Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/24/1991AP/Searcy briefly described the background, and the environmental impacts of the proposed project. He also summarized the findings stated in the final SEATAC report. It is recommended that the Commission review the materials, provide comments, and remand the project back to staff for further processing. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 24, 1991 r-7 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Schey called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District Board .- Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Harmony. ROLL CALL: Commissioner MacBride, Commissioner Lin, Vice Chairman Harmony, and Chairman Schey. Commissioner Grothe was absent. Also present were Planning Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, City Engineer Sid Mousavi, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. City Planner Emeritus Irwin Kaplan arrived at 8:00 p.m. MINUTES: C/MacBride requested that the Minutes of June 10, 1991 be amended on page 6 to delete paragraph six. June 10, 1991 Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of June 10, 1991 as amended. �+ NEW BUSINESS: PD/DeStefano stated that, due to an error in the legal notice mailed to surrounding property owners, Draft EIR the public hearing originally scheduled has been Tentative Tract canceled. A new notice will be sent to the 47850, 47851, & property owners surrounding the site to announce 48487 future public hearings on the matter. PD/DeStefano explained that the City originally received the EIR from the developer August of 1990. In December of 1990, the City Council enacted to create a Significant Ecological Technical Advisory Committees (SEATAC) to_review-the document and the impacts to the SEA. A revised EIR was submitted by the developer. The Commission did not receive this document tonight because it is not the document of record. The City has utilized the firm of Michael Brandman Associates, a land planning and environmental firm, to review the August EIR and report the findings and comments of areas that require changes and modification. They have also reviewed the revised EIR. The Development Team is prepared to give a presentation to the Commission, however, it is not intended to be detailed. AP/Searcy briefly described the background, and the environmental impacts of the proposed project. He also summarized the findings stated in the final SEATAC report. It is recommended that the Commission review the materials, provide comments, and remand the project back to staff for further processing. June 24, 1991 Page 2 C/MacBride stated his concern that there is not a comprehensive overview report of the Tonner Canyon area. PD/DeStefano explained that the SEATAC requested a comprehensive overview report. However, they did not conclude it was necessary to wait for the report before beginning and concluding the deliberations of this project. He stated that the environmental team, put together to review the Tonner Canyon area, fell apart. The project is presently being reassessed, and requests for proposals will be sent out. VC/Harmony requested a verbal presentation by Michael Brandman Associates. He also suggested that the audience be allowed to comment. PD/DeStefano explained that the consultant's analysis is primarily based on the August EIR. The May EIR has not yet been circulated. Tony Locacciato, Manager of the Environmental _ Services with Michael Brandman Associates, R explained that they were requested to review the document to make sure it met all the basic requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He made specific comments on the significant areas of the initial DEIR: the project description needs further clarification; the clear conclusions of the impacts needs to be clearly stated in the summary table; the biological section needs more information; and the species list is not entirely complete, and needs clarification. The revised EIR cleaned up a lot of the organizational problems, however, there still lacks adequate additional information. PD/DeStefano explained that the Development Team had three options with respect to revising the EIR: 1. To present all the comments from Michael Brandman Associates to their environmental consultant Don King, and require Don King to make all the appropriate changes. 2. To have Michael Brandman Associates serve as an overall project environmental supervisor to Don King & Associates. 3. To have Michael Brandman take over the project, appropriately format the document, and complete all the necessary tasks. The Development Team has tentatively positioned themselves to take option number two. However, there has been new alternatives suggested as a result of SEATAC's process with additional data created. It is staff's opinion, as well as the June 24, 1991 Page 3 consultant's opinion, that the document should be recirculated. C/MacBride concurred that the document should be recirculated. He requested that the new information and attitudes received be adjusted, in conformance with the California law requirements, and harmoniously documented. PD/DeStefano, in response to VC/Harmony's inquiry, estimated that recirculation would take about 90 days up to the Commission's Public Hearing. VC/Harmony, noting that the models brought in by the developers do not reflect the new grading standards, inquired if the revised EIR will reflect the new grading patterns brought on by the Hillside Ordinance. PD/DeStefano explained that the models were prepared to illustrate the originally proposed project. One of the alternatives, to his understanding, within the new EIR, is a project which reflects the new Hillside Grading Ordinance. C/Lin requested that the Notice of Preparation be i I further clarified. PD/DeStefano explained that when a decision is made to prepare an EIR, a Notice of Preparation