testimony on them simultaneously, but take separate
motions.
Mr. Kaplan stated that there were two concerns raised at the
previous meeting which are as follows;
1. Determination of the scope of the Commission's authority
over development within the Gateway Center in light of
the City Council Resolution adopted October'17th.
2. Adequacy of traffic mitigation measures for the Gateway
Center Project.
Staff met with Representatives for the Gateway Center and
indicated to them what staff felt was necessary to update the
traffic mitigation measures to report on the impactof traffic
on two aspects
1. Pedestrian Program for the center addressing pedestrian
t' traffic crossing the site rather than walking along the
outside of the center.
2. Update of the entire traffic program which recognizes the
external impacts that come from outside the side as well
as impacts created from changing to the program from
within the site. Staff has recommended that they
establish a trip budget which will allocate a certain
number of trips to the whole development and will
identify improvements which need to be in, place. A'
monitoring program to keep track of what is happening to
the trip budget as development progresses.
The applicant indicated that they would be willing to do this
but felt that they could not provide this information in time
for this meeting and would.be willing to commit to providing'
this information at a later date if the approval
is granted at this time. This has been submitted to the City
Attorney.
Bill Curley, City Attorney,' stated that in respect to traffic
related impacts the CEQA process allows environmental issues
to be resolved prior to action on the subdivision request. He
feels that it is not wise to condition the approval on impacts.
not yet identified nor in place. In respect to the scope of
3
117 'i''ill..11 .. '=77777117
the Commission's authority pertaining to reviewing projects
developed within the Gateway Center, the Design Guidelines is
the document which has been used to control development within
the Gateway Center. This document is the document considered
by the Council in'their`tesolution-which speaks directly to
the document as amended July 1988 and is the copy that the
Commission has been reviewing. This document does not
contemplate a small lot subdivision for Lot 2. These
applications are outside the apparent scope of the Council's
resolution. On this basis, it may be considered that the
Commission and staff are bound by the Council's resolution
which does not provide for this type of development which is
now being proposed. Alternately, the document does address in
the appendix section various levels of review. The Council's
resolution is not clear as to what the Commission's role is in
the review process due to the fact that it was passed prior to
the Commission's existence.
Commissioner MacBride asked Mr. Curley if the Commission could
take action and pass it on to the Council so that they might
act upon it thereby using it to change their resolution in
certain aspects if they wish to.
Bill Curley stated that the only procedure that they can
follow is the one stated in the resolution which states that
the Design Guidelines must be followed and that any changes
are to be submitted to the City for Council's consideration.
The Commission could deny the applications because they do not
conform to the Design Guidelines. This would give the
opportunity to appeal to Council which could serve as the
avenue of Council considering the new proposal and agreeing to
amending the resolution or amending the Guidelines to
incorporate this new subdivision. Alternatively, they could
consider a waiver of the Design Guidelines if they voluntarily
chose not to use the Guidelines and submit -themselves to the
general Planning process which the Council should be informed.
The Public Hearing was opened to the applicant.
Mr. Reiling, of Zelman Development, stated that it was his
understanding that they would bring any changes to the project
back before the Commission for additional review.
Mr. Wilkinson, Traffic Engineer, stated that one of the issues
raised at the last meeting was the changing character of the
project and where does the cumulative traffic generation
potential for the project stand now with what was estimated
for the original project. He feels that the peak hour trips
of a project are the most important component. The study
shows that the cumulative -trip --generation represented in the
document for the a.m. peak hour were 2,450 trips. AQMD is
expected to reduce this number. The p.m peak hour was 2,525
trips. They took all parcels which have been developed or
development has been committed to and the current cumulative
trips for those parcels are 2,264 to the p.m. peak hour and
2,300 for the a.m. peak hour. The applicants are willing to
4
- - - -- -11111 IF
,_ �.,.-....-.....-..«m..,.... t ..�.- ..41.II•i.lulu,.w4lmdadYlulloLYWxllllwud.duai„ ____.__ _ _— ___ ,.^ -:_'-__a'___— __ .._ .
complete any additional studies the Commission might desire
because these will only confirm that the current studies are
accurate.
Vice Chairman Harmony asked what was the estimated daily trips
I�
for the center.
