Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/25/1993.add• Iaiwlma�.wrNx�e:J�d..iw.l4rd i�rlubvNVaa _ = L _ CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW JANUARY 25, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Ban, California. ROLL CALL: Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, and Planning Technician Ann Lungu. MINUTES: Dec. 14, 1992 CDD/DeStefano accepted that the Minutes of December 14, 1992 as presented. PUBLIC HEARING: PT/Lungu report_.d that Administrative Development Review 92-20- is''a request made by Mr. Anderson to ADR 92-20 construct a first and second story addition of 692 square feet,,to an existing two story single family residence of approximately 1,997 square feet. The site is approximately 6,588 square feet and is located at 20863 High Country. The General Plan land use designation is RLM. The current zoning is RPD 10,000/6 -units per acre. The project meets all the development standards by code. One side of the house, after the addition, will be five feet from the side property line. The applicant is proposing to follow the line of the existing house, as is allowed by City policy. The applicant is also proposing to extend the bedrooms upstairs by extending the front elevation of the house, and adding bay windows. The architectural style will remain the same, and is compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Staff recommended that the Community Development Director approve ADR 92-20, with Findings of Fact and conditions listed. CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing opened. Mr. Anderson, the applicant, indicated that upon reading all the conditions as presented by staff, he has no objections. CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing closed. CDD/DeStefano stated that the proposed addition is consistent with the logical extension of the existing floor, and with the architectural style of the existing development. The setback issue between the adjacent home is not a concern. Mr. Anderson inquired if it was necessary to submit another application if they were to fill in approximately 50 to 60 square feet along the back. a. 11i lIT'I°`°°� 11.E II 11 11 , r 7- -'-f- , -- - .. "„m 11 1 ' 7T- I I - - - r January 25, 1993 Page 2 CDD/DeStefano stated that it would be acceptable if the applicant's plan is to push the kitchen out a few feet to be even with the existing house. CDD/DeStefano, based upon his observation, and the findings and facts presented, approved ADR 92-20, amending one of the conditions to be added to the Resolution of Approval to include an option, that must be exercised prior to the issuance of building permits, for expanding the first floor kitchen area north by approximately three feet. CDD/DeStefano recessed the meeting at 6:10 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 6:50. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to 5 p.m. January 26, 1993. Respectively, 3 1 r Ja s DeStefano Director of Community Development CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar-, California. ROLL CALL: Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, and Planning Technician Ann Lungu. MINUTES: Dec. 14, 1992 CDD/DeStef ano accepted that the Minutes of December 14, 1992 as presented. PUBLIC HEARING: PT/Lungu reported that Administrative Development Review 92-20,- is—' --a request made by Mr. Anderson to ADR 92-20 construct a first and second story addition of 692 square feetit6 —in existing two story single family residence of gLpproximately 1,997 square feet. The site is approximately 6,588 square feet and is located at 20863 High Country. The General Plan land use designation is RLM. The current zoning is RPD 10,000/6 -units per acre. The project meets all the development standards by code. One side of the house, after the addition, will be five feet from the side property line. The applicant is proposing to follow the line of the existing house, as is allowed by City policy. The applicant is also proposing to extend the bedrooms upstairs by extending the front elevation of the house, and adding bay windows. The architectural style will remain the same, and is compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Staff recommended that the Community Development Director approve ADR 92-200, with Findings of Fact and conditions listed. CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing opened. Mr. Anderson, the applicant, indicated that upon reading all the conditions.as presented by staff, he has no objections. CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing closed. CDD/DeStefano stated that the proposed addition is consistent with the logical extension of the existing floor, and with the architectural style of the existing development. The setback issue between the adjacent home is not a concern. Mr. Anderson inquired if it was necessary to submit another application if they were to fill in approximately 50 to 60 square feet along the back. January 25, 1993 Page 2 CDD/DeStef ano stated that it would be acceptable if the applicant's plan is to push the kitchen out a few feet to be even with the existing house. CDD/DeStefano, based upon his observation, and the findings and facts presented, approved ADR 92-20, amending one of the conditions to be added to the Resolution of Approval to include an option, that must be exercised prior to the issuance of building permits, for expanding the first floor kitchen area north by approximately three feet. CDD/DeStefano, recessed the meeting at 6:10 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 6:50. ADJOUR14MENT: The meeting was adjourned to 5 p.m. January 26, 1993. Respectively, Ja s DeStefano, —s D CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 25, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at j 7:05 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Plunk. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Plunk, Grothe, Li, Vice Chairman Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum. C/Plunk excused herself from the meeting at 12:00 a.m. Also present were Community Development Director James Destefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Interim City Engineer George Wentz, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MATTER FROM Oscar Law, residing at 2150 Pathfinder, expressed THE AUDIENCE: his concern for the need of an access lane for emergency vehicles during the construction phase of the Pathfinder Bridge Widening Project. He also expressed his concern that the project only proposes 4 lanes, when in actuality, it requires 6 lanes to maintain the traffic increase from future growth. ICE/Wentz explained that the Pathfinder Bridge Widening Project is under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. The contract for the project has already been awarded, and the anticipated date for construction is April of 1993. Staff will contact the County and Caltrans to discuss the concern related to emergency vehicle access. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of Minutes of January 11, 1993, as presented. Jan. 11, 93 OLD BUSINESS: PT/Lungu reported that a Resolution of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 is before the Tentative Parcel Planning Commission for consideration, as well as a Map No. 23629 memo from the Deputy City Attorney, Craig Fox, addressing the issues of arbitration and relocation of tenant, and the addition of statements to the CC&R's regarding these issues. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, and seconded by C/Li ' I to approve Resolution 93-1. I C/Plunk, noting that Mr. Camp, the applicant's representative, had indicated, at the last meeting, his willingness to participate in combating graffiti and partake in a cost benefit analysis of painting with graffiti resistant paint versus January 25, 1993 Page 2 continuously repainting, suggested a substitute Motion to approve Resolution 93-1, with the amendment that the applicant be required to participate in the City's graffiti abatement program. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that it was determined, at the last meeting, that it would not be appropriate to penalize this one single applicant by requiring him to participate in the City's graffiti abatement program. The applicant is willing to take measures, such as additional lighting and vegetation, as a means for graffiti prevention. C/Plunk's substitute Motion died for lack of a second. PUBLIC HEARING: General Plan Amendment 92-2; DA 92-1, 92-2, 92-3; Vesting TT Map 5140, CUP 92-8 & Oak Tree Permit 92-8; Vesting TT 32400, CUP 91-5, Zone Change 91-2 & Oak Tree Permit 91-2; TT Map 51253 & CUP 92-12; Oak Tree Permit 92-9; the South Pointe Master Plan; & EIR 92-9. The Planning Commission voted upon the Motion made by VC/Meyer, and seconded by C/Li to approve Resolution 93-1 for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CDD/De5tefano reported that, the proposed before the Commission, is a request for approval of a mixed use project consisting of land uses which include residential, commercial, open space and school facilities. The project site, approximately 171 acres, is located within the South Pointe Middle School/Sandstone Canyon area, and is presently owned by 5 entities, three of which are private and two are public. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with State guidelines, circulated to various State and local agencies, and has been available to the general public for over 6 weeks. This is the first public hearing on the proposed South Pointe Master Plan project before the Commission. The Planning Commission will not take any action on the merits of this project this evening, but will receive testimony, and provide comments and direction to staff. Discussion of the merits of this project will be continued to February of 1993. There can be no final action on this proposed project, until the issue of the pending litigation with proponents of a referendum upon the City's General Plan is resolved. CDD/DeStefano then introduced Peter Lewendowski, from the firm of Ultrasystems, who prepared the EIR, and Hardy Strozier, of the Planning Associates, who is the project manager. Hardy Strozier explained that a project team as been pulled together to manage the preparation of an EIR, which evaluates all topical issues required i 11 111 January 25, 1993 Page 3 under State Law, and put together a Master Development Plan, which guides the planning and the execution of various engineering entitlements as the project develops over the next five to ten years, if approved. The 42 page staff report, presented to the Planning Commission, is a condensed version of the environmental documentation previously presented to the Commission. The following 8 specific items will be reviewed by the Commission over the intervening weeks: the EIR (the Commission still has the option to either deny or approve the project, even if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend certification of this EIR to the City Council); the General Plan Amendment (the existing water district property needs to have a redesignation to Planned Development); the Development Agreement (this will be provided later for the Commission's review); Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 - Arciero (no staff report); Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 - Patel (no staff report); Vesting Tentative Map No. 51407 - RnP (no staff report); Hillside Management Ordinance CUP; and an Oak Tree Removal Permit. The Notice of Preparation of the draft EIR was distributed for 30 days, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and there was a 45 day review period to allow for written comments regarding the draft EIR, which ended January 18, 1993. The notices for public hearing was mailed,on January 14, 1993, to approximately 1,100 property owners adjacent to the project site. The EIR was prepared by the independent firm of Ultra Systems, and they provided independent conclusions on the analysis of all the topical areas found in the draft EIR. Two impacts were identified, in summary of the independent consultants review, that could not be mitigated below a level of significance: traffic and air quality. The intent this evening is to solicit community input on the draft EIR, and respond to any questions that the Commission may direct to staff and the planning consultants. VC/Meyer requested Mr. Lewendowski to explain the purpose of an EIR. Mr. Lewendowski explained that CEQA requires p-� governmental agencies, who have authority over particular projects, to include, in their decision making process, an analysis of the projects impacts upon the environment. The City prepared an initial study for this project and concluded that the project implementation had the potential to result in significant impacts upon the environment. Based .a�--T- IIlf111ll li— January 25, 1993 Page 4 upon that conclusion, the City directed thee' nik preparation of an EIR,"which represents a detailed technical 'analysis of the project's direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts upon the environment. The intent of CEQA is to provide an environmental basis for the decision making process, and to insure public access to the decision makers so as to insure a full disclosure of the projects potential impacts, potential alternatives that may be available to the decision makers to adopt project alternatives that may produce lesser impacts, and to identify and develop mitigation measures which might further reduce the impacts identified in the analysis and brought forward through public testimony. Upon conclusion of the review period, the environmental consultant will return to the City a document called a Response to Comments. Based upon all the written and oral comments received during this review period, formal written replies will be provided, furnishing technical, analytical conclusions for the various comments raised. The Response to Comment document and the draft EIR, in addition to whatever other: documents the City may wish to include, constitute the final EIR for the project. The certification of the final EIR is a precursor to the City's ability to take any action on the project. Frank Arciero, Jr., a principal of Arciero & Sons, who has owned the property on Brea Canyon Road up to the existing school site, adjacent to the old water tank site, and adjacent to the existing subdivision built by Shea Development for about 7 years, explained that, prior to incorporation, they sold 23 acres to the