needs to be sent out to a variety of effected agencies. The Notice of Preparation gives notification that the document is being prepared; allows the ability to provide input into the preparation; gives notification that the EIR has been concluded; and allows for the ability to comment on the EIR. Cecil Mills, a principal in Diamond Bar Associates, proposing- consideration for tentative tract 47850 and 47851, requested that the issue of recirculation be addressed before they continue with a presentation. If the Commission feels the necessary information has been provided, they would like a clear directive determining if the document will or will not have to be recirculated. They are prepared to give a presentation if so desired. Al LaPeter stated that everyone is trying to put together a project that is an asset to the community. He pointed out that recirculation will probably entail 6 months. ChairSche in what led staff to / Y inquired q question if the DEIR-was adequately circulated. June 24, 1991 Page 4 PD/DeStefano stated that there is not enough documentation in the record to indicate whether or not the DEIR was circulated. However, because the EIR needs to be amended in accordance with requested clarifications, the document may have to be recirculated to meet CEQA or legal guidelines. It needs to be determined if the changes made are significant "enough" to warrant a recirculation. Cecil Mills stated that his environmentalist has UPS signed receipts for the delivery of the EIR to every agency required by law. He requested that the Commission not direct a recirculation until the development team has had time to address the concerns of the EIR. The revisions can be made and submitted within a month. He requested the matter be reviewed again in the first meeting in August. VC/Harmony requested that the applicant be prepared to come back to the Commission with alternative plans for utilizing the same property without filling in an ecologically sensitive canyon. Lex Williman, a planner with Hunsaker Association, stated that the geologist has looked at the area extensively and has made specific recommendations. m Alternatives have been looked at, however, the grading required to do the alternative may be more than to fill the canyon. He proceeded to describe to the Commission the technique to be used in the proposed project. VC/Harmony requested computer generated graphics to aid in visualizing the project. He reemphasized his request for a definitive alternative plan for grading. He requested staff do an independent audit to determine why the EIR was not responded to by the effected agencies. Brian Jordan, residing on Wagontrain Lane adjacent to the project, indicated that there would be a conflict of interest if Brandman Associates can represent Diamond Bar, as well as the Development Team. PD/DeStefano explained that the EIR process, inherited from the Los Angeles County, allows the developer to solicit and engage an environmental consultant. However, recently the City elected that all new projects will have a City hired environmental consultant to review any developer prepared EIR to determine their adequacy in respect with State law requirements. This project falls somewhere in the middle. He explained the -7F- 111111 Ir June 24, 1991 Page 5 formation of the SEATAC, and reiterated the 3 options available to the developer. Pat Kelley, residing adjacent to the project, made the following comments: he questioned the ability to make a decision without a complete EIR; the revised draft should be recirculated; it is inappropriate for the developer to come with yesterday's data to address today's project; and the public deserves an updated visual mark up model,, as opposed to computer generated graphics. Dr. Lam, residing on Wagontrail Lane, stated his concern for the additional traffic generated by this project. Mr. Folice, residing on Wagontrail Lane, inquired of the water and sewage problem. CE/Mousavi stated that the existing pump station is currently being studied. There is presently a sewer line. In response to VC/Harmony's inquiry, there has been a traffic study done for Steeplechase and Wagontrain. Chair/Schey directed staff to tentatively set this matter for hearing the first meeting in August, with an update to the Commission during the ensuing weeks. The Commission recessed at 9:06 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 9:20 p.m. Draft Tree PT/Ann Lungu addressed the Commission regarding a Preservation draft Tree Preservation Ordinance. The primary Ordinance need is to determine to what extent the Commission would like this ordinance to establish the policies for the City of Diamond Bar's tree preservation. Staff would appreciate comments and suggestions on the ordinance. VC/Harmony made the following suggestions for the Ordinance: the definition of multitrunk trees is unclear; there should be some special leeway to allow closer buildings within the drip line; nurseries should be included; the City should be involved in the certification of the diseased tree; the City Engineer should have to process a request at some level; Public Utility should not be given authority over Oak Tree/Heritage Tree without some review; the pruning % of the whole tree may be a more appropriate approach to regulating trimming; there should be a provision for allowing instances to chop tree tops, as well as trimming and pruning; the concepts of item G & H, under the Oak -I.. 1 ., �__ 1111 I'M 7 -IC,. --- �-.-�_ 1i1 111111 .1.'