Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/1993CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:06 CALENDAR: p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Min. of Nov. 22 Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL: Commissioner Grothe, Vice Chairman Plunk and Chairman Meyer. Commissioner Flamenbaum arrived at 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Li was absent (excused). Also Present were Community Development Director OLD BUSINESS: James DeStefano; Planning Technician Ann Lungu; City Engineer Mike Myers; Interim City Attorney Final Draft Michael Montgomery; and Recording Secretary Liz Planning Myers INTRODUCTION OF CDD/DeStefano introduced and welcomed the new NEW CITY Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery. ATTORNEY: VC/Plunk inquired if ICA/Montgomery had an Manual ICA/Montgomery expressed his pleasure to be working with the City and the Planning Commission. MATTERS FROM None THE AUDIENCE: CONSENT VC/Plunk requested the following changes to the CALENDAR: minutes of November 22, 1993: indicate "Chairperson" as one word; properly indicate Min. of Nov. 22 "...and equal split vote..." on page 3; properly indicate "...or urgency of the item..." on page 4; hyphenate the word "non-binding"; and properly indicate "C/Flamenbaum". Moved by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of November 22, 1993, as amended. OLD BUSINESS: Chair/Meyer noted that the Planning Commission received the final draft of the Planning Commission Final Draft Policies and Procedures Manual for review, Planning incorporating the revisions of the Brown Act which Commission will become effective April 1, 1994. Policies and Procedures VC/Plunk inquired if ICA/Montgomery had an Manual opportunity to review the document. ICA/Montgomery stated that he has reviewed the document and finds everything to be in order. December 13, 1993 Page 2 VC/Plunk then questioned if items 3-6, on page 6, are appropriate. ICA/Montgomery explained that it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to place as many sensitivity training goals in the policy 'as desired, subject to State statute. VCJPlunk then requested that the last sentence in item 12, on page 7, be corrected to read "Noone should..." C/Flamenbaum suggested that the statement "A split vote (negative, affirmative, or neutral)...", on VC/Plunk then made the following suggestionsto page 8, under "Quorum", be moved under "Motion". amend the Planning Commission Policies wind Procedures Manual: rewrite the second paragraph, on page 6, under "Effectiveness" to read "Effective the suggested changes to the document. Commissions set clear objectives, prioritize tasks, anticipate and analyze concerns. They listen empathetically, and they diagnose options to unanimously to adopt the final Draft Planning develop a plan of action."; delete the second sentence in the first paragraph, under "Effectiveness"; add "and goals" to the end of the amended. third sentence in the first paragraph, under NEW BUSINESS: "Effectiveness"; and correct the word "maybe" to "may be" in the first sentence of the third Chair/Meyer suggested that, following the public paragraph. HEARING: VC/Plunk then questioned if items 3-6, on page 6, are appropriate. ICA/Montgomery explained that it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to place as many sensitivity training goals in the policy 'as desired, subject to State statute. VCJPlunk then requested that the last sentence in item 12, on page 7, be corrected to read "Noone should..." IT': ,i, 11,�- I� ![ - C/Flamenbaum suggested that the statement "A split vote (negative, affirmative, or neutral)...", on page 8, under "Quorum", be moved under "Motion". It was the consensus of the Commission to accept the suggested changes to the document. Moved by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to adopt the final Draft Planning Commission Policies and Procedures Manual, as amended. NEW BUSINESS: None CONTINUED PUBLIC Chair/Meyer suggested that, following the public HEARING: hearing, the matter be continued to a meeting in January of 1994 in order to give the new City ZCA No. 93-3 Attorney and City Council sufficient time to Property properly review the document. Maintenance Ordinance CDD/DeStefano reported that the Planning Commission continued the public hearing regarding the Property Maintenance ordinance at the October 11, 1993 meeting in order to allow for further preparation and revision of the Ordinance. IT': ,i, 11,�- I� ![ - --. 11I w11 .d.,. I1 -111911W.0 -11a., - __11 1-1 ,.„_m,-_ I . -- I— — I December 13, 1993 Page 3 Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited those wishing to speak to come forward. Mr. Bob Zirbes, President of the Diamond Bar Improvement Association (DBIA), .suggested the following changes to the document: page 16, under "Penalties", should include a provision for an appeal process; the document should be sensitive to the needs of financially disadvantaged residents; delete the statement, "...and a resulting decline in the property values within the City of Diamond Bar," from "Purpose and Intent", on page 2, because it cannot be enforced; a boat is a recreational vehicle that is allowed further in the document and should therefore be stricken from section 22.54.030 A, on page 4; delete the entire section 22.54.040 B on page 4; deleted "sagging roof" from section 22.54.060 A, on page 5; amend section 22.54.060 B, on page 5, to read, "Substantial areas of visible deteriorated..."; section 22.54.060 D, on page 5, is a Health and Safety issue and should be removed; items 22.54.060 E, F, and G, on page 5, are covered under Building and Safety Codes and should be removed; the suggestions made should also be applied to multi -family standards, etc., as well; and the statement "commercial purposes" in section 22.54.050 B, on page 5, should be more explicit because there may be confusion among those owning pick up trucks, or vehicles that have a high gross vehicle weight. CDD/DeStefano explained that the Enforcement/Abatement Procedures is not specifically a part of this draft because it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to establish the standards and recommend policy for those standards, and the purview of the City Council to deal with specific issues of enforcement and the abatement procedures. Chair/Meyer expressed his concern that the Planning Commission is being asked to piece -meal their review of the Ordinance. He stated that even though the penalty phase is not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission should be made fully aware of any punitive measures that go along with the Ordinance. He requested that the penalty phase be included with