The applicant stated that the budget established 18,290 trips
for the center and the current trips for those parcels known
about are 17,359.
Vice Chairman Harmony asked the applicant if the Kaiser
facilities proposed for the center will be a typical medical
care facility.
The applicant indicated that this site will only be used for
day care medical needs. There will be facilities developed in
Ontario to accommodate more serious matters.
Commissioner Grothe asked if the study addressed the layout of
this project. He feels that the traffic in this center
typically drive too fast. He was concerned with the traffic
safety in this area.
The speed limit for the center is posted for 40 MPH and with
this project it will be posted for 35 MPH subject to further
modifications.
Commissioner Lin asked what was the approximate percentage of
useable land that has been developed.
The applicant stated that about one half of the land has been
developed and another 2/3 has been committed to.
Twenty-five percent of the parcels are undeveloped with no
future plans for development at this time.
Vice Chairman Harmony asked if, with smaller parcels, there
will be underground parking.
The applicant stated this will be up to the tenants but he
does not anticipate there will be structured parking.
Byron Pinchart, Hill-Pinchart, presented design guidelines for
the site. He stated they have discussedproviding pedestrian
accesses and the applicants want to provide sidewalk accesses
for each site. In addition, they will provide places to cross
the street and will be bringing the court yards of the
buildings together. This site was designed to become the
center of the park.
Vice Chairman Harmony asked for definition of 50 percent
coverage.
The applicant stated .5 FAR means have 1/2 acres of buildable
area.
5
-- , _,K,. --r --
,��..�I. "11n"IIIA"�7"I��l 111 -- �,_ _._. , .._ : _,_..w, 'c'�uP liil idrluIm lir,-
Vice Chairman Harmony asked if this would limit the size of
the buildings.
Mr. Pinchart stated that economics would regulate small
buildings in order to provide setbacks and parking. Normally
it is not economical to building parking structures.
Vice Chairman Harmony asked if floor area adds to total
coverage of the site.
Mr. Pinkart indicated yes. Most will not be .5 FAR.
Mr. Keener stated that the slope will be flattened and a 25
foot landscape easement will be included.
Those in favor of the project.
Darrel Snyder, resident of Diamond Bar, is in escrow on Lots
3 and 4. He likes the small lot concept. His architect drew
up a concept of what he could build on the lots. Due to the
required setbacks and the lot size, only small buildings would
be feasible.
Those in opposition of the project.
There were none.
. i i 11I 1111 11I' 11 111 11 111111 1 I II
The Public Hearing was closed.
r�
Commissioner Grothe wants to insure the project meets all the
requirements. He feels the small buildings will mandate side
walks along the buildings and the Design Guidelines are too
general and do not have high standards. He would like to see
the Design Guidelines amended to be consistent with the
buildings currently in existence. He does not object to
small lots and asked if landscape will be a common area.
Applicant stated Zelman Development can assess tenants if they
do not keep the landscaping up.
Bill Curley asked Mr. Reiling a few questions. He stated that
the appendix talks about the planning review board. The
preliminary plan section talks of submitting the preliminary
plans which include building elevation, colors, finishes etc.
to the Architectural Committee, Supervisory Subarum, Diamond
Bar"Municipal Advi-sory Committee and Trans America. He asked,
with the incorporation of the City of Diamond Bar and the
Council's ratification of the Guidelines through a resolution,
would the other entities which were part of the review process
be eliminated to only the Architectural Committee.
Mr. Reiling stated up until now, including the building
currently under construction, it went through all of these
reviews, except MAC, which was no longer in existence.
Mr. Curley stated that if there was a switch of player to
t
6
. i i 11I 1111 11I' 11 111 11 111111 1 I II
player from the County to the City it would seem like MAC
would be replaced by the Commission. This would clarify the
Commission's role in reviewing projects and is something that
should be discussed with Council.
i
Commissioner Lin asked as to the placement of the utility
easement.
Mr. Reiling stated that the utilities will be placed in the
street and parcels will be separately served. Each site has
utility stubs.
Vice Chairman Harmony asked Mr. Reiling what happened to the
large lot concept.
