Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/22/1993i CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:06 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: i Commissioner Grothe. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Plunk, Vice Chairman Meyer till 7:40 p.m., and Chairman Flamenbaum. Commissioner Li was absent. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. Chair/ Flamenbaum announced the passing of Mr. Don Nardella, a former Parks and Recreation Commissioner and City Councilmember. The meeting will be closed in his honor. CONSENT CALENDAR: The Planning Commission concurred to separate the items on the Consent Calendar. Minutes of Mar-. 8, 1993 Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to,approve the Minutes of March 8, 1993. DR 92-6 PT/Lungu, in response to VC/Meyer, stated that the CUP 93-1 applicant has reviewed the Resolution. She pointed out the following last minute changes made to both of the Resolutions: item 13, page 2, is reworded to add "...or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence..."; and a condition is added to the last page stating, "This grant would not be effective unless the CUP or the Development Review has been approved.". C/Plunk, referring to item #5.c., inquired if the applicant is proposing to have 9 feet by 19 feet parking stalls, which is the standard according to the Diamond Bar Improvement Association (DBIA) CC&R's. PT/Lungu stated that the applicant is proposing 8 feet by 18 feet parking stalls which is the standard in the Diamond Bar Municipal Code. the City does not enforce the DBIA's CC&R's. I C/Plunk stated that she feels the traffic signal warrant study may be an unnecessary expense to the applicant, especially ,since the City Engineer indicated that the signal at the subject intersection may not be appropriate because it is too close to an existing signal. March 22, 1993 Page 2 PT/Lungu reported that the City Engineer indicated that if the Commission desired a signal, a warrant study would have to be required at a cost of between $2,000 and $4,000 dollars. C/Grothe recalled that the City Engineer had indicated that the signal would be too close, especially without a lot of controls. At some time in the future, a signal will need to be installed because of the traffic congestion at that intersection. Since the applicant is asking for a variance to increase parking, and pedestrian traffic, on an intersection that is virtually impassible now, he should contribute to finding a solution in that area. Nothing should occur on that entire street until the street is maintained and the intersection is improved. VC/Meyer indicated that it may not be appropriate to ask this applicant, who is just putting in a tot lot, to pay $4,000 for traffic warrants. It may be more appropriate to have the City, as a matter of reviewing the entire circulation system periodically, be sensitive to this location. C/Plunk suggested that the applicants funds be used towards maintaining the street instead of traffic warrants. C/Grothe pointed out that the applicant is only being asked to pay for a pro rata share towards improving the situation there. Since the applicant is requesting a variance from the City, he should be amenable to help the City determine a solution to that intersection. DCA/Fox informed the Commission that there does not seem to be a way to make this condition enforceable as it is written because there is a reliance on other discretionary approvals to come forth to create -that pro rata share. The same situation occurs with the slurry seal condition. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that though he concurs that a study needs to be done, both conditions (i) and (j) should be omitted unless they are quantified. DCA/DeStefano suggested that the Commission not make an arbitrary decision on the amount because the amount will be determined based upon the complexities of the intersection and the various proposal received from qualified consultants. In response to VC/Meyer, CDD/DeStefano stated that all signalized and nonsignalized intersections are a March 22, 1993 Page 3 part of the ongoing traffic analysis of the entire City. VC/Meyer stated that because the applicant is requesting modification of a CUP, the conditions should deal with the use of the land, and not traffic issues. Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum and seconded by VC/Meyer to approve the Resolution deleting condition 5.j. and 5.i. C/Grothe, referring to item 5.d., stated that it was his recollection that the additional parking spaces was to be on a property contiguous to this one, and not across the street. PT/Lunge explained the requirements as indicated in chapter 7 of the Zoning Code regarding parking permits. CDD/DeStefano stated that the most logical location for the additional parking spaces would be Good Year and the Chinese Restaurant, based upon the Commission comments, staff comments, and the Code requirements. Though the Kmart parking lot could qualify in terms of the distance, based upon the public safety issues outlined at a previous meeting it would not be a recommendation by the staff for such an off site parking location. In response to C/Plunk, CDD/DeStefano explained that the provision of this use permit will be enforcement periodically by staff visits to determine whether or not the employers are using the employee designated spaces. C/Meyer suggested that the statement 11 ... and approval of the City's Director of Public Works.", be added to the end item 5.d. Chair/Flamenbaum amended his motion, as seconded by VC/Meyer, to approve Resolution 93 -XX approving Development Review No. 92-6, deleting condition 5.j. and 5.i, and to add the statement "...and approval -of the City's Director of Public Works." to item 5.d, to include the amendments indicated by staff. The Motion CARRIED. AYES: COMMISSIONER: Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONER: Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: Li. IIJJ��III, i.IIII March 22, 1993 Page 4 Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED to approve Resolution 93 -XX approving CUP No. 93-1, deleting condition 5.j. and 5.i, and to add the statement "...and approval of the City's Director of Public Works." to