the next Draft Ordinance to be presented to the Commission. C/Grothe stated that if the penalty phase cannot be presented to the Planning Commission for review, December 13, 1993 Page 4 �i�11 LJ then the "Penalty" section should be omitted from the Ordinance. Mr. Oscar Law, residing at 20511 Pathfinder, concurred with the suggestions made by Mr. Zirbe,s. He questioned why such items as broken toilet's, leaking roofs were not deleted from the draft ordinance as was requested at the last public hearing. Mr. Don Schad, a resident, also supported the comments made by Mr. Zirbes. He made the following comments: section 22.54.060 A -G fall under the purview of the Building and safety Department; and the "Penalty" section should include a provision to allow those financially disadvantaged an appeal process. Mr. Don Fisher, residing at 465 Burgante Drive, referring to section 22.54.050 B, on page 5, noted A that the State considers any vehicle with �a commercial plate to be of a commercial use in California. He also noted that the Walnut Recreational parking area for motor vehicles is all gravel, not paved, which is contrary to section 22.54.260 "Motor Vehicle Parking", on page 13. Mr. John Okel, residing on Burgante Drive, .expressed his support with the intent of the ordinance, but emphasized that a person in violation should not be placed in jail, nor should it be suggested. Mr. Frank Dursa, a resident, expressed his support that the ordinance was amended to allow recreational vehicles to be parked in the driveway. Chair/Meyer stated that staff has been directed to do a comparative analysis of Chapter 99 of the Los Angeles County Building Code, which dealt with property maintenance standards for the City, and the proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance. Red Calkins, a resident, expressed his dissatisfaction with the Code Enforcement Officer. Mr-. Don Gravdahl, a resident, suggested that section 22.54.050 B, on page 5, be amended to define "commercial" by the gross weight of the vehicle when fully encumbered. He then suggested that the proposed ordinance indicate specifically how much of the frontage of a house can be a paved surface. �_ —e+.. .I.,.. leblei9rlbinllxru.VwJbk..a,.- .... ,w.....,_.�I.I-Iv .. .... ,..� .. ...... ..............w.,�..,...,..,,��i�,�.uoeera•<.m�.,i-- — -- —__ —_.—__ _ —_ December 13, 1993 Page 5 Mr. Max Maxwell, a resident, inquired if the proposed Ordinance affects existing CC&R's. Chair/Meyer explained that CC&R's are separate documents created under the terms of the subdivision and are enforced by the Homeowners Association, not by municipalities. The proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance would not impact the CC&R's. Mr. Richard Murietta, a resident, inquired if the proposed Ordinance would apply to problems associated with fraternity houses, such as those operating on his street. Chair/Meyer suggested that Mr. Murietta contact staff for assistance in addressing those problems. Mr. Don Fisher, a resident, concurred that fraternity houses, specifically at 310 Ballena Drive, have been a problem for some time. T There being no one wishing to provide further comment, Chair/Meyer returned the matter back to the Commission for consideration. C/Flamenbaum made the following comments: driveways should be covered under the Development Code; the document needs to specifically define front yard, side yard, etc., for enforcement purposes; section 22.54.050 B, on page 5, is poorly written and does not specify any time durations; leaky roofs, bad drainage, etc., fall under the Building and Safety Codes;' and the Planning Commission had directed staff to include language that the City could place a lien on the property in order to get reimbursed if the City did any repair work following the appeal process. C/Flamenbaum then stated that he would not give consideration to the proposed ordinance unless it included an Enforcement/Abatement provision. C/Grothe made the following comments: omit section 22.54.060, on page 5, from the document, except the first paragraph; delete the statement "free of weeds" from section 22.54.070, on page 6, second r=- line; rewrite item 2 from section 22.54.080, on page 6, to be less restrictive; and section 22.54.030 B, on page 4, should allow for at least two weekends to do repairs. Chair/Meyer, referring to section 22.54.030 B, pointed out that, with an appeal process included December 13, 1993 Page 6 in the proposed Ordinance, an individual would have an opportunity to demonstrate why that specific time period was inappropriate. The Planning Commission concurred that -10 consecutive days was a reasonable time frame ''to accomplish repairs, as indicated in section 22.54.030 B. VC/Plunk suggested that ICA/Montgomery meet with the Property Maintenance Ordinance subcommittee,to review the document. She stated that it was her impression that some of the examples given in the different sections were included for enforcement purposes. She inquired if it was the opinion of ICA/Montgomery that some of the items in the document should be separated from the Development Standards. She also questioned if including definitions in the document was redundant and/;or could have the potential to contradict the intent of the proposed Ordinance. VC/Plunk then suggested that the document be reviewed by the Planning Commission one year after its adoption to determine its effectiveness. Chair/Meyer reiterated his request for a comparative analysis, in graph format, of the enforcement provisions of Chapter 99 of the Building Code and the proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance. He suggested that the proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance include the definitions of "blighting conditions" as clearly defined in the Health and Safety Code. Chair/Meyer then reiterated his request that the penalty phase 'be included for the Planning Commission's review. Chair/Meyer, in response to VC/flunk's request to send the document back to the subcommittee, stated that the subcommittee has completed their review and the document is now before the Planning Commission for consideration. Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Grothe and carried unanimously to continue the matter to the meeting of January 24, 1994, and to direct staff to incorporate the statements made by the Commission this evening into the proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance. VC/Plunk requested the revised document be included in the Commission's packet, for the meeting of January 10, 1994, if possible. 