Mr. Reiling stated that the market has indicated that the
smaller lots are more viable. Many people ask for smaller
lots.
Vice Chairman Harmony asked if this will change Diamond Bar's
Development Standards.
Mr. Reiling stated it would not.
Vice Chairman Harmony stated the large lot concept was
approved by City Council and MAC. If the center transforms
from an industrial park to an office complex, what are the
impacts on sale tax revenues, property values, and income
earnings for the City and is there documentation.
Vice Chairman Harmony does not want to approve the project,
without the impacts identified for infrastructure.
Mr. Kaplan feels there have been enough changes to require a
new traffic study. This is the first time the applicant has
indicated the traffic study is current. The applicant is
willing to provide and conduct studies to prove this is
current information. Mr. Kaplan would like to see the effects
of the growth levels in the area of Chino Hills to include the
site changes. (update instead of new plan).
Commissioner MacBride is glad that concept has changed and is
in favor of smaller lots and the pedestrian walk ways.
Commissioner Grothe stated that before the final map is
approved the grading must be approved.
Chairman Schey wants to see the center developed as it has
begun. He is uncertain about what has to go before the City
and what does not. He feels that the Guidelines need to be
amended before the subdivision is approved. He is in favor of
denying the negative declaration due to the inability to
mitigate unknown impacts and deny the subdivision.
VA
Ron Kranzer said the Commission can, if not too specific, input
a condition to get a modified design guidelines to be approved
by Council.
Chairman Schey wants the key project of the community,
developed in a correct manner and is concerned about the
overall process. By approving the map, the guidelines are
amended, suggesting from a process stand point, the map needs
to be amended into the plan first, and then returned to the
Commission to do a subdivision map in conformance with the
general plan. He would like a motion denying the mitigating
negative data due to the inability to flag conditions to
mitigate impacts not readily anticipated. Deny the tentative
tract for the reason it is not in compliance with the design
guidelines. In the resolution, recommend to the City Council
they reconsider their resolution, approving the new guidelines
due to non compliance of the Design Guidelines applications as
was approved. It is further recommended the City work with
the developer, to establish guidelines in a more common,
understandable form, taking out the ambiguities and setting it
up in such a way both the City and the developer are
comfortable in the development of the project. Add to the
resolution, the reaffirmation the City is desirous in working
with the developer within a reasonable time.line.
Mr. Reiling has no problem working with the City Council
revising guidelines and asks if the resolution be designed in
such a way that both Council and Commission are working on the
same tract so the map is not stopped. --
Ron Kranzer states it is policy for all final maps to go to,
the Council. In this particular case it would have to go
before the Council because offering dedication of right of
way.
Chairman Schey is uncomfortable amending the general plan by
subdivision. He has no problem with the physical layout but
a problem with the process of approving a tentative map and
then the guidelines rather than amending the guidelines and
then doing the tentative map.
Bill Curley adds generally you don't vary from the plan
without having thought out that plan and make the
modifications.
Motion was made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Commissioner
MacBride to deny the mitigating negative declaration based
upon the inability to apply conditions to mitigate impact not
fully understand at this time.
The motion is opened to discussion.
Jack Istik, Assistant City Engineer, points out the time and
money wasted by delaying action.
Mr. Reiling asks again to keep the map and have, if possible,
�. 8
both areas working concurrently.
Commissioner MacBride asks how to talk to the Council if there
is a concern. An agreement was entered into in a time
warranting a change. He wants to facilitate the efforts of
people making an honest effort to develop property properly.
Bill Curley indicates the clearest approach would be to direct
a high standing staff member to add to the agenda at the next
available Council meeting whatever the Commissions pleasure
may be. City Council has put the Commission into a situation
the current documents don't provide for. It's unclear whether
to amend the general plan using the language "by Development
Plan" first, or whether it can be done concurrently.
Commissioner MacBride suggests detailing to the Council, the
concerns and recommendations on how to improve what seems to
be an impossible situation. He wants to see this facilitated
and done properly.
Commissioner Grothe recommends denying the resolution with a
recommendation to Council, without prejudice. The applicant
can come back immediately after talking to the `Council and
resubmit. This would accomplish the task Commissioner
MacBride suggested and detail our concerns without prejudice,
so Council would know it wasn't approved.