School District for the school site. At that time they were in the process of moving an R-1 :project along through the County, with the undersf-anding to grade the school site and move the balance of the dirt onto our piece of property. Following incorporation, we applied to City to get the R-1 development built so we could move the balance of the dirt, from the school site, then the School District could build their structure. The City approached me, two years ago, and I concurred, to meet with the adjoining property owners to master plan the entire area. he concurred. The plan is very beneficial to the City. He then indicated that Mr. Forrester, the owner of the adjoining property, who was unable to attend this meeting, also supports the Master Plan. Mr. Patel, owner of the property on Morning Sun Dr., which is adjacent to the RNP tract, stated January 25, 1993 Page 5 that he bought the property 8 years ago and planned to build about 25 homes. When the City asked him to join in the Master Plan, he concurred. The project will benefit the City and the community. Hardy Strozier gave a brief overview of the components of the project: 171 acres; Tract 51407 (RnP) identifies 90 dwelling units; Tract 51253 (Patel) identifies 27 dwelling units; Tract 32400 (Arciero) identifies 91 dwelling units; a 31 acre two parcel commercial site; a new collector road, identified in the Master Plan as Road A, which connects Morning Sun Drive to Brea Canyon Road; and a proposed 20 acre park, in which approximately half passive and half is active. The EIR not only identifies the adverse impacts of this proposed project, and those impacts that cannot be completely mitigated, but community benefits as well. He then highlighted some of the benefits identified in the project description: a proposed community park site, of which 12 acres are usable; changes in Road A provides a relative benefit to the park site in terms of access and parking; it has been identified that the 31 acre commercial site can generate up to $400,000 to $500,000 dollars a year net revenue to the City; there is a proposed dedication of 10 to 15 acres of property to the City that has a value to the City between $4 and $6 million dollars of improved land value; it would generate 465 new jobs in the City; it would allow the completion of South Pointe Middle School; it would remove 400,000 cubic yards of dirt located on the school site that, according to the School District's EIR, would be deposited into the upper part of Sandstone Canyon to complete the buildout of the school; the improvement of Street A would allow a new connection to allow transit of students to and from the school, reducing the dependency upon Larkstone and Lemon Street to access the school; and there are numerous off site traffic improvements provided through the EIR mitigation program that would provide signalization and other intersection geometrics in widening of various streets adjacent to the project site. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:53 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:03 p.m. Hardy Strozier explained that the purpose of the public hearing is to receive comments on the draft EIR. The EIR is an information document. The Planning Commission is to ensure that there is enough information, in the EIR, that would allow a decision on the project. He reiterated that January 25, 1993 Page 6 �;7llih�l approval of the EIR does not connote approval of the project. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Chair/Flamenbaum reminded the audience that the consultants will be responding to any questions or comments made, regarding the EIR, at a later meeting. Sharon Bowler, residing at 1603 Morning Sun Ave., Walnut, expressed her concern that notice for the public hearing was put in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, a newspaper that one must subscribe to, and not put in both sections of the Highlander, one for Rowland Heights/Walnut and one for Diamond Bar. She made the following comments: since the Morning Sun .Ave. area consists of existing homes on lots ranging from 1/3 acre to 1/2 acre, there should be a minimum of 12,000 square foot lots on the proposed development; the proposed collector street should be circled through the proposed complex, and not directly on to the Morning Sun Ave. area; opening up the street will create more traffic, affecting the children who play on that existing cul-de-sac, especially since presently there are no sidewalks. Since currently, there have been mudslides running into the cul-de-sac area due to the recent heavy rains, she questioned what would happen when development occurred on those unstable hills in the proposed site, particularly to the 4 homes at the bottom of the hill at the end of the cul-de-sac; and there is a flood hazard zone in the middle of the site. Anne Flesher, residing at 20647 Larkstone Drive, stated that the residents of Diamond Bar need to work together to make this the best workable situation possible, instead of looking to who is good or bad. She expressed the following concerns: allowing the 400,000 cubic yards of dirt to be removed coming down Larkstone Drive, as has been suggested by some, would require 26,000 truck trips over a 4 1/2 month period, with a truck leaving every five minutes, ten hours a day, six days a week; Larkstone Drive was designed for 200 car trips a day, but it now carries 1,200 car trips a day; and something must be done by the Planning 111 Commission to alleviate the traffic on Larkstone Drive that will also benefit the children, the residents on the existing property, and the developers. She pointed -out that all of the homes January 25, 1993 Page 7 �I in Diamond Bar were developed on cut and fill property. William Gross, residing at 21637 Highbluff Road, made the following comments: he questioned what was known at City Hall about this project while the City was buying the surplus land from the Water District; since Mayor Miller, at one time, owned various parcels in this project, the EIR should address his involvement in any transaction involving this property; though the consultant has indicated that 1,100 homes were notified of the public hearing, only about 300 to 400 homes were actually notified because the mailing .lists not only overlap, but are outdated; the public was charged .25 cents a page for a copy of the mailing lists; the 4,000 people who signed the referendum are a good representation of the City; mitigation is a method of ignoring the problems; the EIR should address the impacts of putting 400,000 cubic yards of dirt into the Sandstone Canyon, as well as address how that dirt got there, and who is responsible for it; the EIR should address Ialternative methods of removing the dirt, such as trucking it out the Brea Canyon side; since it has been indicated that 400 plus jobs will be created from the project, then the vacant centers throughout the City should be explained; Street "A" will be another means by which motorists will by pass the freeway and travel through the City; and there are other alternatives to building the school and moving the dirt that need to be explored and that will save the canyon. Nellie Reyes, residing at 1728 Morning Sun Ave., Walnut, 91789, pointed out that, with all the time that has passed, the developer could have removed a quarter of the dirt by now. Furthermore, the Government apparently recognizes the need to maintain open land otherwise they would not have federally funded parks. Open land needs to be preserved for our future children. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane, pointed out that when the hillside along Brea Canyon Road is graded, 9 million cubic yards of dirt that will be pushed into that Canyon, killing over 970 of the tree -existing there. In reference to Section 10, of the consultants report, regarding I the Hillside Management Ordinance, indicating that the proposed project includes grading techniques which minimize grading in portions of the project by incorporating extensive open space and significant use of green belts, he stated that his _- January 25, 1993 Page 8 �w, r„yi'rif interpretation. of the EIR is quite different, and there are many questions that are being left unanswered. Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shaded Wood Road, expressed the following concerns: the project will increase the decibel level from 45 to 55 decibels to over 90 decibels, severely impacting those homes along the Pathfinder Road, and Shaded Wood Road areas; the traffic problem will become - insurmountable on Brea Canyon Road; what is the height of the finished structure, both commercial and residential, relating to the grade level of the existing homes on Shaded Wood Road and Starshine; will the views of the existing homes be impacted by air conditioning equipment; what will happen to the wildlife, such as cougars,.deer, raccoons, redtail fox, titmice, when their entire natural habitat is destroyed; what controls are there for light pollution; what controls are there for commercial i development,- and will it be manufacturing, wherehouses, etc.; will privacy of the existing residents be impacted; what kind of land clearing will come up to the existing properties; will the f toes of the existing hillsides, supporting existing homes, be disturbed, and, create sliding; what security safeguards will be used when the natural canyon, the present intrusion barrier, is destroyed; the tree count in the ETR is incorrect because it is based upon the Tree Ordinance, which does not recognized many of the trees; 97% of the vegetation in the canyon will be destroyed, along with some of the wildlife; the City has the last vestige Black Walnut forest left in the State; children can no longer go on wilderness trips through the Canyon; there are trees, in the Canyon, that are 400 to 500 years old, and many 250 year old trees; the EIR should have been done during a peak wildlife activity in order to get a proper count, particularly for the birds; there are rare birds, that may exist in the canyon, that were not accurately observed; and the EIR did not address an alternative use of the Canyon, such as recreation programs that could bring revenue to the City, preserving Sandstone Canyon. Phil Duarte, residing at 1343 Red Bluff, pointed out that the Los Angeles County Planning Commission denied a similar_ scope type of project five years ago for that same area. The purpose of incorporation was for local control, emphasizing slow growth for the City. We, as residents, want to preserve our properties to maintain our lifestyles, preserving a small amount of open space J January 25, 1993 Page 9 for ourselves, our children, to enjoy nature. We do not have the resources attainable to the developer, who chooses to utilize their property for a profit. He then presented the newspaper article, headlined "A Radical Change in the Environment", dated November 22, 1987, which talked about the project, proposed by Arciero & Sons, that was rejected by the County of Los Angeles. Joe Larutta, residing at 2546 Sunbright Drive, stated that he recently relocated his business office to the north end of Diamond Bar from Pathfinder Road because his clients were unable to ingress/egress due to traffic. This project may be great for development now, and may encourage the development of the school site, but the affects to the City in 20 years need to be considered. Elaine Kim, residing at 2074 Peaceful Hills Road, a Real Estate Broker, stated that there must be a compromise that will allow the property owners to develop the land to it's highest and best use, yet still protect the homeowners living in the area. She stated the following concerns: the density of the proposed project; preventing slippage of the hills; who will be responsible for cleaning up the repairs'if slippage was to occur, the City or the Homeowners Association; and the preservation of the trees in the Canyon. Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful p Hills Road, made the following comments: if there is no difference between rural and urban living, then why do move to this City which advertises "Country Living"; if there are no significant noise impacts exceeding municipal standards, then what are our standards and perhaps they should be adjusted; why is the cutting down of 700 trees considered an "insignificant" impact; there are hundreds of vacant commercial properties, throughout the City, including Mr. Arciero's property at Colima and Brea Canyon, thus indicating that the 31 commercial acre site may not be a valuable resource; many citizens do not consider this project as beneficial, nor is it considered to be without significant impact to the residents; she was assured by Brock homes that there would always be open space; since she paid a hefty premium for the property and view, if the project is developed as proposed, then she will ask for reassessment, and lowering of property taxes, resulting in the loss of revenue to the City; since Brock took back promised land from the community Association, which involved Mayor Miller, there is a conflict of January 25, 1993 Page 10 interest; having the City of Diamond Bar as an involved party in this development is also a conflict of interest; and people voted for cityhood to stop ,the excessive building in Diamond Bar. Roy Marcosi, residing at 1664 Chappel Hill Drive, Walnut, stated that the project will put all the traffic from the proposed development on to Morning Sun Ave., a short cul-de-sac street, to Shephard Hills Drive, to Chappel Hill Drive, and to Tamaschaner, all of which do not have sidewalks. The school bus pickup, for the neighborhood children, is located on Tamaschaner Street, which is presently impacted by heavy traffic. Home values will decrease because of the unmitigated traffic, the unmitigated air quality, and the 5 to 10 years of construction in the area. There is no benefit to the existing area. Norman Beach Cuschane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, President of the Pathfinder Homeowners Association, stated that they are currently investigating if the land below their tract is actually the property of the Homeowners Association. He inquired if the development, proposed by Mr. Patel, will become part of the Homewoners Association since Mr. Patel is presently a member of the Association. He requested that the EIR address land slippage, specifically in the area where RnP proposes to develop on a canyon with an 89 degree slope downwards. Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder, pointed out that the area proposed for development is an unique environmental area for all of us now and for future generations. Once that area is destroyed, the wildlife and vegetation is lost forever, and can never be seen again except in a make shift environment such as a zoo. The developers don't care what is destroyed, as long as they make a profit. Boran Ahmed, residing at 1810 Peaceful Hills Road, requested that the dollar value for both the E� advantages of the project, and the disadvantages of the project be evaluated to determine the actual benefits of the project. ry Art Fritz, residing at 20635 Larkstone Drive, expressed his concern of the notion that all development can be stopped by simply preventing people from doing anything with their property. This, essentially, would be a taking of property. None of us would be living here if this attitude ^..... January 25, 1993 Page 11 F , �,- prevailed as the City was developing. 'There would be "Country Living" for about 5,000 people. The City appears to be making an attempt to make this a reasonable development. Those who would like the property to remain as a park,- should consider buying it. Bob Roberts, residing on Morning Sun Ave., noted that the map indicates that part of Mr. Patel's property is located in the County of Los Angeles. Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, a development consultant for the applicants, stated the following: RNP Inc., Dwight Forrester, is dedicating 42% of his entire ownership to the City, for park/open land, and commercial capabilities; the park dedication of 28 acres, for this proposed project, far exceeds the requirements in the Quimby Act; the entire project is within the City of Diamond Bar; and the land owners, in this proposed development, feel this project provides the best opportunity for the community itself. The audience seems to be confusing the developers with the EIR consultants. The only association the developers have with the professional EIR consultants is that we give the City the funds to pay for their service, and they give all the directions to staff, and the public. The intent of the developers is to develop legitimately within the confines of the community. Judy Newman, residing at 1652 Chappel Hill Drive, inquired how Diamond Bar can open the streets and funnel traffic into this unincorporated area, if the City does not have jurisdiction outside of the City limits. She also inquired when and how Diamond Bar will settle the traffic problems that will come into the unincorporated area. Norman Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, inquired who will pay for the traffic signal at Brea Canyon Road. He also inquired how much of the land, to be dedicated by RnP, is buildable. Swany Fong, residing at 20879 Missionary Ridge, inquired if the elementary schools, which are already crowded, will be able to hold these additional children from this proposed development. She also stated that there are already many parks in the City that appear to be vacant most of the time. If a 26 acre park is developed, the City will have to pay to maintain the park, but if it is T __ ''IIIIIIIL1fi � _ i III I,'I!I Illy ILI 'I January 25, 1993 Page 12 . — iisiidtlja left as a canyon, nature takes care of it at no !If cost. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed, and continued to February 8, 1993. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m. The meeting was reconvened,at 8:30 p.m. VC/Meyer directed staff accordingly: he would like some empirical analysis, provided by a, traffic consultant, relative to the opening of Street "A" into Morning Sun Ave., that includes some additional data concerning the traffic issues brought up; additional data relative to how the grading would occur; and additional data that would mitigate impacts relative to grading, such as the issue of the migration of the wildlife. Hardy Strozier, in response to VC/Meyer, explained that there is no zone change associated with the project because the Development Agreement will be used as the zoning tool. The Planning Commission will first consider recommending, to the City Council, the certification of the EIR, then consider the entitlements, the General Plan amendment, which changes the Water District property to PD, the three Tentative Tract Maps, one Development Agreement, the Hillside Management Ordinance CUP required for the hillside grading, and the Oak Tree Removal Permit. The Master Plan will be considered along with the Development Agreement. C/Grothe expressed his concern that the EIR indicates practically everything in the canyon to be nonsignificant. He requested a more detailed circulation plan, further information on the project's impacts regarding noise and view, and more information regarding the exact placement of these proposed homes. j. C/Plunk requested an analysis of the additional cost and benefit, if any, if the dirt would be moved to another canyon. Since the area was not listed as an SEA in the 1980 Master Plan by LA County, the importance of Sandstone Canyon is local, therefore local money will have to pay for j it. She stated that she would prefer that the development is below grade. She requested an analysis of the relative safety of slippage occurring on cut and fill land, and on land left in its natural state. I 4 January 25, 1993 Page 13 Chair/Flamenbaum requested the following: a discussion of the pros and cons of the openings of any roads, 'in this project, to Rapid View and Larkstone; address the discrepancy in the tree count; review the Biological Resource Section Existing Setting, and determine why it indicates that there are no amphibians, which would include frogs; distribute, to the Commission, the responses to the comments made no later than February 2, 1993; a copy of a more detailed index, only if it takes half a minute to generate; information regarding the SCAQMD standards, and their meaning in practical terms; and a more detailed analysis as to why concept #4 is good or bad, and how it compares to concept three. chair/Flamenbaum stated that the public hearing is continued to the meeting of February 8, 1993. CUP 91-1 & AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the EIR 91-4 request, made by the applicant Inter -Community Health Services, to develop a three phase 425,000 -,� square foot medical building plaza project, to be located at 887 Grand Avenue, that will include the I following services: medical office buildings, �acute care hospital, hospital support, outpatient services, diagnostic and treatment center, and a community conference and education center. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive comments on the EIR, and direct staff to respond to comments addressing the document, and return with the final EIR at the next public hearing, which will address the Development Review and Conditional Use Permit application. Mark Blodgett, from David Evans & Associates, summarized the process, related to the Diamond Bar Medical Plaza application, as follows: the City prepared an initial study that identified a potential for a number of environmental impacts that would need further evaluation in an EIR; the initial study and a Notice of Preparation was circulated to a number of City departments and local, County, and State agencies, alerting them that a draft EIR will be prepared for this project; the comments received from those agencies are included in the draft EIR; upon completion of the "nm draft EIR, a notice of completion was filed; and i prior to the circulation of the draft EIR, City staff, the applicant, and the consultant attended a scoping meeting to receive additional input from interested parties. Mr. Evans then briefly reviewed those areas evaluated, as presented in the draft EIR before the Commission. I' II III January 25, 1993 Page 14 Deborah Nicolas, Vice President of Corporate Development for Intercommunity Health Services, Inc., stated that Intercommunity Health Services is the parent companyof three affiliates: Intercommunity Medical Center, located in Covina; Hospice of the SanGabriel Valley; and Intercommunity Foundation. Intercommunity Health Services, purchased the site in May of 1990 after the strategic planning process identified that the Diamond Bar area was in need'of medical services, not currently provided in the area. The intent is to provide a facility that will be utilized long term. The facility, in phase one, will include a medical office building, a diagnostic and treatment center, based on the demand for out patient oriented services, and a recovery center. The second phase facility will include a hospital building, hospital support facilities, a conference center, and a helipad. The third phase, projected in 10 to 20 years if there is a, growing demand, will be a duplication of phase one and phase two. She pointed out that the helipad will only be used in extreme case, which is anticipated to be about once to twice a year. Ken Liu, the project architect, presented a material board illustrating the material and color to be used for the construction of the facility. The proposed materials will have substance and permanence. There will be accent colors as part'of the pallet that will be treated not only at ground level but from above as.well. It is our intent to be sensitive to the neighbors, who have a view of the roof tops, by enclosing major pieces of equipment, or integrating them into the design and the volumes of the buildings. It is also our intent to break down the scale of the building, in regards to the elevation visible to Golden Springs Road, so that it is not a massive structure. The facility will be a future building geared towards evolving health care that will meet the needs of the community. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Lloyd Duncan, with Comprehensive Property Management, representing the Montefino Homeowners Association, expressed the following concerns: it would be beneficial to actual see the design of the enclosed structures proposed on the roof top; since Grand Ave. is already heavily impacted by traffic, the additional 500 to 800 vehicle access will create a condition of bumper to bumper traffic back FOR January 25, 1993 Page 15 to the freeway; emergency access to the facility, from Grand Ave. and the freeway, will be blocked by traffic; ambulatory access, or emergency access, should be gained off of Golden Springs Ave.; the pg Y parking facility should be made close to this Golden Springs entrance, to minimize the impact of traffic in and out of the complex, and perhaps access to the parking facility should be shared with the additional development below this area; the EIR should investigate significant geological aspects in regards to the movement of the slope at Montefino; the fire aspects should be investigated; the height of the facilities should be restricted, in the CUP, to 4 stories maximum for the life and the duration of the project; there should be some interlocking architectural integrity with this facility, and future developments to the north; and there should be some restrictions, in the CUP, that would not allow a trauma center in the facility so that helicopter trips are kept at a minimum; and the location of the helipad should be addressed to minimize the noise impacts. Bert Ramer, residing in Diamond Bar, on the Citizens Advisory Committee, in favor of the project, stated that he has been impressed with Intercommunities willingness to listen to the communities input, and to make modifications. Richard Jancowski, residing at 22801 Shardennay Drive, #2 in Montefino, expressed the following concerns: there will be more than the indicated 1 or 2 helicopters a month coming to the facility; if the facility is to be duplicated in phase three, then that means there could be 2 or 3 helipads; the noise impacts could not possibly be mitigated, as indicated in the EIR, since Montefino is only about 150 feet 'away from the facility; Grand Avenue is already seriously impacted by traffic without this facility; the noise and traffic impacts created from this proposed facility will destroy the property values of Montefino; and the notice of the public hearing could have been better communicated, other than the notices put in the Tribune and the Daily Bulletin. Mrs. Jancowski, residing at 22801 Shardennay Drive, " #2 in Montefino, stated that this facility does not just impact the property values of Montefino, but �a of all of Diamond Bar. The City is inundated with air traffic noise pollution as it is. This is a major hospital expansion in a City that does not need all the noise, traffic, congestion, waste material, or nuclear medicine associated with it. �bll'I IILII I �y � III J � II I_ PI II I �_ January 25, 1993 Page 16 ..�lanning„ Commission should consider-denyirthe - tedt in it's entirety. .M Dan Buffington, residing at 2505 Indian Creek, a member of the Advisory Committee, pointed out that the proposed facility is not a major facility, but a small facility to be comprised mainly of medical office space, to include an urgent care center that is much needed in this area. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed, and continued to the meeting of February 22, 1993. Mark Blodgett stated that the consultants will respond to all the comments raised at the public hearing, as well as respond formally to all the comments received from the various agencies, and included in the final EIR. Mr. Liu pointed out that there will only be one helipad at any one time. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 11:00 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 11:08 p.m. VC/Meyer pointed out that there has been significant notification of this proposed project, which included literature mailed to households in the community, as well as a sign on the site itself. He then made the following comments: though motorists may not have difficulty leaving the proposed site because of traffic signals, the increase in traffic will significantly impact Grand Ave., which is already heavily impacted; there seems to be a tremendous amount of accidents at the merging area of the 57/60 freeway, which tends to impact surface streets; there should be serious consideration to the analysis that the traffic is a significant impact that more than likely cannot be mitigated; explore alternatives to access Golden Springs; it should be considered that air quality, at build out, may or may not be mitigated to a level of nonsignificance; arterial intersections that are impacted by traffic tends to throw the traffic onto collector streets; there needs to be consideration of potential spills of hazardous waste in and around this facility; since phase three is a 20 year projection that could change measurably, and may not resemble the original concept, the scope of the project could be scaled back to be within the foreseeable construction budget of the applicant, allowing the Planning Commission an opportunity to address it more r January 25, 1993 Page 17 intelligently in the environmental review; the mitigation of the jobs housing' balance is 'a positive aspect; the facility may generate a cumulative development of medical ancillary facilities, and offices in the area to support it; there needs to be further information relating to the safety of the heliport in regards to landing, as well as the possibility of crashing; and he noted that the design of the facility is pleasing. C/Li.expressed his concern regarding the increase in traffic. He requested further information regarding the frequency of the use of the helicopter compared to the facilities in West Covina, and other such comparable facilities, both now and at it's buildout point in 20 years. C/Grothe expressed his concern regarding the traffic impacts to Grand Avenue. There needs to be some consideration made to transferring some of that traffic to Golden Springs. C/Plunk noted that the project is very well planned out, and, once the concerns regarding traffic and roofscaping are addressed, it will be a good project and one that is needed in the City. Chair/Flamenbaum made the following comments: input should be solicited from the highway patrol because they will probably divert their accident victims to this proposed facility; the potential impact, of this project, to the existing slope should be explored; are the proposed suggested improvements to surrounding roads, as indicated in the EIR as mitigation measures to traffic, within the existing right-of-way or is a greater right-of- way going to be acquired; the impact to the traffic mitigation, long term, should be explored if the use of the adjoining property turns out to be a high traffic generation facility; there should be some consideration made to the impacts to the Fire Station; he questioned the validity of the EIR in the third phase; there needs to be consideration made to runoff and surface reflectivity of the parking area when the proposed project is at buildout; what would be the impact if the flight path was restricted so that it either does not pass over the homes in adjacent areas, or is limited in how low the flight path can be; the amount of paper product trash generation should be considered as it p relates to AB939 requirements; following all the rains, the amount of degradation of the existing slope at the south side, north of the project, should be explored; and there needs to be further consideration made to the traffic impacts. r January 25, 1993 page IS Chair/Flamenbaum stated that this item will be continued to the meeting of February 22, 1993. CUP 92-11 & AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the DR 92-5 request, made by the applicant Smart SMR of CA, Inc., to locate a 200 sq. ft. building housing an .unmanned mobile radio communication facility and a 74 foot monopole, to be located at the Diamond Bar High School. There are two monopoles and related repeater stations currently located on that site. Though the staff report indicates that the pole is made of wood, the applicant has corrected that the monopole will be on a 60 foot metal pole, reflecting the existing light standards on the football campus. Residents have expressed their concern that this mobile radio facility will interfere with T.V. and radio reception, however, the information provided by the applicant indicates that the frequency used by this service would not interfere with either FM/AM radio or T.V. transmission. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Negative Declaration, Conditional use permits 92-11 and Development Review No. 92-5 with the Findings of Fact and listed conditions. Fred Wink, representing SMR of Ca., Inc., 1335 S. Acacia Ave., Fullerton, presented computer enhanced slides, to the Commission, simulating what the project would look like. This location is suitable because the facility will blend with the existing light standards, which will mitigate visual impact, clustering of these facilities is beneficial from a planning standpoint, and the students will benefit by an income flow from this lease. The FCC allows us to operate in the frequency range of an 800 to 900 megahurst range, which is a similar frequency range the other two facilities currently operate under. C/Plunk inquired if a study has been done supporting that there is not intermodulation distortion from the many repeaters so close to each other. Mr. Wink stated that intermodulation has been studied with these two other carriers in several other locations, which are on school grounds as well. All of the studies indicate that, as long as the frequencies used are coordinated with the frequencies used by the other repeaters, there should not be any interference problem. Presently, we arelannin to start with five radios and will P g probably have a maximum of twelve radios. We do January 25, 1993 Page 19 not interfere with the new 900 megahurst phones because we operate under a different frequency range. C/Grothe inquired about the difference between this mobile radio service as compared to the cellular phones service. Mr. Wink explained that the mobile radio service is primarily used by fleet users who have dispatchers talking one person to several persons, possibly at the same time. There will also be the ability to place cellular phone calls on the system as well. VC/Meyer inquired if the applicant would be amenable to a condition that, in the event that there is interference with the surrounding property owners telephone, radio, T.V., that, within a specified period of time, the applicant would either fix the situation or cease operation. Mr. Wink stated that he would not object to such a condition, given a reasonable time period to address and identify any problem. The intent is to be good neighbors. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Joe Larutta, residing at 2506 Sunbright Dr., expressed the following concerns: the applicant is installing a third tower because he is overloaded, and there is a possibility that he will request a fourth or fifth tower in the future; the towers and antennas can be seen from the 57 freeway going north; and public schools are not the appropriate place for private concerns to place their equipment. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Wink, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry, made the following responses: it operates under a maximum of 100 watts per channel; the other towers presently existing are owned by Pactel and LA Cellular, and we do not own any other tower in this City; there is no objection to condition 7; a fence is built around the monopole to prevent climbing; the pole will be of galvanized material to match the existing light standards; because it is a line of sight technology, there is a need for a 60 foot rad center to be able to talk to the January 25, 1993 Page 20 other sites; and the nearest f'ight.standards' are approximately 100 to 110 feet to the north. Chair/Flamenbaum inqutred "if it is technically feasible to mount the antennae either around the existing light standard, or on top of it. Don LaFoy, the construction expert for SMR, stated that a structural analysis of that existing pole, and the foundation that supports it, would have to be done to determine if that would be possible. The weight put up there will be insignificant but the usual problem relates to wind loading. Also, because the athletic bleachers are in between two of the light standards, on the west side of the field, the School District may be concerned it may fall on the bleachers in case of an earthquake. C/Grothe inquired why the antennas could not be placed on the gymnasium, along with the other antennas, since they operate under different frequencies. Mr. Wink explained that the question of interference becomes more difficult to deal with the closer you get to those other facilities. Mr. Winks inquired if the project could be conditioned requiring that we first determine if the school will allow us to put the equipment of the light standards, and if not, then proceed as first r proposed. f C/Meyer noted that the School District does have the authority to exempt themselves, under a given set of circumstances, from local zoning j requirements. j CDD/DeStefano stated that it is staff's opinion that this application does not fall into the category that allows the School District to exempt themselves, nor does it fall under a broader PUC category that allows them to exempt themselves from local jurisdiction and review. Motion was made by C/Plunk to deny the project since there are already two antennas at that location. The motion failed for lack of a second. aC/Plunk excused herself from the meeting at 12:00 a.m. 11 January 25, 1993 Page 21 C/Grothe requested that there be a condition restricting the use of microwave dishes on the pole. He stated that he would prefer a condition that the applicant mount the equipment on the existing light standards, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. DCA/Fox advised that such the condition, regarding mounting the equipment to the light standards, would make this a different application, in which the Commission would not have had the opportunity to review the effect of such an installation as related to potential safety, and other problems that may arise. The applicant would have to make a new application. Motion was made by C/Grothe to continue the project, with the condition that the equipment be mounted on the light standards, if engineeringly feasible and acceptable to the School District. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Grothe, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. The motion died for lack of a second. the Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and Planned Sign request made by the applicant Steve Porretta CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Resolution as submitted by staff with the following added Bar conditions: microwave dishes are not to be Village Shopping Center 325- 379 S. DiamondBar installed on the pole; in the event that this facility causes interference or disturbance with and audio or television reception of the residents, approval of a Variance for six monument signs, each- within 500 feet of the facility, the applicant will fifteen feet in height and 84 square feet of sign repair the facility within 21 days of notification face area. Though the proposed project is or cease it's operation; and the plans be modified to change this from a wooden pole to a steel pole and a galvanized f the same color of the existing light improve sign visibility for tenants, staff does standards. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Grothe, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. Variance 92-3 & AP/Lungu presented the staff report regarding the Planned Sign request made by the applicant Steve Porretta to Program 92-4 develop a Planned Sign Program at Diamond Bar Village Shopping Center 325- 379 S. DiamondBar Blvd. and 23341-23499 E. Golden Springs Dr., and approval of a Variance for six monument signs, each- fifteen feet in height and 84 square feet of sign face area. Though the proposed project is an opportunity to correct sign deficiencies and improve sign visibility for tenants, staff does not concur with the applicants request for six (6) January 25, 1993 Page 22 Steve Porretta, President of Southland Management, Inc., stated that because many of the tenants in the center do not have a budget for advertising, which is critical to their operation, they relay on the advertisement of the center. The signs need to be 15 feet in height so that they are seen by motorists traveling 45 mph. Connie Nicholson, owner -of BCN Lighting & Signs, explained that .the basis of the design for the 15 foot signs is on sign readability tests which indicate that the letters need to be between 9" to 12" in height to be seen in a 45 mph area. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Hearing no testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. VC/Meyer stated that, since the signs are to be remodeled, they should be made to comply with the Sign Ordinance. All the businesses along Diamond Bar Blvd., near the intersection of Grand Ave., comply with the Sign Ordinance. Connie Nicholson explained that such a sign, as is allowed by the Sign ordinance, which is a 6 foot maximum, with a 72 square foot sign band area, allowing a 12 foot width in sign, would block the line of sight. She further stated that this center is unique in that it has 106 tenants. Due to the configuration of the center, everything faces internally to the center. Exterior advertising is very important. These plans would allow about 52% of the tenants to advertise. VC/Meyer stated that one of the reasons for the Sign Ordinance is to encourage property owners to advertise the center, and not the individual fifteen foot monument signs, and feel that a variance from the maximum height allowed by the Sign Ordinance is appropriate with limitations listed in the staff report. It is recommended that the Commission consider reducing the 3 monuments signs, located adjacent to buildings A, D, and H, to 10 feet in height, and 3 monument signs, located adjacent to building B, E,.and I, to be reduced to 6 feet in height. It is further recommended that the Commission approve the Planned Sign Program, the recommended reduction in the height of the monument signs, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. Steve Porretta, President of Southland Management, Inc., stated that because many of the tenants in the center do not have a budget for advertising, which is critical to their operation, they relay on the advertisement of the center. The signs need to be 15 feet in height so that they are seen by motorists traveling 45 mph. Connie Nicholson, owner -of BCN Lighting & Signs, explained that .the basis of the design for the 15 foot signs is on sign readability tests which indicate that the letters need to be between 9" to 12" in height to be seen in a 45 mph area. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Hearing no testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. VC/Meyer stated that, since the signs are to be remodeled, they should be made to comply with the Sign Ordinance. All the businesses along Diamond Bar Blvd., near the intersection of Grand Ave., comply with the Sign Ordinance. Connie Nicholson explained that such a sign, as is allowed by the Sign ordinance, which is a 6 foot maximum, with a 72 square foot sign band area, allowing a 12 foot width in sign, would block the line of sight. She further stated that this center is unique in that it has 106 tenants. Due to the configuration of the center, everything faces internally to the center. Exterior advertising is very important. These plans would allow about 52% of the tenants to advertise. VC/Meyer stated that one of the reasons for the Sign Ordinance is to encourage property owners to advertise the center, and not the individual January 25, 1993 Page 23 tenants. In order for the Commission to approve a variance, there needs' to be a finding that this center is being denied a substantial property right that is afforded your neighbors in the same vicinity or zone. Mr. Porretta pointed out that if they install signs permitted under the Sign Ordinance, which would allow a 12 foot long sign. Then a traffic hazard would be created because it would block visibility into the center. C/Grothe pointed out that, just because the Sign Ordinance allows a 6 foot sign, with 72 square feet, does not mean that is what has to be put in. There does not seem to be any grounds for a variance of the Sign Ordinance. Connie Nicholson, in response to VC/Meyer, stated that they are not in concurrence with the recommendation made by staff regarding the sign height .because it would reduce the amount of -q tenants that can advertise from 52% to about 300. I VC/Meyer suggested that the applicant research the City of Scottsdale, a very economically viable community, that does not allow any monumen signs over 6 feet. The sign criteria used by the applicant seems to be out dated and the method of advertising is antiquated. The center should be advertised, not the tenant, because it is doubtful, with the amount of conflict occurring in those driveways, that anyone is going to read the little signs placed on the monument signs. Chair/Flamenbaum, noting that staff's recommendation to allow three monuments signs to be 10 feet in height would also require a variance, inquired what criteria was used by staff to establish a variance. PT/Lungu explained that staff based the variance upon the following unique conditions: the topography of the site; the center is on a slope; the buildings are set more than 150 feet back from the street; and the tenants are not visible from the street. The applicant is attempting to clean up that center, even though those monument signs are permitted to remain as they are. If the applicant is allowed the 7 monument signs, as indicated in the code, there would be 504 square feet total sign face area. But, if staff's suggestion is followed, there would be 480 square feet total sign face area. January 25, 1993 Page 24 C/Grothe stated that there are other centers in town, such as the Pepper Tree Plaza, -that have the identical set of circumstances. Motion was made by C/Grothe to deny the application. The motion dies for lack of a second. C/Li suggested that the item be continued to allow staff and the applicant additional time to discuss the matter and to come up` with a compromise. Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum, - seconded by C/Meyer and CARRIED to continue the matter to the next meeting, with direction that staff and the applicant attempt to resolve the issue regarding the height of the signs. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe., ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk. ABSTAIN:- COMMISSIONERS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 12:50 a.m. Respectively, Jami DeStefano Secretary Attes � nice Flamenbaum Chairman nr �M'i�rr7,. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Plunk. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Plunk, Grothe, Li, Vice Chairman Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum. C/Plunk excused herself from the meeting at 12:00 a.m. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Interim city Engineer George Wentz, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MATTER FROM Oscar Lawl residing at 2150 Pathfinder, expressed THE AUDIENCE: his concern f or the need of an access lane f or emergency vehicles during the construction phase of the Pathfinder Bridge Widening Project. He also expressed his concern that the project only proposes 4 lanes, when in actuality, it requires 6 lanes to maintain the traffic increase from future growth. ICE/Wentz explained that the Pathfinder Bridge Widening Project is under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. The contract for the project has already been awarded, and the anticipated date for construction is April of 1993. Staff will contact the County and Caltrans to discuss the concern related to emergency vehicle access. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of Minutes of January 11, 1993, as presented. Jan. 11. 93 OLD BUSINESS: PT/Lungu reported that a Resolution of Approval f or Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 is before the Tentative Parcel Planning Commission for consideration, as well as a Map No. 23629 memo from the Deputy City Attorney, Craig Fox, addressing the issues of arbitration and relocation of tenant, and the addition of statements to the CC&RIs regarding these issues. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, and seconded by C/Li to approve Resolution 93- C/Plunk, noting that Mr. Camp, the applicant's representative, had indicated, at the last meeting, his willingness to participate in combating graffiti and partake in a cost benefit analysis of painting with graffiti resistant paint versus January 25 1993 Page 2 DD/DeStefano reported that, the proposed before he commission, is a request for approval of a continuously repainting, suggested a substitute Motion to approve Resolution 93-1, with the amendment that the applicant be required to participate in the City's graffiti abatement program. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that it was determined, at the last meeting, that it would not be appropriate to penalize this one single applicant by requiring him to participate in the City's graffiti abatement program. The applicant is willing to - take measurest such as additional lighting and vegetation, as a means for graffiti prevention. C/Plunk's substitute Motion died for lack of a second. The Planning Commission voted upon the Motion made by VC/Meyer, and seconded by C/Li to approve Resolution 93-1 for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629. The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. eneral Plan ixed use project consisting of land uses which PUBLIC HEARING: mendment 92-2; include residential, commercial, open sace and A 92-19 92-29 chool facilities. The project site, approximately 2-3• Vesting 171 acres is located within the South Pointe T Map 5140, Middle School/Sandstone Canyon area, and is UP 92-8 & :)resently owned by 5 entities, three of which are ak Tree Permit rivate and two are public. An Environmental 2-8; Vesting m act Report EIR has,been prepared in accordance T 32400, CUP ith State guidelines, circulated to various State 1-5, ZoATreef nd local agencies, and has been available to the han a eneral ublic for over 6 weeks. This is the first ak Treublic hearingon the proposed South Pointe Master 1-2; TTIan project before the Commission. The Planning 1253 & ommission will not take an action on the merits 2-12; O this project this evening, but will receive ermit 92-9; the testimon , and provide comments and direction to outh Pointe Aaff. Discussion of the merits of this project Master Plan; & All be continued to February of 1993. There can IR 92-9. a no final action on this proposed project, until he issue of the pending litigation with proponents f a referendum upon the City's General Plan is esolved. CDD/DeStefano then introduced Peter ewendowski, from the firm of Ultras stems, who re ared the EIR, and Hardy Strozier, of the Nanning Associates, who is the project manager. -lardV Strozier ex lained that a project team as een pulled together to manage the preparation of n EIR, which evaluates all topical issues required January 25, 1993 Page 3 under State Law, and put together a Master Development Plan, which guides the planning and the execution of various engineering entitlements as the project develops over the next five to ten years, if approved. The 42 page staff report, presented to the Planning commission, is a condensed version of the environmental documentation previously presented to the Commission. The following 8 specific items will be reviewed by the Commission over the intervening weeks: the EIR (the Commission still has the option to either deny or approve the project, even if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend certification of this EIR to the City Council); the General Plan Amendment (the existing water district property needs to have a redesignation to Planned Development); the Development Agreement (this will be provided later for the commission's review); Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 - Arciero (no staff report); Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 Patel (no staff report); Vesting Tentative Map No. 51407 - RnP (no staff report)- Hillside Management Ordinance CUP; and an Oak Tree Removal Permit. The Notice of Preparation of the draft EIR was distributed f or 30 days, in accordance with -the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and there was a 45 day review period to allow for written comments regarding the draft EIR, which ended January 18, 1993. The notices for public hearing was mailed,on January 14, 1993, to approximately 1,100 property owners adjacent to the project site. The EIR was prepared by the independent firm of Ultra Systems, and they provided independent conclusions on the analysis of all the topical areas found in the draft EIR. -Two impacts were identified, in summary of the independent consultants review, that could not be mitigated below a level of significance: traffic and air quality. The intent this evening is to solicit community input on the draft EIR, and respond to any questions that the Commission may direct to staff and the planning consultants. VC/Meyer requested Mr. Lewendowski to explain the purpose of an EIR. Mr. Lewendowski explained that CEQA requires governmental agencies, -who have authority over particular projects, to include, in their decision making process, an analysis of the projects impacts upon the environment. The City prepared an initial study for this project and concluded that the project implementation had the potential to result in significant impacts upon the environment. Based January 25, 1993 Page 4 upon that conclusion, the City directed the preparation of an EIRi,which represents a detailed technical Analysis of the project's direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts upon the environment. The intent of CEQA is to provide an environmental basis for the decision making process, and to insure public access to the decision makers so as to insure a full disclosure of the projects potential impacts, potential alternatives that may be available to the decision makers to adopt project alternatives that may produce lesser impacts, and to identify and develop mitigation measures which might further reduce the impacts identified in the analysis and brought forward through public testimony. Upon conclusion of the review period, the environmental consultant will return to the City a document called a Response to Comments. Based upon all the written and oral comments received during this review period, formal written replies will be provided, furnishing technical, analytical conclusions for the various comments raised. The Response to Comment document and the draft EIR, in addition to whatever other —, documents the City may wish to include, constitute the final EIR for the project. The certification of the final EIR is a precursor to the City's ability to take any action on the project. Frank Arciero, Jr., a principal of Arciero & Sons, who has owned the property on Brea Canyon Road up to the existing school site, adjacent to the old water tank site, and adjacent to the existing subdivision built by Shea Development for about 7 years, explained that, prior to incorporation, they sold '23 acres to the School District for the school site. At that time they were in the process of moving an R-1 project along through the county, with the undersianding to grade: the school site and move the balance of the dirt onto our piece of property. Following incorporation, we applied to City to get the R-1 development built so we could move the balance of the dirt, from the school site, then the School District could build their structure. The City approached me, two years ago., and I concurred, to meet with the adjoining property owners to master plan the entire area. he concurred. The plan is very beneficial to the city. He then indicated that Mr. Forrester, the owner of the adjoining property, who was unable to attend this meeting, also supports the Master Plan. Mr. Patel, owner of the property on Morning Sun Dr., which is adjacent to the RNP tract, stated January 25, 1993 Page 5 that he bought the property 8 years ago and planned to build about 25 homes. When the City asked him to join in the Master Plan, he concurred. The project will benefit the City and the community. Hardy Strozier gave a brief overview of the components of the project: 171 acres; Tract 51407 (RnP) identifies 90 dwelling units; Tract 51253 (Patel) identifies 27 dwelling units; Tract 32400 (Arciero) identifies 91 dwelling units; a 31 acre two parcel commercial site; a new collector road, identified in the Master Plan as Road A, which connects Morning Sun Drive to Brea Canyon Road; and a proposed 20 acre park, in which approximately half passive and half is active. The EIR not only identifies the adverse impacts of this proposed project, and those impacts that cannot be completely mitigated, but community benefits as well. He then highlighted some of the benefits identified in the project description: a proposed community park site, of which 12 acres are usable; changes in Road A provides a relative benefit to the park site in terms of access and parking; it has been identified that the 31 acre commercial site can generate up to $400,000 to $500,000 dollars a year net revenue to the City; there is a proposed dedication of 10 to 15 acres of property to the City that has a value to the City between $4 and $6 million dollars of improved land value; it would generate 465 new jobs in the City; it would allow the completion of South Pointe Middle School; it would remove 400,000 cubic yards of dirt located on the school site that, according to the School District's EIR, would be deposited into the upper part of Sandstone Canyon to complete the buildout of the school; the improvement of Street A would allow a new connection to allow transit of students to and from the school, reducing the'dependency upon Larkstone and Lemon Street to access the school; and there are numerous off site traffic improvements provided through the EIR mitigation program that would provide signalization and other intersection geometrics in widening of various streets adjacent to the project site. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:53 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:03 p.m. Hardy Strozier explained that the purpose of the public hearing is to receive comments on the draft EIR. The EIR is an information document. The Planning Commission is to ensure that there is enough information, in the EIR, that would allow a decision on the project. He reiterated that January 25, 1993 Page 6 approval of the EIR does not connote approval of the project. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Chair/Flamenbaum reminded the audience that the consultants will be responding to any questions or comments made, regarding the EIR, at a later meeting. Sharon Bowler, residing at 1603 Morning Sun Ave., Walnut, expressed her concern that notice for the public hearing was put in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, a newspaper that one must subscribe to, and not put in both sections of the Highlander, one for Rowland Heights/Walnut and one for Diamond Bar. She made the following comments: since the Morning Sun Ave. area consists of existing homes on lots ranging from 1/3 acre to 112 acre, there should be a minimum of 12,000 square foot lots on the proposed development; the proposed collector street should be circled through the proposed complex, and not directly on to the Morning Sun Ave. area; opening up the street will create more traffic, affecting the children who play on that existing cul- de-sac, especially since presently there are no sidewalks. Since currently, there have been mudslides running into the cul-de-sac area due to the recent heavy rains, she questioned what would happen when development occurred on those unstable" hills in the proposed site, particularly to the 4 homes at the bottom of the hill at the end of the cul-de-sac; and there is a flood hazard zone in the middle of the site. Anne Flesher`, residing at 20647 Larkstone Drive, stated that the residents of Diamond Bar need to work together to make this the best workable situation possible, instead of looking to who is good or bad. She expressed the following concerns: allowing the 400,000 cubic yards of dirt to be removed coming down Larkstone Drive, as has been suggested by some, would require 26,000 truck trips over a 4 1/2 month period, with a truck leaving every f ive minutes, ten hours a day, six days a week; Larkstone Drive was designed for 200 car trips a day, but it now carries 1,200 car trips a day; and something must be done by the Planning Commission to alleviate the traf f is on Larkstone Drive that will also benefit the children, the residents on the existing property, and the developers. She pointed -out that all of the homes' January 25, 1993 Page 7 in Diamond Bar were developed on cut and fill property. William Gross, residing at 21637 Highbluff Road, made the following comments: he questioned what was known at City Hall about this project while the City was buying the surplus land from the Water District; since Mayor -Miller, at one time, owned various parcels in this project, the EIR should address his involvement in any transaction involving this property; though the consultant has indicated that 1,100 homes were notified of the public hearing, only about 300 to 400 homes were actually notified because the mailing lists not only overlap, but are outdated; the public was charged .25 cents a page for a copy of the mailing lists; the 4,000 people who signed the referendum are a good representation of the City; mitigation is a method of ignoring the problems; the EIR should address the impacts of putting 400,000 cubic yards of dirt into the Sandstone Canyon, as well as address how that dirt got there, and who is responsible for it; the EIR should address alternative methods of removing the dirt, such as trucking it out the Brea Canyon side; since it has been indicated that 400 plus jobs will be created from the project, then the vacant centers throughout the City should be explained; Street "All will be another means by which motorists will by pass the freeway and travel through the City; and there are other alternatives to building the school and moving the dirt that need to be explored and that will save the canyon. Nellie Reyes, residing at 1728 Morning Sun Ave., Walnut, 91789, pointed out that, with all the time that has passed, the developer could have removed a quarter of the dirt by now. Furthermore, the Government apparently recognizes the need to maintain open land otherwise they would not have federally funded parks. Open land needs to be preserved for our future children. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane, pointed out that when the hillside along Brea Canyon Road is graded, 9 million cubic yards of dirt that will be pushed into that Canyon, killing over 97% of the tree -existing there. In reference to Section 10, of the consultants report, regarding the Hillside Management Ordinance, indicating that the proposed project includes grading techniques which minimize grading in portions of the project by incorporating extensive open space and significant use of green belts, he stated that his January 25, 1993 Page 8 interpretation. of t4e EIR is quite different, and there are many questions that are being left unanswered. Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shaded Wood Road, expressed the following concerns: the project will increase the decibel level from 45 to 55 decibels to over 90 decibels, severely impacting those homes along the Pathfinder Road and Shaded Wood Road areas; the traffic problem will become insurmountable on Brea Canyon Road; what is the height of the finished structure, both commercial and residential, relating to'the grade level of the existing homes on Shaded Wood Road and Starshine; will the views of the existing,homes be impacted by air conditioning equipment; what will happen to the wildlife, such as cougars„deer ', raccoons, redtail fox, titmice, when their entire natural habitat is destroyed; what controls are there for light pollution; what controls are there for commercial development, . and will it be - manufacturing, wherehouses, etc.; will privacy of the existing residents be impacted; what kind of land clearing will come up to the existing properties; will the toes of the existing hillsides, supporting existing homes, be disturbed, and create sliding; what security safeguards will be used when the natural canyon, the present intrusion barrier, is destroyed; the tree count in the EIR is incorrect because it is based upon the Tree Ordinance, which does not recognized many of the trees; 97% of the vegetation in the canyon will be destroyed, along with some of the wildlife; the City has the last vestige Black Walnut forest left in the State; children can no longer go on wilderness trips through the Canyon; there are trees, in the Canyon, that are 400 to 500 years old, and many 250 year old trees; the EIR should have been done during a peak wildlife activity in order to get a proper count, particularly for the birds; there are rare birds, that may exist in the canyon, that were not accurately observed; and the EIR did not address an alternative use of the Canyon, such as recreation programs that could bring revenue to the City, preserving Sandstone Canyon. Phil Duarte, residing at 1343 Red Bluff, pointed out that the Los Angeles County Planning Commission denied a similar scope type of project five years ago for that same area. The purpose of incorporation was for local control, emphasizing slow growth for the City. We, as residents, want to preserve our properties to maintain our lifestyles, preserving a small amount of open space January 25f 1993 Page 9 for ourselves, our children, to enjoy nature. We do not have the resources attainable to- the developer, who chooses to utilize their property f or a prof it. He then presented the newspaper article, headlined "A Radical Change in the Environment", dated November 22, 1987, which talked about the project, proposed by Arciero & Sons, that was rejected by the County of Los Angeles. Joe Larutta, residing at 2546 Sunbright Drive, stated that he recently relocated his business office to the north end of Diamond Bar from Pathfinder Road because his clients were unable to ingress/egress due to traffic. This project may be great for development now, and may encourage t 'he development of the school site, but the affects to the City in 20 years need to be considered. Elaine Kim, residing at 2074 Peaceful Hills Road, a Real Estate Broker, stated that there must be a compromise that will allow the property owners to develop the land to it's highest and best use, yet still protect the homeowners living in the area. She stated the following concerns: the density of the proposed project; preventing slippage of the hills; who will be responsible for cleaning up the repairs'if slippage was to occur, the city or the Homeowners Association; and the preservation of the trees in the Canyon. Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, made the following comments: if there is no difference between rural and urban living, then why do move to this City which advertises "Country Living"; if there are no significant noise impacts exceeding municipal standards, then what are our standards and perhaps they should be adjusted; why is the cutting down of 700 trees considered an "insignificant" impact; there are hundreds of vacant commercial properties, throughout the City, including Mr. Arciero's property at Colima and Brea Canyon, thus indicating that the 31 commercial acre site may not be a valuable resource; many citizens do not consider this project as beneficial, nor is it considered to be without significant impact to the residents; she was assured by Brock homes that there would always be open space; since she paid a hefty premium for the property and view, if the project is developed as proposed, then she will ask f or reassessment, and lowering of property taxes, resulting in the loss of revenue to the City; since Brock took back promised land from the community Association, which involved Mayor Miller, there is a conflict of January 2S, 1993 Page 10 interest; having the City of Diamond Bar as an involved party in this development is also a conflict of. interest; and people voted for cityhood to stop the excessive building in Diamond Bar. Roy Marcosi, residing at 1664 Chappel Hill Drive, Walnut, stated that the project will put all the traffic from the proposed development on to Morning Sun Ave., a short cul-de-sac street, to Shephard Hills Drivel to Chappel Hill Drive, and to Tamaschaner, all of which do not have sidewalks. The school bus- pickup, for the neighborhood children, is located on Tamaschaner Street, which is presently impacted by heavy traffic. Home values will decrease because of the unmitigated traffic, the unmitigated.air quality, and the 5 to 10 years of construction in the area. There is no benefit to the existing area. Norman Beach Cuschane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, President of the Pathfinder Homeowners Association, stated that they are currently investigating if the land below their tract is actually the property of the Homeowners Association. He inquired if the development, proposed by Mr. Patel, will become part of the Homewoners Association since Mr. Patel is presently a member of the Association. He requested that the EIR address land slippage, specifically in the area where RnP proposes to develop on a canyon with an 89 degree slope downwards. Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder, pointed out that the area proposed for development is an unique environmental area for all of us now and for future generations. Once that area is destroyed, the wildlife and vegetation is lost forever, and can never be seen again except in a make shift environment such as a zoo. The developers don't care what is destroyed, as long as they make a profit. Boran Ahmed, residing at 1810 Peaceful Hills Road, requested that the dollar value for both the advantages of the project, and the disadvantages of ,the project be evaluated to determine the actual benefits of the project. Art Fritz, residing at 20635 Larkstone Drive, expressed his concern of the notion that all development can be stopped by simply preventing people from doing anything with their property. This, essentially, would be a taking of property. None of us would be living here if this attitude January 25, 1993 Page 11 prevailed as the City was be developing. 'There would about "Country Living" for City appears to 5,000 people. The an attempt to be making reasonable development. make this a Those who would like property to remain as buying it. the a park, - should consider Bob Roberts, residing on Morning Sun Ave., noted that the map indicates that part of Mr. Patel's property is located in the County of Los Angeles. Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, a development consultant for the applicants, stated the following: RNP Inc., Dwight Forrester, is dedicating 42% of his entire ownership to the City, f or park/open land, and commercial capabilities; the park dedication of 28 acres, for this proposed project, f ar exceeds the requirements in the Quimby Act; the entire project is within the City of Diamond Bar; and the land owners, in this proposed development, feel this project provides the best opportunity f or the community itself. The audience seems to be confusing the developers with the EIR consultants. The only association the developers have with the professional EIR consultants is that we give the City the funds to pay for their service, and they give all the directions to staff, and the public. The intent of the developers is to develop legitimately within the confines of the community. Judy Newman, residing at 1652 Chappel Hill Drive, inquired how Diamond Bar can open the streets and funnel traffic into this unincorporated area, if the City does not have jurisdiction outside of the city limits. She also inquired when and how Diamond Bar will settle the traffic problems that will come into the unincorporated area. Norman Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, inquired who will pay for the traffic signal at Brea Canyon Road. He also inquired how much of the land, to be dedicated by RnP, is buildable. Swany Fong, residing at 20879 Missionary Ridge, inquired if the elementary schools, which are already crowded, will be able to hold these additional children from this proposed development. She also stated that there are already many parks in the City that appear to be vacant most of the time. If a 26 acre park is developed, the City will have to pay to maintain the park, but if it is January 25, 1993 Page 12 left as a canyon, nature takes care of it at no cost. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed, and continued to February 8, 1993. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m. The meeting was VC/Meyer directed staff accordingly: he would like some empirical analysis, provided by a, traffic consultant, relative to the opening of Street "All into Morning Sun Ave., that includes some additional data concerning the- traffic issues brought up; additional data relative to how the grading would occur; and additional data that would mitigate impacts relative to grading, such as the issue of the migration of the wildlife. Hardy Strozier, in response to VC/Meyer, explained that there is no zone change associated with the project because the Development Agreement will be used as the zoning tool. The Planning Commission will first consider recommending, to the City Council,- the certification of the EIR, then consider the entitlements, the General Plan amendment, which changes the Water District property to PD, the three Tentative Tract Maps, one Development Agreement, the Hillside Management ordinance CUP required for the hillside grading, and the Oak Tree Removal Permit. The Master Plan will be considered along with the Development Agreement. C/Grothe expressed his concern that the EIR indicates practically everything in the canyon to be nonsignificant. He requested a more detailed circulation plan„ 'further information on the project's impacts regarding noise and view, and more information regarding the exact placement of these proposed homes. C/Plunk requested an analysis of the additional cost and benef it, if any, if the dirt would be moved to another canyon. Since the area was not listed as an SEA in the 1980 Master Plan by LA County, the importance of ' Sandstone Canyon is local, therefore local money will have to pay for it. She stated that she would prefer that the development is below grade. She requested an analysis of the relative safety of slippage occurring on but and fill land, and on land left in its natural state. January 25F 1993 Page 13 Chair/Flamenbaum, requested the following: a discussion of the pros and cons of the openings of any roads, 'in this project, to Rapid View and Larkstone; address the discrepancy in the tree count; review the Biological Resource Section, Existing setting, and determine why it indicates that there are no amphibians, which would include frogs; distribute, to the Commission, the responses to the comments made no later than February 2, 1993; a copy of a more detailed index, only if it takes half a minute to generate; information regarding the SCAQMD standards, and their meaning in practical terms; and a more detailed analysis as to why concept #4 is good or bad, and how it compares to concept three. chair/Flamenbaum stated that the public hearing is continued to the meeting of February 9, 1993. CUP 91-1 & AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the EIR 91-4 request, made by the applicant Inter - Community Health Services, to develop a three phase 425,000 square foot medical building plaza project, to be located at 887 Grand Avenue, that will include the following services: medical office buildings, acute care hospital, hospital support, outpatient services! diagnostic and treatment center, and a community conference and education center. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive comments on the EIR, and direct staff to respond to comments addressing the document, and return with the final EIR at the next public hearing, which will address the Development Review and conditional Use Permit application. Mark Blodgett, from David Evans & Associates, summarized the process, related to the Diamond Bar Medical Plaza application, as follows: the City prepared an initial study that identified a potential for a number' of environmental impacts that would need further evaluation in an EIR; the initial study and a Notice of Preparation was circulated to a number of City departments and local, County, and State agencies, alerting them that a draft EIR will be prepared for this project; the comments received from those agencies are included in the draft EIR; upon completion of the draft EIR, a notice of completion was f iled; and prior to the circulation of the draft EIR, City stat f , the applicant, and the consultant attended a scoping meeting to receive additional input from interested parties. Mr. Evans then briefly reviewed those areas evaluated, as presented in the draft EIR before the commission. January 25, 1993 Page 14 Deborah Nicolas, Vice President of Corporate Development f or Intercommunity Health Services, Inc.,, stated that Intercommunity Health Services is the parent company of three affiliates: Intercommunity Medical Center, located in Covina; Hospice of the San Gabriel , Valley; and Intercommunity Foundation. Intercommunity Health Services purchased the site in May of 1990 after the strateqic Dlanning process identified that the Diamond Bar area was in need'of medical services, not currently provided in the area. The intent is to provide a facility that will be utilized long term. The facility, in phase one, will include a medical office building, a diagnostic and treatment center, based on the demand for out patient oriented services, and a recovery center. The second phase facility will include a hospital building, hospital support facilities, a conference center, and a helipad. The third phase, projected in 10 to 20 years if there is a growing demand, will be a duplication of phase one and phase two. She pointed out that the helipad will only be used in extreme case, which is anticipated to be about once to twice a year. Ken Liu, the project architect, presented a material board illustrating the material and color to be used for the construction of the facility. The proposed materials will have substance and permanence. There will be accent colors as part,of the pallet that will be treated not only at ground level but from above as,well. It is our intent to be sensitive to the neighbors, who have a view of the roof tops, by enclosing major pieces of equipment, or integrating them into the design and the volumes of the buildings. It is also our intent to break down the scale of the building, in regards to the elevation visible to Golden Springs Road, so that it is not a massive structure. The facility will be a future building geared towards evolving health care that will meet the needs of the community. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened Lloyd Duncan, with Comprehensive Property Management, representing the Montefino Homeowners Association, expressed the following concerns: it would be beneficial to actual see the design of the enclosed structures proposed on the roof top; since Grand Ave. is already heavily impacted by traffic, the additional 500 to 800 vehicle access will create a condition of bumper to bumper traffic back January 25, 1993 Page 15 to the freeway; emergency access to the facility, from Grand Ave. and the freeway, will be blocked by traffic; ambulatory access, or emergency access, should be gained off of Golden Springs Ave.; the parking facility should be made close to this Golden Springs entrance, to minimize the impact of traffic in and out of the complex, and perhaps access to the parking facility should be shared with the additional development below this area; the EIR should investigate significant geological aspects in regards to the movement of the slope at Montefino; the fire aspects should be investigated; the height of the facilities should be restricted, in the CUP, to 4 stories maximum for the life and the duration of the project; there should be some interlocking architectural integrity with this facility, and future developments to the north; and there should be some restrictions, in the CUP, that would not allow a trauma center in the facility so that helicopter trips are kept at a minimum; and the location of the helipad should be addressed to minimize the noise impacts. Bert Ramer, residing in Diamond Bar, on the Citizens Advisory Committee, in favor of the project, stated that he has been impressed with Intercommunities willingness to listen to the communities input, and to make modifications. Richard Jancowski, residing at 22801 Shardennay Drive, #2 in Montefino, expressed the following concerns: there will be more than the indicated 1 or 2 helicopters a month coming to the facility; if the facility is to be duplicated in phase three, then that means there could be 2 or 3 helipads; the noise impacts could not possibly be mitigated, as indicated in the EIR, since Montefino is only about 150 'feet 'away from the facility; Grand Avenue is already seriously impacted by traffic without this facility; the noise and traffic impacts created from this proposed facility will destroy the property values of Montefino; and the notice of the public hearing could have been better communicated, other than the notices put in the Tribune and the Daily Bulletin. Mrs. Jancowski, residing at 22801 Shardennay Drive, #2 in Montefino, stated that this facility does not just impact the property values of Montefino, but of all of Diamond Bar. The City is inundated with air traffic noise pollution as it is. This is a major hospital expansion in a City that does not need all the noise, traffic, congestion, waste material, or nuclear medicine associated,with it. L January 25, 1993 Page 16 7. lanning. Commission should consider-denyb1 % t1le edt'in it's entikety. Dan Buffington, residing at 2505 Indian Creek, a pointed out that member of the Advisory Committee, the—propo sed facility is not a major facility, but a small facility to be comprised Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed, and continued to the meeting of February 22, Mark Blodgett stated that the consultants will respond to all the comments raised at the public hearing, as well as respond formally to all the comments received from the various agencies, and included in the final EIR. Mr. Liu pointed out that there will only be one helipad at any one Chair/ Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 11:00 p.m. The VC/Meyer pointed out that there has been significant notification of this proposed project, which included literature mailed to households in the community, as well as a sign on the site itself. He then made the following comments: though motorists may not have difficulty leaving the proposed site because of traffic signals, the increase in traffic will significantly impact Grand Ave., which is already heavily impacted; there seems to be a tremendous amount of accidents at the merging area of the 57/60 freeway, which tends to impact surface streets; there should be serious consideration to the analysis that the traffic is a significant impact that more than likely cannot be mitigated; explore alternatives to access Golden springs; it should be considered that air quality, at build out, may or may not be mitigated to a level of nonsignificance; arterial intersections that are impacted by traffic tends to throw the traffic onto collector streets; there needs to be consideration of potential spills of hazardous waste in and around this facility; since. phase three is a 20 year projection that could change measurably, and may not resemble the original concept, the scope of the project could be scaled back to be within the foreseeable construction budget of the applicant, allowing the Planning Commission an opportunity to address it more January 25, 1993 Page 17 intelligently in the environmental review;- the mitigation of the jobs housing, balanc a is 'a positive aspect; the facility may generate a cumulative development of medical - ancillary facilities, and offices in the area to support it; there needs to be further information relating to the safety of the heliport in regards to landing, as well as the possibility of crashing; and he noted that the design of the facility is pleasing. C/Li-expressed his concern regarding the increase in traffic. He requested further information regarding the frequency of the use of the helicopter compared to the facilities in West Covina, and other such comparable facilities, both now and at it's buildout point in 20 years. C/Grothe expressed his concern regarding the traffic impacts to Grand Avenue. There needs to be some consideration made to transferring some of that traffic to Golden Springs. C/Plunk noted that the project is very well planned out, and, once the concerns regarding traffic and roofscaping are addressed, it will be a good project and one that is needed in the City. Chair/Flamenbaum. made the following comments: input should be solicited from the highway patrol because they will probably divert their accident victims to this proposed facility; the potential impact, of this project, to the existing slope should be explored; are the proposed suggested improvements to surrounding roads, as indicated in the EIR as mitigation measures to traffic, within the existing right-of-way or is a greater right-ofway going to be acquired; the impact to the traffic mitigation, long term, should be explored if the use of the adjoining property turns out to be a high traffic generation facility; there should be some consideration made to the impacts to the Fire Station; he questioned the validity of the EIR in the third phase; there needs to be consideration made to runoff and surface reflectivity of the parking area when the proposed project is at buildout; what would be the impact if the flight path was restricted so that it either does not pass over the homes in adjacent areas, or is limited in how low the flight path can be; the amount of paper product trash generation should be considered as it relates to AB939 requirements; following all the rains, the amount of degradation of the existing slope at the south side, north of the project, should be explored; and there needs to be further consideration made to the traffic impacts. January 25, 1993 Page IS Chair/Flamenbaum stated that this item will be continued to the meeting of February- 22, 1993. CUP 92-11 & AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the DR 92-5 request, made by the applicant Smart SMR of CA, Inc., to locate a 200 sq. ft. building housing an -unmanned mobile radio communication facility and a 74 foot monopole, to be located at the Diamond Bar High School. There are two monopoles and related repeater stations currently located on that site. Though the staff report indicates that the pole is made of wood, the applicant has corrected that the monopole will be on a 60 foot metal pole, reflecting the existing light standards on the football campus. Residents have expressed their concern that this mobile radio facility will interfere with T.V. and radio reception, however, the information provided by the applicant indicates that the frequency used by this service would not interfere with either FM/AM radio or T.V. transmission. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Negative, Declaration, Conditional use permits 92-11 and Development Review No. 92-5 with the Findings of Fact and listed conditions. Fred Wink, representing SMR of Ca., Inc., 1335 S. Acacia Ave., Fullerton, presented computer enhanced slides, to the -Commission, simulating what the project would look like. This location is suitable because the facility will blend with the existing light standards, which will mitigate visual impact, clustering of these facilities is beneficial from a planning standpoint, and the students will benefit by an income flow from this lease. The FCC allows us to operate in the frequency range of an 800 to 900 megahurst range, which is a similar frequency range the other two facilities currently operate under. C/Plunk inquired if a study has been done supporting that there is not intermodulation distortion from the many repeaters so close to each other. Mr. Wink stated that intermodulation has been studied with these two other carriers in several other locations, which are on school grounds as well. All of the studies indicate that, as long as the frequencies used are coordinated with the frequencies used by the other repeaters, there should not be any interference problem. Presently, we are planning to start with five radios, and will probably have a maximum of twelve radios. We do January 25, 1993 Page 19 not interfere with the new 900 megahurst phones because we operate under a different frequency range. C/Grothe inquired about the difference between this mobile radio service as compared to the cellular phones service. Mr. Wink explained that the mobile radio service is primarily used by fleet users who have ' dispatchers talking one person to several persons, possibly at the same time. There will also be the ability to place cellular phone calls on the system as well. VC/Meyer inquired if the applicant would be amenable to a condition that, in the event that there is interference with the surrounding property owners telephone, radio, T.V., that, within a specified period of time, the applicant would either fix the situation or cease operation. Mr. Wink stated that he would not object to such a condition, given a reasonable time period to address and identify any problem. The intent is to be good neighbors. Chair/Flamenbaum. declared the public hearing opened. Joe Larutta, residing at 2506 Sunbright Dr., expressed the following concerns: the applicant is installing a third tower because he is overloaded, and there is a possibility that he will request a fourth or fifth tower in the future; the towers and antennas can be seen from the 57 freeway going north; and public schools are not the appropriate place for private concerns to place their equipment. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public Mr. Wink, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry, made the following response 's: it operates under a maximum of 100 watts per channel; the other towers presently existing are owned by Pactel and LA Cellular, and we do not own any other tower in this City; there is no objection to condition 7; a fence is built around the monopole to prevent climbing; the pole will be of galvanized material to match the existing light standards; because it is a line of sight technology, there is a need for a 60 f oot rad center to be able to talk to the %Tanuary 25„ 1993 Page 20 other sites; and the nearest fight, stAndards' are approximately 100 to 110 f,6et to the north. Chair/ Flamenbaum inqukfea "If It IS technically feasible to mount the antennae either around the' existing light standard, or on top of it. Don LaFoy, the construction expert for SMR, stated that a structural analysis of that existing pole, and the foundation that supports it, would have to be done to determine if that would be possible. The weight put up there will be insignificant but the usual problem relates to wind loading. Also, because the athletic bleachers are in between two of the light standards, on the west side of the field, the School District may be concerned it may fall on the bleachers in case of an earthquake. C/Grothe inquired why the antennas could not be placed on the gymnasium, along with the other antennas, since they operate under different frequencies. Mr. Wink explained that the question of interference becomes more difficult to deal with the closer you get to those other facilities. Mr. Winks inquired if the project could be conditioned requiring that we first determine if the school will allow us to put the equipment of the light standards, and if not, then proceed as first proposed. C/Meyer noted that the School District does have the authority to exempt themselves, under a given set of circumstances, from local zoning requirements. CDD/DeStef ano stated that it is— staff Is opinion that this application does not fall into the category that allows the School District to exempt themselves, nor does it'fall under a broader PUC category that allows them to exempt themselves from local jurisdiction and review. Motion was made by C/Plunk to deny the project since there are already two antennas at that location. The motion failed for lack of a second. C/Plunk excused herself from the meeting at 12:00 a.m. 7, A-1 I,%"- 1-1[=, 1,11111 January 25, X993 Page 21 C/Grothe requested that there be 6 condition restricting the use of microwave dishes on the pole. He stated that he would prefer a condition that the applicant mount the equipment on the existing light standards, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. DCA/Fox advised that such the condition, regarding mounting the equipment to the light standards, would make this a different application, in which the Commission would not have had the opportunity to review the effect of such an installation as related to potential safety, and other problems that may arise. The applicant would have to make a new application. Motion was made by C/Grothe to continue the project, with the condition that the equipment be mounted on the light standards, if engineeringly feasible and acceptable to the School District. The motion died for lack of a second Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Resolution as submitted by staff with the following added conditions: microwave dishes are not to be installed on the pole; in the event that this facility causes interference or disturbance with audio or television reception of the residents, within 500 feet of the facility, the applicant will repair the facility within 21 days of notification, or cease it's operation; and the plans be modified to change this from a wooden pole to a steel pole galvanized of the same color of the existing light standards. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Grothe, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None Variance 92-3 & AP/Lungu presented the staff report regarding the Planned Sign request made by the applicant Steve Porretta to Program 92-4 develop a Planned Sign Program at Diamond Bar Village Shopping Center 325-379 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. and 23341-23499 E. Golden Springs Dr., and approval of a Variance for six monument signs, eachfifteen feet in height and 84 square feet of sign face area. Though the proposed project is an opportunity to correct sign deficiencies and improve sign visibility for tenants, staff does not concur with the applicants request for six (6) iT 7T January 25, 1993 Page 22 fifteen foot monument signs, and feel that a variance from the maximum height allowed by the sign ordinance is appropriate with limitations listed in the staff report. It is recommended that the Commission consider reducing the 3 monuments signs, located adjacent to buildings A, D, and H, to 10 feet in height, and 3 monument signs, located adjacent to building B, E,.and I, to be reduced to 6 feet in height. It is further recommended that the commission approve the Planned Sign Program, the recommended reduction in the height of the monument signs, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. Steve Porretta, President of Southland Management, Inc., stated that because many of the tenants in the center do not have a budget for advertising, which is critical to their operation, they relay on the advertisement of the center. The signs need to be 15 f eet in height so that they are seen by motorists traveling 45 mph. Connie Nicholson, owner -of BCN Lighting & signs, explained that -the basis of the design for the 15 foot signs is on sign readability tests which indicate that the letters need to be between 911 to 1211 in height to be seen in a 45 mph area. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Hearing no testimony, Chair/ Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. VC/Meyer stated that, since the signs are to be remodeled, they should be made to comply with the Sign ordinance. All the businesses along Diamond Bar Blvd., near the intersection of Grand Ave., comply -with the Sign Ordinance. Connie Nicholson explained that such a sign, as is allowed by the Sign ordinance, which is a 6 f oot maximum, with a 72 square foot sign band area, allowing a 12 foot width in sign, would block the line of sight. She further stated that this center is unique in that it has 106 tenants. Due to the configuration of the center, everything faces internally to the center. Exterior advertising is very important. These plans would allow about 52% of the tenants to advertise. VC/Meyer stated that one of the reasons for the Sign ordinance is to encourage property owners to advertise the center, and not the individual dl 4- January 25, 1993 Page 23 tenants. In order for the Commission to approve a variance, there needs' to be a finding that this center is being denied a substantial property right that is afforded your neighbors in the same vicinity or zone. Mr. Porretta pointed out that if they install signs permitted under the Sign Ordinance, which would allow a 12 foot long sign. Then a traffic hazard would be created because it would block visibility into the center. C/Grothe pointed out that, just because the Sign Ordinance allows a 6 foot sign, with 72 square feet, does not mean that is what has to be put in. There does not seem to be any grounds for a variance of the Sign Ordinance. Connie Nicholson, in response to VC/Meyer, stated that they are not in concurrence with the recommendation made by staff regarding the sign height because it would reduce the amount of tenants that can advertise from 52% to about 30%. VC/Meyer suggested that the applicant research the City of Scottsdale, a very economically viable community, that does not allow any monumen signs over 6 feet. The sign criteria used by the applicant seems to be out dated and the method of advertising is antiquated. The center should be advertised, not the tenant, because it is doubtful, with the amount of conflict occurring in those driveways, that anyone is going to read the little signs placed on the monument signs. Chair/Flamenbaum, noting that staffs recommendation to allow three monuments signs to be 10 feet in height would also require a variance, inquired what criteria was used by staff to establish a variance. PT/Lungu explained that staff based the variance upon the following unique conditions: the topography of the site; the center is on a slope; the buildings are set more than 150 feet back from the street; and the tenants are not visible from the street. The applicant is attempting to clean up that center, even though those monument signs are permitted to remain as they are. If the applicant is allowed the 7 monument signs, as indicated in the code, there would be 504 square feet total sign face area. But, if staff's suggestion is followed, there would be 480 square feet total sign face area. January 25, 1993 Page 24 C/Grothe stated that there are other centers in town, such as the Pepper Tree Plaza, - that have the identical set of circumstances. Motion was made by C/Grothe to deny the application. The'motion dies for lack of a second. C/Li suggested that the item be continued to allow staff and the applicant additional time to discuss the matter and to come up— with a compromise. Motion was made by Chair/ Flamenbaum, - seconded by C/Meyer and CARRIED to continue the matter to the next meeting, with direction that staff and the I applicant attempt to resolve the issue regarding the height of the signs. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe., ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ADJOURRMENT: Motion was made by Chair/ Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adj ourn the meeting at 12:50 a.m. Respectively, Jame DeStefano ije Secretary Attes ruce Flamenbaum Chairman T y" 1