'k + `"I' , IV �i "i 'C�.. " ac ">d�, i.dJ649 v.flNI,"w, S+ w,�IsSs°,�r�s, December 13, 1993 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING: PT/Lunge reported that L.A. Cellular is requesting approval to locate and operate a 75 foot monopole CUP No. 93-7 and an unmanned -repeater station for a period not L.A. Cellular to exceed six months within an existing commercial development. The project was initiated as a result of the removal of an unmanned repeater station and monopole from the Diamond Bar High School campus. She stated that the applicant is currently involved An negotiations with the school district to locate the use, once again, at the school. However, in the interim, the applicant is seeking to re-establish service to the community and public safety agencies until a permanent location can be secured. PT/Lungu then noted that the staff report, which indicates that the power source for the equipment is a utility generator, is incorrect, and that the power source will be electricity to the site. It. is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 93-7 with the Findings of Fact and listed conditions. C/Flamenbaum inquired why the applicant is being r- required to slurry seal and restripe the parking lot when the request is only for a six month use. CDD/DeStefano explained that since a CUP is a discretionary permit, the Planning Commission and staff have the opportunity to review the entire parcel in its consideration. He stated that staff has recommended that the applicant be requested to provide the much needed improvements to the parking lot at the same time the permit is being requested. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing opened. ICA/Montgomery noted that, because of the present status of the General Plan, there is a question if discretionary land use permits can be granted at this time. He stated ,that, though the request is only for six month and the applicant is a utility, a land use permit invalidly granted is always subject to challenge. He inquired if the applicant would be willing to waive recourse for any conditions imposed if it turns out that the authority to grant those conditions were invalid because of any technicality. Ms. Linda Paul, an employee of L.A. Cellular located in Cerritos, stated that L.A. Cellular is more than willing to cooperate with the City, and adhere to any condition that would indemnify the City for any improvements incurred by the applicant if a technicality was determined in the future ___..,. _..__ _—r — — ���..r -'���r Ili �Y�l,��pvi•��i ill e_.�• __. .. ...�- �. � --, —.. III 'p III �� i�i� December 13, 1993 Page 8 Wi;, 1; after receiving the permit being requested. Ms. Paul then made the following corrections to the staff report:` L.A. Cellular has provided service at Diamond Bar High School since approximately 1986; and the antennasproposed for the site are sectorized, which would not exceed 75 feet by more than six inches. In response to a series of Planning Commission inquiries, Ms. Paul made the following responses: there is no intent of having the pole at that location longer than 6 months, an alternate site is being actively pursued; a condition limiting the number of extensions granted to 1 or 2 times is acceptable; there is no intent to use the microwave being requested as an option; microwave is used in the event of a disaster; sectorized antennas will most likely be used, however, the option to use a whip antenna is desired; an extension of 6 months is desired; cellular does not cause interference with radio or television reception, but, any complaints received either through the City or directly would be corrected within 5 working days; the condition to slurry seal and restripe the parking lot is acceptable; the broad cast power ranges from 5-30 watts, and as high as 100 watts per channel; 32 channels are anticipated, which would operate sporadically and very rarely simultaneously; and the microwave dish would broadcast at a 1/2 watt. Ms. Paul then stated that the lack of cellular service along the 57 freeway has caused much consternation among public service agencies because it affects the response time. She pointed out that cellular service is very important to the public's health and safety. Chair/Meyer invited those wishing to speak to come forward. Mr. Oscar Law expressed his concern that the applicant is requesting to install a temporary unmanned cellular communication facility in an area that is extremely parking sensitive, and could be greatly impacted if the monopole fell in the event of a natural disaster. Mr. Don Schad suggested that the CUP include a time frame for the removal of the transmission tower after the 6 months or any extended time frame. He then noted that because of the hilly terrain in the area, it is probable that 2 microwave dishes would -�- December 13, 1993 Page 9 G �I be needed to transmit in two directions. There being no one wishing to provide further comment, Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. Ms. Paul, in response to the comments made, stated that parking will not be impacted in any way since the unmanned facility is not in the paved parking area, and there will be no employees on hand. She stated that building permits are obtained from the Building and Safety Department to ensure the pole is installed in a safe manner. She then indicated their willingness to work with staff regarding a timeframe for the removal of the pole. Ms. Paul, in response to C/Flamenbaum, stated that there would only be one microwave dish, and that the diameter of the service would be approximately three miles. In response to a series 'of inquiries made by Chair/Meyer, Ms. Paul stated the following: removal of the facility would take a few days; because there were some technicalities regarding existing permitting, L.A. Cellular decided that, rather than be in possible violation with the Public Utilities Commission, it would be more appropriate to move from the Walnut School District site and begin the process- of permitting once again; though providers of the same service can locate within 20 to 30 feet of each other, they cannot locate on the same pole -because the frequencies used are so similar that interference would be created; L.A. Cellular would like to permanently locate at the School District at the end of the 6 month period; and the facility is typically a prefabricated State approved shelter with a concrete aggregate finish that will be painted any color desired by the City. Chair/Meyer noted that there was discussion in the General Plan to consider the 57 freeway as a scenic view corridor. He then inquired if the piece of property is an underground utility district. He also inquired if a design review is needed for facilities on commercial property. CDD/DeStefano explained that the discussion involving the 57 as a scenic view corridor