Chairman Schey notes the denial would show urgency in the
matter.
Motion made for the denial of the resolution. Motion fails.
Commissioner Grothe motions to approve the tenant parcel map
with the conditions being a review of the Design Guidelines
and modifications approved by the Council, a preparation of
the development agreement limiting the floor area ratio to .5
to 1 parcels, and a pedestrian plan with some access across
the parcel, to be worked -out with staff. The Commission and
Council should have a site plan to review and the Design
Guidelines in place prior to any final map, cover all parcel
lots. Another condition being the project doesn't exceed
budget and proper documentation be presented to our
engineering department to justify it doesn't exceed the
budget.
Vice Chairman Harmony states the Intent of Motion agreement
would make all City Ordinances and Planning Commission review
all developments on each and every parcel. These parcels, as
the become developed, would come back before this Commission.
They would have to comply with all signing and other
normal,and nominal zoning ordinances.
Chairman Schey states the -architectural structures should
exceed at least three stories.
e
9
li
I
Mr. Reiling states affirms three stories to be economically
feasible,
The Public Hearing is open for discussion.
There is no comment.
The Public Hearing is now declared closed.
Motion was made by Chairman and seconded by Commissioner
MacBride to approve mitigated negative declaration.
Ayes: Commissioner Lin, Commissioner MacBride,
Commissioner Grothe, Vice Chairman Harmony
Nayp: Chairman Schey
Motion Carried.
Chairman Schey reminds the Commission of the motion made by
Commissioner Grothe and Commissioner MacBride seconded.
Thelmotion is open to discussion.
Bill Curely stated the resolution is becoming very complex,
and wording to accommodate the Commissions thoughts must be
carefully put together and not something done after the fact.
He alternatively suggests continuing one last time with
understanding the purpose of the following meeting would be
to pick apart the resolution and to make sure it says what you
want it to say as a Commission. Interpretation by staff could
result in surprises and direct staff to draft resolutions
within the quidelines and brought back to the Commission for
further discussion.
Public Hearing declared closed for Subdivision 90-0041.
Motion made by Commissioner Grothe to include his amendment.
Ayes: Commissioner MacBride, Commissioner Grothe,
Commissioner Lin, Vice Chairman Harmony
Nays: Chairman Schey
Motion Carried.
C,u.P
3. PP 90-0070: (continued hearing) AR Investments, Inc. - Family
Dining Restaurant designed with maximum occupancy of 285
persons on a 104,700 square foot lot located in Gateway
Corporate Center at 21671 East Gateway Center Drive.
Vice Chairman Harmony summarizes issues chiefly surrounds
possible future subdivision of the lot. Beyond that it was a
provision of additional parking spaces for any future plan use
that would maximize the available areas within the restaurant,
and also the architectural materials and features as would be
used.
f
7
10
- 7 �I � �';" :— ���, �'�TIII� II 'VIII 1111116I�hll'rl�•V���:I W�
Ding Velasquez, representing AR Investments for Dr. Omar's
Restaurant, said two issues were a problem at the last
hearing:
1. Not enough material was presented.
2. Felt the Commission was hung up on the use of the
mezzanine level.
The owners agree to provide 8 additional parking spaces. Of
the 95 required parking spaces,we have now 104 total, to
include standard spaces with 26 compact spaces.
Chairman Schey asks Rob Searcy how the determination of 8
additional parking spaces were computed relative to the
available mezzanine space area.
Rob Searcy, Assistant Planning Director, says the computation
is based upon an approximation of the capacity or occupancy of
the 430 sq. feet on the upper level of the mezzanine. Based
upon that, additional parking spaces
are required.
Ding Velasquez describes the restaurant through a demonstrated
model so Commissioners can visualize the plan.
Chairman Schey understands the Commission has before them, an
Environmental Assessment Conditional Use Permit in
Developmental Review. The Developmental Review primarily
being associated with the architectural designs the
renderings, the color boards, the models and so on. The use
itself is consistent with the design guidelines we so
rigorously reviewed.
Bill Curley states this is the only lot explicitly oriented to
be a restaurant and that use is not to be changed. It's in
the CCR that,in perpetuity, this will only be a restaurant
sign.