item 5.d, to include the amendments indicated by staff. Nancy Jankowski, representing Montefino Homeowners Association, made the following comments: there is a Target store being proposed at Valley Blvd. and Grand Ave. which will add 7,000 cars per day to Grand Ave. in addition to the increase in traffic by this medical facility; the slope is unstable and the vibrations from the helicopters may contribute to more slope failures; though the Chamber of Commerce does not object to the proposed facility, it is the homeowners that are being affected, not the business community; and the location is not appropriate, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing to be continued. C/Plunk explained that the helicopter will only be used for emergencies only, and it will not become an airport. Deborah Nicholas, Vice President of Corporate Development for Inter Community Health Services, concurred to continue the matter to the April 12, 1993 meeting. . ►. t. .. .� .�M aFP AYES: COMMISSIONER: Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONER: Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: Lit CONTINUED AP/Searcy reported that staff has received the PUBLIC HEARINGS: additional information from the applicant, Inter - Community Health Services, regarding CUP 91-1, DR DR & CUP 91-1 91-1 and EIR 91-4, pursuant to the Planning and EIR 91-4 Commission's request made at the meeting of March 8, 1993. However staff has not had the opportunity to properly review the information received. It is recommended that the Planning -Commission continue the public hearing to April 12, 1993. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Nancy Jankowski, representing Montefino Homeowners Association, made the following comments: there is a Target store being proposed at Valley Blvd. and Grand Ave. which will add 7,000 cars per day to Grand Ave. in addition to the increase in traffic by this medical facility; the slope is unstable and the vibrations from the helicopters may contribute to more slope failures; though the Chamber of Commerce does not object to the proposed facility, it is the homeowners that are being affected, not the business community; and the location is not appropriate, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing to be continued. C/Plunk explained that the helicopter will only be used for emergencies only, and it will not become an airport. Deborah Nicholas, Vice President of Corporate Development for Inter Community Health Services, concurred to continue the matter to the April 12, 1993 meeting. . ►. t. .. .� .�M aFP March 22, 1993 Page 5 r Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the meeting of April 12, 1993. AYES: COMMISSIONER: Grothe, Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES( COMMISSIONER: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: Li. VC/Meyer excused himself from the meeting at 7:40 p.m. because of personal obligations. He submitted a copy of his comments representing his point of view regarding the information on the South Pointe Master Plan. Hardy Strozier, Project Manager, indicated that the applicant would like the Planning Commission to consider continuing the South Pointe Master Plan to allow full attendance of the Commission. Planned Sign PT/Lungu presented the staff report regarding the Program 92-4 request made by the applicant, Steve Porretta & Variance 92-3 President of Southland Management, Inc., to develop a Planned Sign Program and to install six freestanding monument signs, each fifteen feet in height with a sign face area of 120 square feet located at the Diamond Bar Village and Professional Center at the northwest corner of Golden Springs Drive and Diamond Bar Blvd. It is recommended that the Commission approve Planned Sign Program No. 92- 2 and Variance No. 92-3 with the recommended reduction in the height of the monument signs, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolutions. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Steve Porretta, President of Southland Management, Inc., pointed out some of the modification made to the Planned Sign Program which addresses the DBIA's concerns: the statements, "current covenants, conditions, and restrictions" and "landlord approval" has been added to page 1, section 1, first paragraph; they would like to add to page 8, paragraph E, item 1 that the new architectural design of the sign is to be determined acceptable by the Community Development Director; and indicate, in item 9, page 9, that since the size of the signs are changed, then the physical layout of the tenant advertising on the signs will be completed with the approval of the Community Development Director. March 22, 1993 Page 6 PT/Lungu, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, explained that the applicant is modifying item 9 because the tenant arrangement will be different from the original submittal. The signs have been reduced from 15 feet in height to 10 feet in height, and only three signs now will be used,for center identification. Only the height of the monument signs and the tenant arrangement on the signs have been changed, and all other aspects of the sign program will remain the same such as the color, the location, the sign face area, the style of lettering, and the architectural style. C/Grothe stated that he would have preferred to have been presented with a clear outline of the changes made to the application prior to the meeting. CDD/DeStefano suggested that the Planning Commission may prefer to continue the matter to the next meeting to allow the Commission time to review the package of material outlining the applicant's and staff's thoughts, or postpone the matter to the conclusion of the South Pointe Master Plan discussion to allow staff and the applicant an opportunity to clearly outline the changes to the Planning_ Commission's packet. C/Plunk stated that, because the changes were presented to the Commission during the meeting, she is not comfortable with taking an action tonight. Constance Nicholas, owner of BCN Lighting & Sign Company, requested that page 4, paragraph 5, section e, of the Resolution, include such language as "nonpermitting, nonconforming signs, or unlawful, or without permits" to replace the language, "not a part of this approval", for clarity purposes. She then stated that they are in the process of working with the DBIA because the property is subject to their approval. However, they are finding it increasingly difficult to complete the project, and work with the DBIA, without design standards in the CC&R's. Chair/Flamenbaum explained that the City does not have any legal connection with the DBIA. Don Schad, a member of the DBIA, informed the applicant that the DBIA is meeting this Wednesday if they desire assistance. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. El March 22, 1993 Page 7 PT/Lungu, in response to C/Grothe, explained that the existing monument signs that identify Diamond Bar Village will be removed two a year, upon the Commission's approval of the project, and replaced with new monument signs. All other monument signs will be removed. There is a full planned sign program on the site. C/Grothe stated that,'in his opinion, this site is no different than any other site, and is actually flatter than most of the topography in the City. Therefore, there is no grounds for a variance. Motion was made by C/Grothe to deny the project. The motion died for lack of a second. C/Plunk reiterated that she would have been more comfortable if the brief changes had been presented to the Commission earlier. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that 5.f of the Resolution of Approval be changed to indicate that the applicant shall replace no less than two I monument signs at twelve month intervals. Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED to continue the matter to the meeting of April 12, 1993. AYES: COMMISSIONER: P l u n k a n d Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONER: Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: Li and VC/Meyer. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:08 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:28 p.m. South Pointe CDD/DeStefano reported that the applicant is Master Plan seeking a continuance in order to be able to present the presentation to a full Commission. j.' Jan Dabney, speaking for Mr. Patel, Mr. Arciero, and Mr. Forrestor, stated that with the passing of Don Nardella and the absence of two Commission members the owners of thero erties have p P requested a continuance to some future date. Furthermore, some of the items on the agenda would require three votes to either approve or deny, and with only three Commissioners, it may appear that the Planning Commission was swayed one way or the I other regardless of the vote. March 22, 1993 Page 8 In response to Chair/Flamenbaum, all the applicants nodded their concurrence for the continuance, and Hardy Strozier stated his desire to continue his presentation to the next meeting as well. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Don Schad expressed his regret for the passing of Don Nardella. He pointed out the following inconsistencies in the EIR: , no mention of the waterway, relocation or replacement; sage land is not properly covered; cacti not fully researched; the gnat catcher not mentioned; it provides total annihilation of the trees without recourse of an exceptional ecological area; -and it states only 850 trees will be destroyed when 'there are actually 3,000 that will be destroyed. Clair Harmony expressed his concern that the City has not been provided with enough information on the project, therefore the City has failed to exercise due diligence. He questioned if the City has pulled a title report on the RnP property to legally explore the aspects of the cloud on that LJ land, specifically the disputed ownership between the Pathfinder Homeowners Association. He also questioned if the City investigated Mr. Forrester to assure that he is capable of financially carrying through the project. He then suggested that Mayor Miller give a more detailed explanation to his appearance of a conflict of interest, especially since he has taken an active role in pursuing this project. Swanee Fong, residing at 20879 Missionary Ridge, expressed her opposition to the proposed amphitheater in the South Pointe Master Plan development because it will increase noise, traffic, crime, and graffiti in the existing neighborhood. Tom van Winkle inquired if the proposed Metro Rail Station pickup at Grand Ave. and Currier has been considered in regards to the increase in'traffic, along with the traffic impacts of this development and businesses. He noted the traffic congestion caused by the business center- located on Brea Canyon and Pathfinder. Evan Chanall, residing at 1820 Peaceful Hills, stated that the Middle School is being used as a pawn in an attempt to get development in Sandstone Canyon started. The City need to act in the best w �f March 22, 1993 Page 9 interest of it's residents and take action against Arciero to get the problem solved. He should be fined and forced to move the dirt. Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hill Road, requested that the City look carefully at an EIR that substantially disagrees with noted -environmentalists, and publicly appointed agencies, specifically the Department of Fish and Game. She then read the following portions of the General Plan which is inconsistent with the EIR: page I, item 1 of the General Plan indicates that each piece of development must best fulfill the short and long term needs of the City; and page I, item 7, indicates that there is a need for the City to plan for growth in ways that protect and conserve natural resources and the environment. She inquired how the City can proceed with a project that is significantly tied to a nonexisting document since the General Plan has been rescinded. Joe Gorman, 333b Mountain Ave., Claremont, of --- Gorman PhD, Associates, made the following comments: since the City does not have a General Plan, the City is very much open to legal action for the lack of a consonant EIR based upon a General Plan; the geology of the site has not been sufficiently explored; the ground on the site appears to be soft, and if houses or streets are constructed there is a likelihood that the land will experience slippage within 20 to 50 years; the seismic area has not been properly explored; there is evidence of cougars within the canyon; the presence of the gnat catchers has not been properly explored; there are 12 or so more organisms that need further consideration; and it is a political trick to use the school to lever in putting in the dirt that Arciero was to remove. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing to be continued. C/Grothe pointed out that the "pile of dirt" on the school site, that is being referred to, is actually the entire top of a hill that has not been leveled at this point. The City of Diamond Bar does not have jurisdiction over the School District, and the T, only control the City has regarding the school site ? has to do with issuinggrading a qr g permit. Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum to continue the 'matter to the April 12, 1993 meeting. I March 22, 1993 Page 10 C/Plunk requested the following information from staff: coastal live oak and the scrub oak in regards to the range and the commonality, or lack there of, in the California landscape; a tree count of Diamond Bar from the 1950's versus now; the tree count of the surrounding neighborhoods affected by this project, for example the HOA; how many trees will be planted in the City this year; how many of the large trees would be relocatable, if the project was approved; evidence of the regeneration capability of this habitat; the number of total trips per day in the City resulting from this project; and a comparison of the number of traffic trips generated by a full business center versus a neighborhood. She then made the following comments: if there is a cougar, then an agency needs to be contacted so the cougar can be humanely moved for it's safety, the safety of other animals, and the safety of the children; the City has a lack of active organized sports and active park space is needed; Sycamore Canyon Park is too small for the Concert in the Parks; it is extremely expensive to remove the dirt for the school; and, according to a gentleman from the Whittier Conservancy, it takes 5 years to raise the money, and 5 years to complete the transaction, and it was suggested that first criteria be set up to determine what areas would qualify for a land conservancy, to include quality of habitat, the corridor for movement, buffer from development, the size of the property, the access of the property, the regeneration, for whom is the land to be saved for, and the aesthetics. Chair/Flamenbaum read the memorandum submitted to the Commission by VC/Meyer, in which Chair/Flamenbaum is in concurrence with the statements made. - The following is a summary of that memorandum requesting additional information from the suppport staff: an economic analysis describing the probable financial results of implementing the project as proposed; the feasibility of relocating the major access road from Brea Canyon Road in a northerly direction adjacent to the boundary of tract 32400; is the proposed cross section of Brea Canyon Road adequate to handle the proposed traffic generated by the project and other anticipated demand; has the traffic projections anticipated the improvement of Pathfinder westerly to Harbor Blvd.; would additional off site improvements have to be made to reduce the impact of traffic on the intersection of Pathfinder/Brea Canyon, Golden Springs/Brea Canyon, Golden Springs/on and off ramp to the 60 freeway; can the adjacent open space owned and maintained by March 22, 1993 Page 11 -� the Homeowners Association be utilized to offset the impacts to the existing canyon environment; if access to Rapid View and Larkstone is prohibited, then could access to Morning Sun be deleted; what would be the results of creating access to Morning Sun, Larkstone, and Rapid View; what is the impact of eliminating the commercial property from the proposed project, or reducing it in scope, which would appear to retain a substantial portion of the existing canyon; the proposed access to Morning Sun from tract 51253 is an off set design and what is the results of aligning the access to the proposed tract from Shepherd Hills Road; what are the impacts of saving the blue line stream and the existing oak trees located within the boundary of tract 51253; what is the development density of the three private projects at this point in time; it appears that the three private developers would need to develop this project independently, and what guarantee would the City have to insure that the needed public improvements would be constructed within an acceptable time frame; can the project contain a system of biking and hiking trails; when will the Resource Management Plan be presented to the Commission; is it reasonable to require that a berm be constructed between the proposed dwellings and the existing roadways to mitigate noise; should the passive canyon environment be changed to active recreation areas, or kept as passive, and what are the impacts; is it possible to develop the project area and leave the canyon blue line streams in tact; and does the City or the developers have responsibility to repair the ancient land slide area. Chair/Flamenbaum requested staff to respond to these inquiries, as well as those inquiries asked in previous meetings, to include information regarding the possible presence of cougars in the canyon. The Commission voted upon the Motion made by C/Grothe and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum to continue the matter to the April 12, 1993 meeting. The Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. INFORMATIONAL CDD/DeStefano stated that Councilmen MacBride has ITEMS: reappointed Planning Commissioner Michael Li, and that Commissioner Li will be sworn in at the next LTi meeting. He then reported that, under his authority of Administrative Development Review officer, he approved a 10,000 square foot home proposed at 2532 Braided Mane within "The Country", with all the oak trees on the site to be preserved and protected during the construction of the new home. IbTllllf I'iIIII March 22, 1993 Page 12 .ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Groth*e, seconded by Chair/ Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 9:38 p.m. in memory of Mr. Don Nardella. Re ective IDs eSt efano Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:06 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 Grothe. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Plunk, Vice Chairman Meyer till 7:40 p -M -O, and chairman Flamenbaum. commissioner Li was absent. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. Chair/ Flamenbaum announced the passing of Mr. Don Nardella, a former Parks and Recreation commissioner and city Councilmember. The meeting will be closed in his honor. CONSENT CALENDAR: The Planning Commission concurred to separate the items on the Consent Calendar. Minutes of Mar.. 8, 1993 motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of March 8. 1993. DR 92-6 PT/Lungu, in response to VC/Meyer, stated that the CUP 93-1 applicant has reviewed the Resolution. She pointed out the following last minute changes made to both of the Resolutions: item 13, page 2, is reworded to add 11 ... or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence... 11; and a condition is added to the last page stating, "This grant would not be effective unless the CUP or the Development Review has been approved.". C/Plunk, referring to item #5.c., inquired if the applicant is proposing to have 9 feet by 19 f eet parking stalls, which is the standard according to the Diamond Bar Improvement Association (DBIA) CC&RIs. PT/Lungu stated that the applicant is proposing 8 feet by 18 feet parking stalls which is the standard in the Diamond Bar Municipal Code. the City does not enforce the DBIA's CC&RIs. C/Plunk stated that she feels the traffic signal warrant study may be an unnecessary expense to the applicant, especially since the City Engineer indicated that the signal at the subject intersection may not be appropriate because it is too close to an existing signal. March 22, 1993 Page 2 PT/Lungu reported'that the City Engineer indicated that if the Commission desired a signal, a warrant study would have to be required at a cost of between $2,000 and $4,000 dollars. C/Grothe recalled that the City Engineer had indicated that the signal would be too close, especially without a lot of controls. At some time in the future, a signal will need to be installed because of the traffic congestion at that intersection. Since the applicant is asking for a variance to increase parking, and pedestrian traffic, on an intersection that is virtually impassible now, he should contribute to finding a solution in that area. Nothing should occur on that entire street until the street is maintained and the intersection is improved. VC/Meyer indicated that it may not be appropriate to ask this applicant, who is just putting in a tot lot, to pay $4,000 for traffic warrants. It may be more appropriate to have the City, as a matter of reviewing the entire circulation system periodically, be sensitive to this location. C/Plunk suggested that the applicants funds be used towards maintaining the street instead of traf f is warrants. C/Grothe pointed out that the applicant is only being asked to pay for a pro rata share towards improving the situation there. Since the applicant is requesting a variance from the City, he should be amenable to help the City determine a solution to that intersection. DCA/Fox informed the Commission that there does not seem to be a way to make this condition enforceable as it is written because there is a reliance on other discretionary approvals to come forth to create -that pro rata share. The same situation occurs with the slurry seal condition. Chair/ Flamenbaum. stated that though he concurs that a study needs to be done, both conditions (i) and Q) should be omitted unless they are quantified. DCA/DeStefano suggested that the Commission not make an arbitrary decision on the amount because the amount will be determined based upon the complexities of the intersection and the various proposal received from qualified consultants. In response to VC/Meyer, CDD/DeStefano stated that all signalized and nonsignalized intersections are a "Y' CDD/DeStefano stated that —he most logical location or the additional parking spaces would be Good Year and the Chinese Restaurant, based upon the March 22, 1993 Page 3 part of the ongoing traffic analysis of the entire city. ommission comments, staff comments, and the Code VC/Meyer stated that because the applicant is requesting modification of a CUP, the conditions should deal with the use of the land, and not traffic issues. e uirements. Though the Wart parking lot could Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum and seconded by VC/Meyer to approve the Resolution deleting condition 5.j. and 5.i. qualify in terms of the distance, based upon the C/Grothe, referring to item 5.d., stated that it was his recollection that the additional parking spaces was to be on a property contiguous to this one, and not across the street. public safety issues outlined ata previous meeting PT/Lungu explained the requirements as indicated in chapter 7 of the Zoning code regarding parking permits. It would not be a recommendation by the staff for CDD/DeStefano stated that —he most logical location uch an off site parking location. In response to /Plunk, CDD/DeStefano explained that the provision f this use permit will be enforcement periodically staff visits to determine whether or not the m Io ers are using the employee designated spaces. /Me er suggested that the statement "...and roval of the City's Director of Public Works."I e added to the end item 5.d. hair/ Flamenbaum amended his motion, as seconded b C/Me er, to approve Resolution 93-XX approving evelo ment Review No. 92-6, deleting condition J. and 5A. and to add the statement "...and roval-of the City's Director of Public Works." o item 5.d, to include the amendments indicated b taff. The Motion CARRIED. YES: COMMISSIONER: Plunk„ VC/Meyer, and hair/Flamenbaum. 