indicated that any development in the area should reflect that scenic nature in terms of preservation. He stated that it has not been December 13, 1993 Page 10 1 determined if the property is an underground utility district, but any new development would be required to put in underground utilities, and,lif feasible in terms of provision of service and fixtures, existing facilities, would be placed underground. He then explained that design reviews are typically done for permanent facilities over a specific size. However, this monopole is temporary, andthe zoning code does not address temporary installations, a CUP process was utilized. Chair/Meyer expressed concern that the CUP process, which is typically reserved for more permanent land use entitlement, is,being used to allow for this temporary use application. ICA/Montgomery suggested that the. Planniing Commission consider a short term franchise agreement under Utility Code 6264, which is an exception to the provision that would allow a six month franchise to operate the facility at that location without obtaining any zoning or location rights. Chair/Meyer suggested the Planning Commission consider adding the following conditions: require a cash bond or adequate surety that the facility will be removed; include a time frame for removal of the facility after proper notification be included; and require 5 working days to service problems generated from the facility. VC/Plunk inquired if the applicant would be willing to waive the antenna whip. Mr. Royce Cassort, the Construction Manager for L.A. Cellular, explained that they have requested the option of using either the whip or directional antennas because it is uncertain if the directional antennas will perform as needed. It would be acceptable if it were conditioned as "either/or" because both equipment would not be used. He stated that Southern California Edison has indicated that they have the option of setting a temporary 20 foot power pole rather than disturbing the landscaping to go underground. He also stated that the microwave dish is not needed since they are able to get telephone service from the building next door. Moved by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to approve the CUP temporary franchise agreement with the following modifications: F r .'�' i": :`�+��_ _ �;� r C,,..;.,CeY�,::�N�W:��Pra�r.ct��'w.x«�Ig���Jrd'�.�•� — ---- ------ - _-.ie-4,.,--,.i Ju n,L,., .,,w.--,., —1� -. -- -- --_...__I __ ._. December 13, 1993 Page 11 amending line four of the title of the Planning Commission Resolution to read "An application to install a temporary franchise for an unmanned gellular."; delete Finding of"Fact (e) on page 3 and insert the sentence "The City is operating without a General Plan, therefore the Commission has reviewed the project as a short term utility franchise in conformance with the California Public Utility Code Section No. 6264"; change condition (g) on page 4 to indicate that the repair would be within 5 working days of notification; add condition (1) to read "The pole must be removed within 5 working days and the applicant shall post a cash bond to secure removal in a bond amount to be determined by the City."; change condition .(c) to indicate that no more than one six month extension of this grant may be requested; and add a condition to exclude the microwave dish.' RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 9:11 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 9:26 p.m. ZCA No. 92-2; CDD/DeStefano reported that the proposed project is V e s t i n g located within Significant Ecological Area (SEA) Tentative No. 15 and has been determined by the City to Map No. 51169; require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to CUP No. 92-3; analyze the project's impacts and appropriate Oak Tree Permit mitigation measures for those specific impacts. No. 92-3; and The DEIR review period is scheduled to close on EIR No. 92-2 December 15, 1993. He stated that a Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC) is in the process of reviewing the project, and will provide the Planning Commission with a report regarding their review of the biota aspects of the DEIR. CDD/DeStefano then stated that since the City is presently operating without a General Plan, review of the DEIR, as anticipated, cannot occur. ICA/Montgomery stated that he had a preliminary discussion with the applicant regarding the issue of the lack of a General Plan. Since the Mayor has indicated a desire to adopt a new General Plan within 90 days, ICA/Montgomery asked the applicant if they would be agreeable to continue the matter for 90 days, without prejudice to any time limits that may be under consideration. He stated that �I the applicant can make a presentation if they so desire, However, since the present General Plan has been suspended by virtue of the filing of the referendum petitions, a decision cannot be made this evening by this body. December 13, 1993 Page 12 Recovery Facility. COMMISSION C/Flamenbaum stated that he received notice from DEIR has been prepared COMMENTS: the City of Brea that an the Olinda Heights project which borders concerning Tonner Canyon. vC/Plunk expressed her opinion that the City needs to move away from "pro growth vs. no growth" and encourage the intelligent use of resources. She welcomed ICA/Montgomery. She then inquired of the anticipated process to revise the General Plan. Chair/Meyer noted that, even though a Planning Commission meeting is, scheduled for December 271 1993, no items have been placed on the agenda for that meeting. He then stated that the City Council will be considering, at its December 14, 1993 meeting, a resolution 'repealing the existing General; Plan and appointing _a citizens advisory committee, consisting of members of the City Council, City Commissions, business community, citizen's group, and community residents, to facilitate preparation of the 1994 General Plan.' Chair/Meyer' volunteered to serve on the committee and bring information back to the Planning Commission. He then welcomed ICA/Montgomery. TCA/Montgomery, 'in response to VC/Plunk, reviewed - the procedures for the 'Planning commission to follow to receive a-legal response on any concern, lained legal inquiries, or planning matters. He explained that the intent of the procedures, which now require meetings to be held at City Hall with the presence of_two Commissioners and the City Planner, are to establish a spirit of openness as well as to cut down on the costs of legal fees. ADJOURNMENT: Moved, by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting ,at 9:57 p.m. to December 27, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. i ;Jes DeStef noetary Attest: Davi