.,..111 June 24, 1991 Page 6 Tree/Heritage Tree Permit Application, needs clarification; there should be a longer time period to allow for an appeal; change "dangerous condition" to "eminent danger", under Emergency Waiver; clarify the difference between a horticulturist and an arborist; the responsibility for maintaining replacement trees should be 5 years; broaden the definition concerning the replacement of trees with the largest available tree; the Protection of Existing Trees during construction should include maintenance; and the Enforcement Officer should have code enforcement authority. Chair/Schey questioned the appropriateness of a blanket statement requiring Oak Trees/Heritage Trees to be replaced by the largest available tree. There needs to be more flexibility to deal with particular situations. C/MacBride would like to include, in the list of exceptions, a consideration for trees on private property that require topping to prevent damage to the existing structures to the property.', He -' suggested being more selective on the definition of a Heritage Tree, with consideration of historic inferences. C/Lin stated that fencing, for the Protection of Trees, may not always be warranted. She suggested the statement should include "where necessary and feasible". INFORMATIONAL CPE/Kaplan addressed the Commission regarding the ITEMS: status of the Draft Development Code. The consultant from the Planning Network was requested Update on to set the existing Draft Development code aside Status of Draft and start at the existing County Code as a point of Development Code departure. The aspects of the Code which are not relevant to Diamond Bar will be eliminated. It will be reorganized to be user friendly. The Commission will be asked to determined what aspects of Diamond Bar development are favorable and should be perpetuated, or aspects that shouldn't not be perpetuated. The variances will also be analyzed. The consultant will be asked to draw up three aspects of the new code: look at the existing development of the community to maintain the quality; create standards that would apply to the �Tnl vacant land; and review areas that -are under utilized. The objectives will be brought back to the Commission for further input. VC/Harmony cautioned that many directives could be lost and inaccurately codified in the document by following this procedure. June 24, 1991 Page 7 �... Report on City PD/DeStefano updated the Commission relative to Council actions material reviewed by the City Council on June 18, of June 18, 1991 1991: Tentative Minor Land Division #22102 Due to a variety of problems with the map, the request will be readvertized and renoticed for City Council consideration. Review of Planning, Buildinq and Engineering processing fees and rates The City is currently operating under a fee system utilized by the County. The City hired a consultant to develop a development fee structure that reflects flat fees, actual costs for consultant tasks, and hourly rates for projects requiring planning services. Extension of Ordinance No. 9-A (1991) Ordinance No. 9-A, prohibiting free standing signs in excess of 6 feet in height and/or with a sign face area in excess of 35 square feet, was due to expire June 19, 1991. The Council extended the period for a maximum of one year, or when the new Sign Ordinance is adopted. Continuation of Public Hearing pertaining to signs The City Council held a second Public Hearing on the Sign Ordinance to allow time for the Chamber of Commerce to review the proposed Sign Ordinance. Staff was requested to look at areas that require fine tuning. The Council directed staff to take the package back to the Planning Commission and seek a recommendation from the Commission regarding the proposed ordinance amendments. Staff will do so on July 8, 1991. The Council Public Hearing is scheduled for August 5, 1991. Extending Conditional Use Permit 1634-1 The City Council adopted the Resolution extending the use permit, by 5 years, in order to complete development of the Evangelical Free Church, Report on Code The Commission noted that the "gorilla" was removed Enforcement from the Honda dealership. However, the Commission activities directed staff to advise Mr. Pena that the Commission is still concerned with the violation of the sign ordinance. He has the option to either full compliance of the code, or seeking any regress available in the code. Chair/Schey, in reference to the realty signs placed on the medians, directed staff to send a note to the Board of Realtors informing them that they are in violation. ----^i—r--,--R•n�i . a .. _�.r-7-- - June 24, 1991 Page 8 PD/DeStefano informed the Commission that staff is reviewing a draft ordinance that provides citation authority to the code enforcement officer. Chair/Schey requested that staff keep the Commission informed regarding the Code Enforcement amendment. General Plan PD/DeStefano issued, to the Commission, the completion schedule for the General Plan. He informed the Commission that review of the Draft General Plan Land Use Alternatives Report is scheduled for July 8, 1991. Annual PD/DeStefano stated that the Commission must Reorganization conduct its annual reorganization on July 8, 1991. of the Commission Chair/Schey requested that the item be placed as the first item of business, after the approval of the minutes. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/MacBride stated his concern with the visual blight created by cars parked on front lawns, and/or cars that are unkept and inoperable. He ,I inquired what the City could do to prevent this, and other areas of visual blight. ADJOURNMENT: L-, PD/DeStefano stated that there are several areas in the existing code to help alleviate this kind of visual blight. He suggested that the Commission, in order to aid the code enforcement officer, could shape the policies and priorities of the Code Enforcement and perhaps target certain types of violations. C/MacBride requested that staff give the Commission any examples of City guidelines regarding this issue. Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by VC/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m. Attest: David Schey Chairman Respectively, Jaly1Vk1W2--P s DeStefano Secretary/Planning Commission