Chairman Schey has staff review the Planting Plans for
consistency with their design guidelines.
The Public Hearing is open.
No comment.
The Public Hearing is declared closed.
Chairman Schey asks for further comment or question from the
Commission.
Commissioner Grothe asks if the metallic tile on top of the
gazebo represent any kind of visual impact to the freeway or
to residents of other buildings as a reflective surface.
Ron Kranzer, City Engineer, doesn't think so because of the
rrn
orientation of the facility.
Commissioner Grothe asks if the canopies are of sufficient
fabric fire retardant.
Ron Kranzer has not reviewed them but the Building Department
i would review this type of facility and would also be under the
Fire Department scrutiny.
Chairman Schey says the canopy material was initially
presented to the Fire Department during the One Star Meeting
and it had an acceptable rating.
Ding Velasquez didn't bring sample of material. He explains
it is a tedlan clad vinyl coated polyester. The tedlan melts
on fire but does not fuel fire, and is non toxic.
Irwin Kaplan, Interim Planning Director, states there's a
substantial amount of unused parcel that is relatively level.
The CUP should retain it as open space or for parking in
sometime in the future if it seems adequate. Would like this
as a condition of approval.
Jack Istik reiterated his aversion to compact parking spaces.
If there is additional flat lot as indicated, it can be easily
solved in parking around: The appl%cant has done a unique
job in breaking up the large wall along freeway, with designs.
Commissioner MacBride asks how the walkway integrates with the
adjoining parcel,and if there is a difference in elevation.
Ding Velasquez says the restaurant is higher than the hotel
and the owners are negotiating with Days Hotel to build a
pedestrian bridge from the Hotel to the Restaurant, for
decorative purposes. At this point, it is just an idea but
there will be pedestrian access.
Motion is made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Commissioner
MacBride to approve the mitigate negative deck declaration.
Motion is Carried unanimously -.-
Motion is made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Commissioner
MacBride to approve the Conditional Use Permit and designer
view as submitted with the condition that the CUP retain
additional flat lot for parking in future use.
Motion is Carried unanimously.
4. Conditional Use Permit 90-0071: A request to install
additional seating and enclose an open patio adjacent to the
Jojos Restaurant, property is zoned CPD (Commercial Planned
Development), located at 20955 Colima Road.
Vice Chairman Harmony states the application is for the
enclosure of exterior patio. The added addition is about a
17% increase overall in the seating, and provides additional
f' 226 sq. feet of interior dining area. Currently the approval
for the permit of this site was approved subject to 57 parking
12
spaces being provided. The 226 additional sq.
feet will not increase their parking requirement to exceed
what they presently have. It is a small addition and planning
staff feels that the configuration of the site and the
location is adequate. The space is not currently used for
dining.
Commissioner Grothe questions the 17% increase in seating area
and asked if it is same as the floor area. He noticed parking
is tight and people parked along the wall.
Vice Chairman Harmony describes the area as sort of an atrium
and was not included in the calculation for the loo minimum
required in landscaping.
The Public Hearing is now open to the applicant.
Scott Gregor, Project Manager for the J'ojos Restaurant, states
basically what they plan o -n doing is, going in and. excavating
out the existing planting area, and putting in a flat roof on
the unit, not taking away from the way the building looks as
it sits right now. They are adding 18 seats, removing a booth
to cut through into the atrium area, and installing a circular
window in the existing circular opening.
Chairman Schey asked Mr. Gregor if he had any feeling on how
parking works for the restaurant now.
Scott Gregor knows it is tight at times and thought they could
go through and scale down some to compacting to pick up a few
more additional spots.
Chairman Schey asks staff if there are compact stalls figured
into the parking scheme- right -now.
Staff would imagine so and wonders if the parking lot could be
redesigned to get more parking.
Those in favor of the project.
There were none.
Those in opposition of the project.
There were none.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Grothe points-outthere..doesn`-t appear- to be
enough parking and wonders if parking along the wall is
prohibited for a fire lane.
Vice Chairman Harmony notes the compact stalls may be an
appropriate way of solving the parking problem.