Me'e Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL: commissioner Grothe, Vice Chairman Plunk and Chairman Meyer. Commissioner Flamenbaum arrived at 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Li was absent (excused). Also Present were Community Development Director James DeStefano; Planning Technician Ann Lungu; City Engineer Mike Myers; Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery; and Recording Secretary Liz Myers INTRODUCTION OF CDD/DeStefano introduced and welcomed the new NEW CITY Interim City Attorney -Michael Montgomery. ATTORNEY: ICA/Montgomery expressed his pleasure to be working with the City and the Planning Commission. MATTERS FROM None THE CONSENT VC/Plunk requested the following changes to the CALENDAR: minutes of November 221, 1993: indicate "Chairperson" as one word; properly indicate Min. of Nov. 22 11 ... and equal split vote... 11 on page 3; properly indicate 11 ... or urgency of the item... 11 on page 4; hyphenate the word "non- binding" and properly indicate "C/Flamenbaum". Moved by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of November 22, 1993, as amended. OLD BUSINESS: Chair/Meyer noted that the Planning Commission received the final draft of the Planning commission Final Draft Policies and Procedures Manual for review, Planning incorporating the revisions of the Brown Act which Commission will become effective April 1, 1994. Policies and Procedures VC/Plunk inquired if ICA/Montgomery had an Manual opportunity to review the document. ICA/Montgomery stated that he has reviewed the document and finds everything to be in order. December 13, 1993 Page 2 VC/Plunk then made the following suggestions to amend the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures Manual: rewrite the second paragraph, on page 6, under "Effectiveness" to read "Effective Commissions set clear objectives, prioritize tasks, anticipate and analyze concerns. They listen empathetically, and they diagnose options to develop a plan of action."; delete the secohd sentence in the first paragraph, under "Effectiveness"; add "and goals" to the end of the third sentence in the first paragraph, under "Effectiveness"; and correct the word "maybe" to "may bell in the f irst sentence of the thi ;rd paragraph. VC/Plunk then questioned if items 3-6, on page 6, are appropriate. ICA/Montgomery explained that it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to place as many sensitivity training goals in the 'policy as desired, subject to State statute. VCIPIunk then requested that the last sentence in item 12, on page 7, be corrected to read "No one should... 11 C/Flamenbaum suggested that the statement "A split vote (negative, affirmative, or neutral) ... 11, on page 8, under "Quorum", be moved under "Motion". It was the consensus of the Commission to accept the suggested changes to the document. I Moved by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to adopt the final Draft Planning Commission Policies and Procedures Manual, as amended. NEW BUSINESS: None CONTINUED PUBLIC Chair/Meyer suggested that, following the public HEAR-ING: hearing, the matter be continued to a meeting in January of 1994 in order to give the new City ZCA No. 93-3 Attorney and City Council sufficient time to Property properly review the document. Maintenance ordinance CDD/DeStef ano reported that the Planning Commission continued the public hearing regarding the Property Maintenance Ordinance at the October 11, 1993 meeting in order to allow for further preparation and revision of the ordinance. """1 "41 N December 13, 1993 Page 3 Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited those wishing to speak to come forward. Mr. Bob Zirbes, President of the Diamond Bar Improvement Association (DBIA), suggested the following changes to the document: page 16, under "Penalties"I should include a provision for an appeal process; the document should be sensitive to the needs of financially disadvantaged residents; delete the statement, 11 ... and a resulting decline in the property values within the City of Diamond Bar," from "Purpose and Intent", on page 2, because it cannot be enforced; a boat is a recreational vehicle that is allowed further in the document and should therefore be stricken from section 22.54.030 A, on page 4; delete the entire section 22.54.040 B, on page 4; deleted "sagging roof' from section 22.54.060 A, on page 5; amend section 22.54.060 B, on page 5, to read, "Substantial areas of visible deteriorated... 11; section 22.54.060 D, on page 5, is a Health and Safety issue and should be removed; items 22.54.060 E, F, and G, on page 5, are covered under Building and Safety Codes and should be removed; the suggestions made should also be applied to multi -family standards, etc., as well; and the statement "commercial purposes" in section 22.54.050 B1 on page 5, should be more explicit because there may be confusion among those owning pick up trucks, or vehicles that have a high gross vehicle weight. CDD/DeStefano explained that the Enforcement/Abatement Procedures is not specifically a part of this draft because it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to establish the standards and recommend policy for those standards, and the purview of the City Council to deal with specific issues of enforcement and the abatement procedures. Chair/Meyer expressed his concern that the Planning commission is being asked to piece -meal their review of the Ordinance. He stated that even though the penalty phase is not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission should be made fully aware of any punitive measures that go along with the Ordinance. He requested that the penalty phase be included with the next Draft Ordinance to be presented to the Commission. C/Grothe stated that if the penalty phase cannot be presented to the Planning Commission for review, _717 December 13, 1993 Page 4 then the "Penalty" section should be omitted from the ordinance. Mr. Oscar Law, residing at 20511 Pathfinder, concurred with the suggestions made by Mr. Zirbe,s. He questioned why such items as broken toilets, leaking roofs were not deleted from the draft ordinance as was requested at the last public hearing. Mr. Don Schad, a resident, also supported the comments made by Mr. Zirbes. He made the following comments: section 22.54.060 A -G fall under the purview of the Building and Safety Department; and the 'Penalty" section should include a provision to allow those financially disadvantaged an appeal process. Mr. Don Fisher, residing at 465 Burgante Drive, referring to section 22.84.050 B, on page 5, noted that the State considers any vehicle with a commercial plate to be of a commercial use in California. He also noted that