1OES: COMMISSIONER: Grothe. BSTAIN: COMMISSIONER: None. B SENT: COMMISSIONER: Li. 77 March 22, 1993 Page 4 Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum and CARR ED to approve -,Resolution 93 -XX approving CUP No. 9-1, deletini condition 5.j. nd 5A, and to add the statement 11 ... and approval of the City's Directo of Public'Works.11 to item 5.d, to include the amendments indicated by staff. hair/Flamenbaum. AYES: COMMISSION R: Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Nancy Jankowski, representing Montefino Homeowners Association, made the following comments: there is a Target store being proposed at Valley Blvd. nd Grand Ave. which will add 7, 000 cars per day to Grand Ave. in addition to the increase in traffic by this medical facility; the slope is unstable and the vibrat ns from the helicopters may contribute to more slope failures; though the Cha ber of Commerce does not object to the proposed facility, it is the homeowners hat are being affected, not the business community; and the location is not appropriate, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing to be continued. NOES: COMMISSIONER: Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: Li, ONTINUED AP/Searcy reported that staff has received the UBLIC HEARINGS: additional information from theapplicant, Inter- ommunit Health Services, regarding CUP 91-1, DR R &CUP 91-1 1-1 and EIR 91-4, pursuant to the Planning nd EIR 91-4 ommission's request made at the meeting of March 1993. However staff has not had the opportunity o properly review the information received. It is ecommended that the Planning -Commission continue he ublic hearing to April 12, 1993. hair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearin 12, 1993. hair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearin ened. Nancy Jankowski, representing Montefino Homeowners Association, made the following comments: there is a Target store being proposed at Valley Blvd. and Grand Ave. which will add 7, 000 cars per day to Grand Ave. in addition to the increase in traffic by this medical facility; the slope is unstable and the vibrations from the helicopters may contribute to more slope failures; though the Chamber of Commerce does not object to the proposed facility, it is the homeowners that are being affected, not the business community; and the location is not appropriate, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing to be continued. C/Plunk explained that the helicopter will only be used for emergencies only, and it will not become an airport. Deborah Nicholas, Vice President of Corporate Development f or Inter Community Health Services, concurred to continue the matter to the April 12, 1993 meeting. March 22j, 1993 Page 5 Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the meeting of April 12, 1993. COMMISSIONER: Grothe, Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONER: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: Li. VC/Meyer excused himself from the meeting at 7:40 p.m. because of personal obligations. He submitted a copy of his comments representing his point of view regarding the information on the South Pointe Master Plan. Hardy Strozier, Project Manager, indicated that the applicant would like the Planning Commission to consider continuing the South Pointe Master Plan to allow full attendance of the Commission. Planned Sign PT/Lungu presented the staff report regarding the Program 92-4 request made by the applicant, Steve Porretta iance 92-3 President of Southland Management, Inc., to develop & Var a Planned Sign Program and to install six freestanding monument signs, each fifteen feet in height with a sign face area of 120 square feet located at the Diamond Bar Village and Professional center at the northwest corner of Golden Springs Drive and Diamond Bar Blvd. It is recommended that the commission approve Planned Sign Program No. 922 and Variance No. 92-3 with the recommended reduction in the height of the monument signs, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolutions. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Steve Porretta, President of Southland Management, Inc., pointed out some of the modification made to the Planned Sign Program which addresses the DBIA's concerns: the statements, "current covenants, conditions, and restrictions" and "landlord approval" has been -added to page 1, section 1, first paragraph; they would like to add to page 8, paragraph E, item 1 that the new architectural design of the sign is to be determined acceptable by the Community Development Director; and indicate, in item 9, page 9, that since the size of the signs are changed, then the physical layout of the tenant advertising on the signs will be completed with the approval of the Community Development Director. March 22, 1993 Page 6 PT/Lunqu, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, explained that the applicant is modifying item 9 because the tenant arrangement will be different from the original submittal. The signs have been reduced from 15 feet in height to 10 feet in height, and only three signs now will be used ' for center identification. Only the height of the monument signs and the tenant arrangement on the signs have been changed, and all other aspects of the sign program will remain the same such as the color, the location, the sign face area, the style of lettering, and the architectural style. C/Grothe stated that he would have preferred to have been presented with a blear outline of the changes made to the application prior to the meeting. CDD/DeStefano suggested that the Planning Commission may prefer to continue the matter to the next meeting to allow the Commission time to review the package of material outlining the applicant's and stat f I s thoughts, or postpone the matter to the conclusion of the South Pointe Master Plan discussion to allow stat f and the applicant an opportunity to clearly outline the changes to the Planning -commission's packet. C/Plunk stated that, because the changes were presented to the Commission during the meeting, she is not comfortable with taking an action tonight. Constance Nicholas, owner of BCN Lighting & sign Company, requested that page 4, paragraph 5, section e, of the Resolution, include such language as "nonpermitting, nonconforming signs, or unlawful, or without permits" to replace the language, "not a part of this approvallf I for clarity purposes. She then stated that they are in the process of working with the DBIA because the property is subject to, their approval. However, they are finding it increasingly difficult to complete the project, and work with the DBIA, without design standards in the CC&RIs. Chair/Flamenbaum" explained that the City does not have any legal connection with the DBIA. Don Schad, a member of the DBIA, informed the applicant that the DBIA is meeting this Wednesday if they desire assistance. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed March 22„ 1993 Page 7 PT/Lungu, in response to C/Grothe, explained that the existing monument signs that identify Diamond tar Village will be removed two a year, upon the Commission's approval of the project, and replaced with new monument signs. All other monument signs will be removed. There is a full planned sign program on the site. C/Grothe stated that, in his opinion, this site is no different than any other site, and is actually flatter than most of the topography in the City. Therefore, there is no grounds for a variance. onth intervals. Motion was made by C/Grothe to deny the project. The motion died for lack of a secon?. Motion was made b C/Plunk, seconded b C/Plunk reiterated that she would have been more comfortable if the rief changes had been presented to the Commission earlier. Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED to continue the matte Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that .f of the Resolution of Approval be than ed to indicate that the applicant shall r place no less than two monument signs at twelve Jan Dabney, speaking for Mr. Patel Mr. Arciero, and Mr. Forrestor, stated that with he passing of Don Nardella and the abs nce of two Commission members, the owners of the properties have request da continuance to some future date. rthermore, some of the items on the ag nda would require three votes to either approve or deny, and with only t ree Commissioners, it may appear that the Planning Commistion was swayed one way or the other regardless of the Vote. to the meeting of April 12, 1993. AYES: COMMISSIONER P l u -n k a n d Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONER: Grothe ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER:one. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER: Vi and VC/Meyer. hair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:08 p.m. The meeting was reconven kd at 8:28 p.m. South Pointe DD/DeStefano reported I that the applicant i Master Plan seeking a continuant in order to be able t resent the presentatiol to a full Commission Jan Dabney, speaking for Mr. Patel, Mr. Arciero, and Mr. Forrestor, stated that with the passing of Don Nardella and the absence of two Commission members, the owners of the properties have requested a continuance to some future date. Furthermore, some of the items on the agenda would require three votes to either approve or deny, and with only three Commissioners, it may appear that the Planning Commistion was swayed one way or the other regardless of the vote. March 22, 1993 Page 8 In response to Chair/ Flamenbaum, all the applicants nodded their concurrence for the continuance, and Hardy Strozier stated his desire to continue his presentation to the next meeting as well. Chair/ Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Don Schad expressed his regret for the passing of Don Nardella. He pointed out the following inconsistencies in the EIR: — no mention of the waterway, relocation or replacement; sage land is not properly covered; cacti not fully researched; the gnat catcher not mentioned; it provides total annihilation of the trees without recourse of an exceptional ecological area;— and it states only 850 trees will be destroyed when 'there are actually 3,000 that will be destroyed. Clair Harmony expressed his concern that the City has not been provided with enough information on the project, therefore the City has failed to exercise due diligence. He questioned if the City has pulled a title report on the RnP property to legally explore the aspects of the cloud on that land, specifically the disputed ownership between the Pathfinder Homeowners Association. He also questioned if the City investigated Mr. Forrester to assure that he is capable of financially carrying through the project. He then suggested that Mayor Miller give a more detailed explanation to his appearance of a conflict of interest, especially since he has taken an active role in pursuing this project. Swanee Fong, residing expressed at 20879 Missionary Ridge, to the proposed her opposition amphitheater in the South Pointe Master Plan it development because traffic, crime, will increase noise, graffiti in and neighborhood. the existing Tom Van Winkle inquired if the proposed Metro Rail Station pickup at Grand Ave. and Currier has been considered in regards to the increase in'traffic, along with the traffic impacts of this development and businesses. He noted the traffic congestion caused by the business center located on Brea Canyon and Pathfinder. Evan Chanall, residing at 1820 Peaceful Hills, stated that the Middle School is being used as a pawn in an attempt to get development in Sandstone Canyon started. The City need to act in the best March 22, 1993 Page 9 interest of it's residents and take action against Arciero to get the problem solved. He should be fined and forced to move the dirt. Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hill Road, requested that the City look carefully at an EIR that substantially disagrees with noted .environmentalists, and publicly appointed agencies, specifically the Department of Fish and Game. She then read the following portions of the General Plan which is inconsistent with the EIR: page I, item 1 of the General Plan indicates that each piece of development must best fulfill the short and long term needs of the City; and page I, item 7, indicates that there is a need for the City to plan for growth in ways that protect and conserve natural resources and the environment. She inquired how the city can proceed with a proj ect that is significantly tied to a nonexisting document since the General Plan has been rescinded. Joe Gorman, 333b Mountain Ave., Claremont, of Gorman PhD, Associates, made the following comments: since the City does not have a General Plan, the City is very much open to legal action for the lack of a consonant EIR based upon a General Plan; the geology of the site has not been sufficiently explored; the ground on the site appears to be soft, and if houses or streets are constructed there is a likelihood that the land will experience slippage within 20 to 50 years; the seismic area has not been properly explored; there is evidence of cougars within the canyon; the presence of the gnat catchers has not been properly explored; there are 12 or so more organisms that need further consideration; and it is a political trick to use the school to lever in putting in the dirt that Arciero was to remove. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing to be continued. C/Grothe pointed out that the "pile of dirt" on the school site, that is being referred to, is actually the entire top of a hill that has not been leveled at this point. The City of Diamond Bar does not have jurisdiction over the School District, and the only control the City has regarding the school site has to do with issuing a grading permit. Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by Chair/ Flamenbaum. to continue the smatter to the April 12, 1993 meeting. 17f March 22, 1993 Page 10 C/Plunk requested the following information from staff: coastal live oak and the scrub oak in regards to the range and the commonality, or lack there of, in the California landscape; a tree count of Diamond Bar from the 1950's versus now; the tree count of the'surrounding neighborhoods affected by this project, for example the HOA; how many trees will be planted in the City this year; how many of the large trees would 'be relocatable, if the project was approved; evidence of the regeneration capability of this habitat; the number of total trips per day in the City resulting from this project; and a comparison of the number of traffic trips generated by a full business center versus a neighborhood. I She then made the following comments: if there is a cougar, then an agency needs to be contacted so the cougar can be humanely moved for it's safety, the safety of other animals, and the safety of the children; the City has a lack of active organized sports and active park space is needed; Sycamore Canyon Park is too small for the Concert in the Parks; it is extremely expensive to remove the dirt for the school; and, according to a gentleman from the Whittier Conservancy, it takes 5 years to raise the money, and 5 years to complete the transaction, and it was suggested that first criteria be set up to determine what areas would qualify for a land conservancy, to include,quality of habitat, the corridor for movement, buffer from development, the size of the property, the access of the property, the regeneration, for whom is the land to be saved for, and the aesthetics. Chair/Flamenbaum read the memorandum submitted to the Commission by VC/Meyer, in which Chair/Flamenbaum is in concurrence with the statements made. - The f ollowing is a summary of that memorandum requesting additional information from the suppport staff: an economic analysis describing the probable financial results of implementing the project as proposed; the feasibility of relocating the major access road from Brea Canyon Road in a northerly direction adjacent to the boundary of tract 32400; is the proposed cross section of Brea Canyon Road adequate to handle the proposed traffic generated by the project and other anticipated demand; has the traffic projections anticipated the improvement of Pathfinder westerly to Harbor Blvd.; would additional off site improvements have to be made to reduce the impact of traffic on the intersection of Pathf inder/Brea Canyon, Golden Springs/Brea Canyon, Golden Springs/on and off ramp to the 60 freeway; can the adjacent open space owned and maintained by March 22, 1993 Page 11 the Homeowners Association be utilized to of f set the impacts to the existing canyon environment; if access to Rapid View and Larkstone is prohibited, then could access to Morning Sun be deleted; what would be the results of creating access to Morning Sun, Larkstone, and Rapid View; what is the impact of eliminating the commercial property from the proposed project, or reducing it in scope, which would appear to retain a substantial portion of the existing canyon; the proposed access to Morning Sun from tract 51253 is an off set design and what is the results of aligning the access to the proposed tract from Shepherd Hills Road; what are the impacts of saving the blue line stream and the existing oak trees located within the boundary of tract 51253; what is the development density of the three private projects at this point in time; it appears that the three private developers would need to develop this project independently, and what guarantee would the City have to insure that the needed public improvements would be constructed within an acceptable time frame; can the project 7-1 contain a system of biking and hiking trails; when will the Resource Management Plan be presented to the Commission; is it reasonable to require that a berm be constructed between the proposed dwellings and the existing roadways to mitigate noise; should the passive canyon environment be changed to active recreation areas, or kept as passive, and what are the impacts; is it possible to develop the project area and leave the canyon blue line streams in tact; and does the City or the developers have responsibility to repair the ancient land slide area. Chair/Flamenbaum requested staff to respond to these inquiries, as well as those inquiries asked in previous meetings, to include information regarding the possible presence of cougars in the canyon. The commission voted upon the Motion made by C/Grothe and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum to continue the matter to the April 12, 1993 meeting. The Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. INFORMATIONAL CDD/DeStefano stated that Councilmen MacBride has ITEMS: reappointed Planning Commissioner Michael Li, and that Commissioner Li will be sworn in at the next -meeting. He then reported that, under his authority of Administrative Development Review officer, he approved a 10,000 square foot home proposed at 2532 Braided Mane within "The Country", with all the oak trees on the site to be preserved and protected during the construction of the now home. March 22, 1993 Page 12 ADJOURYMENT: Motion was made by C/Groth'e, seconded by Chair/ Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 9:38 p.m. in memory of Mr. Don Nardella. Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum chairman Re ect a vZe s tD—e efano s DeStefano I r -n