Chairman Schey states the project does seem to meet parking
13
..d.T:;.—may
„I Ilf II llrl'IIIII'iP'" -
standards but the Commission has the option, through the CUP
process in requiring other than the standard.
Commissioner MacBride asks if calculations, on the 10%
requirements, for landscaping was verified.
Chairman Schey replies the County approved them but he hasn't
verified the landscaping was still intact.
Rob Searcy notes the parking out on the street has been
eliminated just recently.
Motion made by Commissioner MacBride and seconded by Vice
Chairman Harmony to approve the negative declaration.
Ayes: Commissioner Lin, Commissioner MacBride, Vice
Chairman Harmony, Chairman Schey
Nays: Commissioner Grothe
Motion Carried
Motion made by Vice Chairman Harmony and seconded by
Commissioner MacBride to approve the CUP and subject to
signing fire lane in accordance with the fire department
regulations staff review of the landscape standard and the
projects adherence to the requirements.
The Motion is open to discussion.
Commissioner Grothe concerned with the elimination of parking
by the wall, the elimination of parking on street and the
added seating, where people will park.
Vice Chairman Harmony points out if there is no parking space,
one doesn't stay, thereby not creating any problem.
Ayes: Commissioner Lin, Commissioner MacBride, Vice Chair
Harmony, Chair Schey
Nays: Commissioner Grothe
Motion Carried. -
5. Tentative Tract 47722 & CUP/OT 89-338: A request to allow a
subdivision of existing 19 acre parcel into 16 residential
lots, a Conditional Use Permit for hillside management review
and an Oak Tree Permit to remove 10 oak trees to be replaced
with twenty (20) 15 gallon trees, property is zoned R-1-10,000
(residential 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) and located
on the northwest corner of the intersection of Derringer Lane
and Ridgeline Road.
Chair/Schey asks for the staff report.
14
..r mNr�=._�.�xwsi IAaunwaarMwl�i.adaw°•°"W^��.16..A,Lywi
Ron Kranzer, states for the record, as such the environmental
consultant, Don King, has not had a chance to respond as
talked about earlier and wants to have an opportunity to
compare responses. He further commented, Don King pointed
out, only deficiencies of the EIR were mentioned. It was not
staffs intent to discredit the EIR.
The summarization of the project is given:
The project is a 16 unit, 19 acre single family hillside
subdivision which is zoned R-1-10,000 sq. feet per dwelling
unit. The CUP requires the Commission to make certain
findings relative to the project, will not have an adverse
effect on the healthkey comfort, it will not be materially
detrimental to the use enjoyment valuation of property of
other persons, it will not jeopardize or endanger and so on...
The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to, accommodate
yard walled fences. The proposed site is adequately served by
highway streets and by other public, private service
facilities. This is the general framework for the CUP
evaluation. The project itself will require grading on the
site, which is estimated at 204,000 cubic yards which is to be
balanced on the site and be filled up to 95 feet in height, 80
feet in depth. The 80, 000 cubic yards is included' as remedial
work to stabilize the road. The proposed'project road would
enter from Derringer Lane, private and site plan indicates
slope of 15% on the road. It is not possible to determine the
horizontal and vertical sight distances along the road
relative to individual driveways.
There are a series of comments on the EIR:
1. The driveways access as opposed to main road access to
some of the parcels.
2. Crib walls proposed to retain slope, some of which are
high, appear to be in excess of 35 feet at one high point
behind the Coyote Springs properties.
3. The relocation of a 30" gas line and questions about how
that will be handled.
4. There is an intermittent blue line stream is on the USGS
map, state identified, and significant because of the
contribution to the ecosystem. The impacts are not clear
on the EIR and not exactly sure what the relocation or
alteration of that stream would be.
5. Not sure from the EIR how much of slope is above the 25%
which identifies the amount over 50%. The balancing of
the grading on site may or may not have offside effects.
6. There wasn't a visual analysis which identifies the
impact of the project of the changes might be seen from
a distance or from adjoining properties.
7. There could have been more discussion on the use of
landscaping using water efficient plants.
8. No response from the Fire Department relative to the
property on the cul-de-sacs and deep slopes on the
property.
9. There are issues relative to cumulative impacts that
l could be expanded in the EIR.