the Walnut Recreational parking area for motor vehicles is all gravel, not paved, which is contrary to section 22.54.260 "Motor Vehicle Parking", on page 13. Mr. John Okel, residing on Burgante Drive, .expressed his support with the intent of the ordinance, but emphasized that a person in violation should not be placed in jail, nor should it be suggested. Mr. Frank Dursa, a resident, expressed his support that the ordinance was amended to allow recreational vehicles to be parked in the driveway. Chair/Meyer stated that staff has been directed to do a comparative analysis of Chapter 99 of the Los Angeles County Building Code, which dealt with property maintenance standards for the City, and the proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance. Red Calkins, a resident, expressed his dissatisfaction with the Code Enforcement officer. Mr- Don Gravdahl, a resident, suggested that section 22.54.050 B, on page 5, be amended to define "commercial' by the gross weight of the vehicle when fully encumbered. He then suggested that the proposed ordinance indicate specifically how much of the frontage of a house can be a paved surface. December 13, 1993 Page S Mr. Max Maxwell, a resident, inquired if the proposed Ordinance affects existing CC&RIs. Chair/Meyer explained that CC&RIs are separate documents created under the terms of the subdivision and are enforced by the Homeowners Association, not by municipalities. The proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance would not impact the CC&RIs. Mr. Richard Murietta, a resident, inquired if the proposed Ordinance would apply to problems associated with fraternity houses, such as those operating on his street. Chair/Meyer suggested that Mr. Murietta contact staff for assistance in addressing those problems. Mr. Don Fisher, a resident, concurred that fraternity houses, specifically at 310 Ballena 'Drive, have been a problem for some time. There being no one wishing to provide further comment, Chair/Meyer returned the matter back to the Commission for consideration. C/Flamenbaum made the following comments: driveways should be covered under the Development Code; the document needs to specifically define front yard, side yard, etc., for enforcement purposes; section 22.54.050 B, on page 5, is poorly written and does not specify any time durations; leaky roofs, bad drainage, etc., fall under the Building and Safety Codes;' and the Planning Commission had directed staff to include language that the City could place a lien on the property in order to get reimbursed if the City did any repair work following the appeal process. C/Flamenbaum then stated that he would not give consideration to the proposed ordinance unless it included an Enforcement/Abatement provision. C/Grothe made the following comments: omit section 22.54.060, on page 5, from the document, except the f irst paragraph; delete the statement "free of weeds" from section 22.54.070, on page 6, second line; rewrite item 2 from section 22.54.080, on page 6, to be less restrictive; and section 22.54.030 B, on page 4, should allow for at least two weekends to do repairs. Chair/Meyer, referring to section 22.54.030 B, pointed out that, with an appeal process included December 13, 1993 Page 6 in the proposed ordinance, an individual would have an opportunity to demonstrate why that specific time period was inappropriate. The Planning Commission concurred that 10 consecutive days was a reasonable time frame to accomplish repairs, as indicated in section 22.54.030 B. VC/Plunk suggested that ICA/Montgomery meet with the Property Maintenance Ordinance subcommittee,to review the document. She stated that it was her impression that some of the examples given in the different sections were included for enforcement purposes. she inquired if it was the opinion of ICA/Montgomery that some of the items in the document should,be separated from the Development Standards. She also questioned if including definitions in the document was redundant and/or could have the potential to contradict the intent of the proposed Ordinance. VC/Plunk then suggested that the document be reviewed by the Planning commission one year after its adoption to determine its effectiveness. Chair/Meyer reiterated his request for a comparative analysis, in graph format, of the enforcement provisions of Chapter 99 of the Building Code and the proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance. He suggested that the proposed Property Maintenance ordinance include the definitions of "blighting conditions" as clearly defined in the Health and Safety Code. Chair/Meyer then reiterated his request that the penalty phase be included for the Planning Commission's review. Chair/Meyer, in response to VC/Plunk's requestlito send the document back to the subcommittee, stated that the subcommittee has completed their review and the document is now before the Planning commission for consideration. Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Grothe and carried unanimously to continue the matter to the meeting of January 24, 1994, and to direct staff to incorporate the statements made by the Commission this evening into the proposed Property Maintenance ordinance. VC/Plunk requested the revised document be i 'ncluded in the Commission's packet, for the meeting of January 10, 1994, if possible. rill. 7 December 13, 1993 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING: PT/Lunqu reported that L.A. Cellular is requesting approval to locate and operate a 75 foot monopole CUP No. 93-7 and an unmanned-repeater station for a period not L.A. Cellular to exceed six months within an existing commercial development. The project was initiated as a result of the removal of an unmanned repeater station and monopole from the Diamond Bar High School campus. She stated that the applicant is currently involved An negotiations with the school district to locate the use, once again, at the school. However, in the interim, the applicant is seeking to re-establish service to the community and public safety agencies until - a permanent location can be secured. PT/Lungu then noted that the staff report, which indicates that the power source for the equipment is a utility generator, is incorrect, and that the power source will be electricity to the site. Itis recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 93-7 with the Findings of Fact and listed conditions. C/Flamenbaum inquired why the applicant is being required to slurry seal and restripe the parking lot when the request is only for a six month use. CDD/DeStefano explained that since a CUP is a discretionary permit, the Planning Commission and staff have the opportunity to review the entire parcel in its consideration. He stated that staff has recommendedthat the applicant be requested to provide the much needed improvements to the parking lot at the same time the permit is being requested. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing opened. ICA/Montgomery noted that, because of the present status of the General Plan, there is a question if discretionary land use permits can be granted at this time. He stated that, though the request is only for six month and the applicant is a utility, a land use permit invalidly granted is always subject to challenge. He inquired if the applicant would be willing to waive recourse for any conditions imposed if it turns out that the authority to grant those conditions were invalid because of anv techni6ality. Ms. Linda Paul, an employee of L.A. Cellular located in Cerritos, stated that L.A. Cellular is more than willing to cooperate with the City, and adhere to any condition that would indemnify the City f or any improvements incurred by the applicant if a technicality was determined in the future December 13, 1993 Page 8 after receiving the permit being requested. Ms. Paul then made the following corrections to the staff report: L.A. Cellular has provided service at Diamond Bar High School since approximately 1986; and the antennas proposed for the site are sectorized, which would not exceed 75 feet by more than six inches. In response to a series of Planning Commission inquiries, Ms. Paul made the following responses: there is no intent of having the pole at that location longer than 6 months, an alternate site is being actively pursued; a condition limiting the number of extensions granted to I or 2 times is acceptable; there is no intent to use the microwave being requested as an option; microwave is used in the event of a disaster,; sectorized antennas will most likely be used ! however, the option to use—a whip antenna is desired; an extension of 6 months is desired; cellular does not cause interference with radio or television reception, but, any complaints received either through the City or directly would be corrected within 5 working days; the condition to slurry seal and restripe the parking lot is acceptable; the broad cast power ranges from 5-30 watts, and as high as 100 wafts per channel; 32 channels are anticipated, which would operate sporadically and very rarely simultaneously; and the microwave dish would broadcast at a 1/2 waft. Ms. Paul then stated that the lack of cellular service along freeway much consternation among public service agencies because it of f ects the Chair/Meyer invited those wishing to speak to L;URHz! forward. Mr. Oscar Law expressed his concern that the applicant is requesting to install a temporary unmanned cellular communication facility in an area that is extremely parking sensitive, and could be greatly impacted if the monopole fell in the event of a natural disaster. I Mr. Don Schad suggested that the CUP include a time frame f or the of the removal transmission tower after the 6 months or any extended time frame. He then noted that because of the hilly -771"" 'T-771 —'77 1 cT A, December 13, 1993 Page 9 be needed to transmit in two directions. There being no one wishing to provide further comment, Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. Ms. Paul, in response to the comments made, stated that parking will not be impacted in any way since the unmanned facility is not -in the paved parking area, and there will be no employees on hand. She stated that building permits are obtained from the Building and Safety Department to ensure the pole is installed in a safe manner. She then indicated their willingness to work with staff regarding a timeframe for the removal of the pole. Ms. Paul, in response to C/Flamenbaum, stated that there would only be one microwave dish, and that the diameter of the service would be approximately three miles. In response to a series 'of inquiries made —by Chair/Meyer, Ms. Paul stated the following: removal of the facility -would take a few days; because there were some technicalities regarding existing permitting, L.A. Cellular decided that, rather than be in possible violation with the Public Utilities Commission, it would be more appropriate to move from the Walnut School District site and begin the process- of permitting once again; though providers of the same service can locate within 20 to 30 feet of each other, they cannot locate on the same pole because the frequencies used are so similar that interference would be created; L.A. Cellular would like to permanently locate at the School District at the end of the 6 month period; and the facility is typically a prefabricated State approved shelter with a concrete aggregate finish that will be painted any color desired by the City. Chair/Meyer noted that there was discussion in the General Plan to consider the 57 freeway as a scenic view corridor. He then inquired if the piece of property is an underground utility district. He also inquired if a design review is needed for facilities on commercial property. CDD/DeStefano explained that the discussion involving the 57 as a scenic view corridor indicated that any development in the area should reflect that scenic nature in terms of preservation. He stated that it has not been December 13, 1993 Page 10 determined if the property is an underground utility district, but any new development wouldbe required to put in underground utilities, and,—if feasible in terms of provision of service and fixtures, existing facilities- would be placed underground. He then explained that design reviews are typically done for permanent facilities over a specific size. However, this monopole is temporary, and the zoning code does not address temporary installations, a CUP process.was utilized. chair/Meyer expressed concern that the CUP process„ which is typically reserved for more permanent land use entitlement, is being used to allow for this temporary use application., I ICA/Montgomery suggested that the, Planr _ng commission consider a short term franchise agreement under Utility Code 6264, which is an exception to the provision that would allow a six month franchise to operate the -facility at that location without obtaining any zoning or location rights. Chair/Meyer suggested the Planning commission consider adding the following conditions: require a cash bond or adequate surety that the facility will be removed; include a time frame for removal of the facility after proper notification be included; and require 5 working days to service problems generated from the facility. VC/Plunk inquired if the applicant would be willing to waive the antenna whip Mr. Royce Cassort, the Construction Manager for L.A. Cellular, explained that they have requested the option of using either the whip or directional antennas because it is uncertain if the directional antennas will perform as needed. It would be acceptable if it were conditioned as "either/or" because both equipment would not be used. He stated that Southern California Edison has indicated that they have the option of setting a temporary 20 foot power pole rather than disturbing the landscaping to go underground. He also stated that the microwave dish Is not needed since they are able to get telephone service from the building next door. Moved by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to approve the CUP temporary franchise agreement with the following modifications: December 13, 1993 Page 11 amending line f our of the title of the Planning Commission Resolution to read "An application to install a temporary franchise for an unmanned qellular. 