10. There is a lacking of mitigation monitoring program as
15
L16 'I, i, il'.dl
required under AB 31-80. The law states it is not enough
to identify the impact and mitigation measures but also
need a program to make sure the mitigation measures will
be instituted and a monitoring program to make sure it
happens.
11. Talked about the conformance to the community plan -
maintain the rural setting, and minimize the alteration
of the natural terrain.
12. In conclusion, under the CUP, the Commission may approve
it, approve it with conditions or under CUP fields. If
the Commission feels it is inconsistent with the
community plan and CUP requirement, the Commission can
deny CUP. The Commission can continue the hearing or it
can take action on it.
There are 2 issues on the table:
1. the specific project before the Commission.
2. the larger issue of policy relative to .the development of
the hillside properties.
The Public Hearing is now open to the applicant.
Don King, Environmental Consultant, states his office prepared
the environmental report. He requests a continuance until the
next meeting. The staff report did not get to his office on
time. He was unable to respond to everything in the report
and would like to work with staff to have adequate information
available. They are trying hard to do the project the right
way, and states he can begin the presentation but would prefer
to wait until all information is available first.
Chairman Schey has no problem granting continuance but would
like to open the Public ...Hearing for -.-comments so . that those
comments could also be addressed at a later date.
The Public Hearing is open to the audience.
Those in favor for the project.
Lorraine Repucci, resident of Diamond bar, employed for 5
years at the YMCA and member of the Community Club at school,
would like to give a favorable character reference for Frank
Perimarini and commend him for all his support within the
community and the quality of his architectural structures.
Those in opposition of the project.
Claudia Huff, teacher _in..Diamond-Bar, residing on lot 86 on
plan at 1641 "S. Fire Hallow Drive, appreciates the lovely
architect she also asks for information of the blue line
stream referred to.
Don King comments the intermittent blue line stream means it
only gets wet when it rains. Blue line stream identifies the
natural drainage course, and the potential for Riparian
Habitat, where plants and animals congregate and may be worth
16
�I I ��1'11' CP' T � � I I. 111114 Illi 'I' III IS'
preserving. King apologizes his staff misread the blue line
stream and the project would not affect it in any way.
Claudia Huff is concerned the retaining wall seems high.
r Perhaps by redoing the lot line and building less homes, some
of the retaining walls could stay lower for appearance sake.
She would also like to know what mitigation measure was the AB
31-80.
Ron Kranzer states anytime there is an impact needed to be
mitigated, there needs to be.a mitigating monitoring program.
The City identifies the mitigation measures as a condition of
approval and then the monitoring program would be attached to
that.
Bob Huff, resides with Claudia Huff, would like to see Diamond
Bar preserve some of their hills and would like to see the
Commission, if not at this particular case, in the future,
show prudence in allowing too many hills developed.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Motion made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Vice Chairman
Harmony to continue the matter to the next regular meeting.
The motion is open to discussion.
There were none.
Motion is Carried unanimously.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
1. Distribution Draft Master EIR for Tentative Tracts 47850,
47851, and 48487: Comprehensive environmental report for
three tentative tract applications for 120 lots located in The
Country. Technical reports are available for Commission
review at City Hall. Applicant recommends that the hearing be
scheduled for September 24, 1990.
Chairman Schey states ..each . Commissioner received the
environmental impact report for 3 tentative tracts. The
applicant recommends the hearing to be September 24, 1990. He
asks Irwin Kaplan if the date mentioned is a reasonable time
frame for him.
Irwin Kaplan states at this point, he refers not to make a
recommendation at this date.
Chairman Schey asks if there are any other questions on this
Information Item.
There were no comments.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
17
Commissioner MacBride asks staff if the Commission was on
cable television.
Staff responds yes.
Jack Istik reiterates his proposal to eliminate compact
parking.
ADJOURNMENT:
C There being no further business to come before the Commission,
Motion was made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Commissioner
MacBride and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 12:20
p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission on September 10, 1990 to be held at the Walnut Valley
Unified School District Board Room, 880 N. Lemon Avenue, Walnut,
California at 7:00 p.m.
David Sc ey
� Chairman
ATTEST:
Elizabet Myers
(Data Forms Management)
I i
18