11; delete Finding of 'Fact (e) on page 3 and insert the sentence "The City is operating without a General Plan, therefore the Commission has reviewed the project as a short term uitility franchise in conformance with the California Public Utility Code Section No. 6264"; change condition (g) on page 4 to indicate that the repair would be within 5 working days of notification; add condition (1) to read "The pole must be removed within 5 working days and the applicant shall post a cash bond to secure removal in a bond amount to be determined by the City."; change condition,(c) to indicate that no more than one six month extension of this grant may be requested; and add a condition to exclude the microwave dish.' Pak Tree Permit Vnitigation measures for those specific impacts. RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 9:11 p.m. o. 92-3; and he DEIR review period is scheduled to close on RF('OIN\/FNF• Chair/KAP\/PY recnnvenerl the meetinn nt A-?Fi n m IR No. 92-2 DD/DeStefano reported that the proposed project is e s -t i n g ocated within Significant Ecological Area SEA Tentative o. 15 and has been determined by the City to \Aap No. 51169; 'equire an Environmental Impact Report EIR to UP No. 92-3; 3nalyze the project's impacts and appropriate December 13, 1993 Page 11 amending line f our of the title of the Planning Commission Resolution to read "An application to install a temporary franchise for an unmanned qellular. 11; delete Finding of 'Fact (e) on page 3 and insert the sentence "The City is operating without a General Plan, therefore the Commission has reviewed the project as a short term uitility franchise in conformance with the California Public Utility Code Section No. 6264"; change condition (g) on page 4 to indicate that the repair would be within 5 working days of notification; add condition (1) to read "The pole must be removed within 5 working days and the applicant shall post a cash bond to secure removal in a bond amount to be determined by the City."; change condition,(c) to indicate that no more than one six month extension of this grant may be requested; and add a condition to exclude the microwave dish.' Pak Tree Permit Vnitigation measures for those specific impacts. RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 9:11 p.m. o. 92-3; and he DEIR review period is scheduled to close on RF('OIN\/FNF• Chair/KAP\/PY recnnvenerl the meetinn nt A-?Fi n m IR No. 92-2 December 15, 1993. He stated that a Significant ZCA No. 92-2; Lological Area Technical Advisory Committee ICA/Montgomery stated that he had a preliminary discussion with the applicant regarding the issue of the lack of a General Plan. Since the Mayor has indicated a desire to adopt a new General Plan within 90 days, ICA/Montgomery asked the applicant if they would be agreeable to continue the matter for 90 days, without prejudice to any time limits that may be under consideration. He stated that the applicant can make a presentation If they so desire, However, since the present General Plan has been suspended by virtue of the filing of the referendum petitions, a decision cannot be made this evening by this body. SEATAC is in the process of reviewing the ro'ect, and will provide the Planning Commission ith a report regarding their review of the biota s ects of the DEI R. CDD/DeStefano then stated hat since the City is presently operating without General Plan, review of the DER, as anticipated, annot occur. ICA/Montgomery stated that he had a preliminary discussion with the applicant regarding the issue of the lack of a General Plan. Since the Mayor has indicated a desire to adopt a new General Plan within 90 days, ICA/Montgomery asked the applicant if they would be agreeable to continue the matter for 90 days, without prejudice to any time limits that may be under consideration. He stated that the applicant can make a presentation If they so desire, However, since the present General Plan has been suspended by virtue of the filing of the referendum petitions, a decision cannot be made this evening by this body. December 13, 1993 Page 12 Recovery Facility. COMMISSION C/Flamenbaum stated that he received notice from COMMENTS: the City of Brea that an DEIR has been prepared concerning the Olinda Heights project which borders Tonner Canyon. VC/Plunk expressed her opinion that the City needs to move away from "pro growth vs. no growth" and encourage the intelligent use of resources. She welcomed ICA/Montgomery.- She then inquired of the anticipated process to revise the General Plan. Chair/Meyer noted that, even though a Planning commission meeting is, scheduled for December 27, 1993, no items have been placed on the agenda for that meeting. He then stated that the City Council will be considering, at its December 14, 1993 meeting, a resolution repealing the existing General Plan and appointing a citizens advisory committee, consisting of members of the City Council, City Commissions, business community, citizen's group and community residents, to facilitate preparation of the 1994 General Plan. Chair/Meyer volunteered to serve on the committeelE and bring information back to the Planning Commission. He then welcomed ICA/Montgomery. ICA/Montgomery, in response to VC/Vlunk, reviewed the procedures for the Planning Commission to follow to receive a legal response on any concern, legal inquiries, or planning matters. He explained that the intent of the procedures, which now require meetings to be held at City Hall with the presence of two Commissioners and the City Planner, are to establish a spirit of openness as well as to cut down on the costs of legal fees. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:57 p.m. to December 27, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. Pes DeStefq--nop J es DeSte no Secretary Attest 7( Davi(] 11-1 (.11Chairma"' I