HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/8/1993CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 8, 1993
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at
7:10 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Auditorium, 218.65 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, Li, Plunk, vice Chairman
Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum.
Also present were Community Development Director
James DeStefano, Planning Technician Ann Lunqu,
Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Contract
Secretary Liz Myers.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
C/Li will be abstaining from voting on the Minutes
of February 22, 1993 because he was not present
Minutes of
during that meeting.
Feb. 22 &
Feb. 25, 1993
Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of February 22,
1993, as presented. C/Li abstained.
C/Plunk indicated that, even though she left the
meeting early, she will be voting on the Minutes of
February 25, 1993 because she listened to the audio
tapes of that meeting.
C/Grothe will be abstaining from voting on the
minutes because he was not present at that meeting.
Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum, seconded by
VC/Meyer and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of
February 25, 1993, as presented. C/Grothe
abstained.
CONTINUED
CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report regarding
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
the request made by Inter -Community Health Services
to develop a three phase 425,000 square foot
DR & CUP 91-1
medical plaza project on 43 acres generally located
and EIR 91-4
west of Grand Avenue, south of Golden Springs
Drive, east of Gateway Corporate center and north
of the Montefino condominiums. At the conclusion
of the February 8, 1993, the Planning commission
directed staff to complete the final EIR and
prepare a resolution of approval for presentation
at the March 8, 1993 meeting. Staff has finalized
the Response to Comments section of the EIR and
prepared statements of overriding consideration for
the air quality (post Phase I construction) and
traffic impacts. Staff has also provided a multi
page -list of conditions corresponding with the
staff recommended approval of the project. There
has been recent changes to the resolution that deal
with technical legal issues, grammatical problems,
March 8, 1993 Page 2
and clarifications needed by the City and requested
by the applicant. Additionally, the Planning
Commission received the statement of fact this
evening and the final statement of overriding
considerations on the EIR. It is recommended that
the Commission reopen the public hearing on the
project, receive testimony from the applicant and
the audience, and conclude by closing the public,
hearing, directing staff to reorganize specifically
the resolution of approval, to be placed on the
Consent Calendar for the meeting of March 22, 1993.
Chair/Flamenbaum recalled that the Commission had
only discussed the EIR, and not' CUP items for
conditions of approval.
C/Plunk suggested that the Traffic and
Transportation Commission (TTC) review the traffic
plans for the various phases of the proposed
project, to include surrounding development.
Mark Blaget, consultant, reported that the
conclusions outlined in the EIR reflect the
conclusions made in the presentation proceeding
it's submittal. The specific responses received
have been identified and responded to, and
additional explanations have been provided
responding to issues raised at the last public
hearing. A number of minor modifications are
anticipated to the format of the draft Statement of
Overriding Considerations and Statement of Fact.
In response to some of the concerns raised by the
Commission, Mr. Blaget made the following comments:
the traffic analysis did consider a buildout
traffic scenario for the years 1997, 2000, and
2010; the traffic analysis is consistent with the
buildout analysis that was undertaken as part of
the recent General Plan program; the projects
buildout traffic was also considered with, and
without mitigation, focusing on the large number of
improvements anticipated city wide over the life of
the General Plan; and, in regards to the concern of
the potential damage that has occurred to the
slopes on the project site, there was some evidence
of erosion that were not being mitigated and could
present a real damage, however, the applicant has
met with the Public Works Department to resolve the
erosion issue.
Chair/Flamenbaum, referring to item 3.2, the
Revision Section, on page 3.2 of the DEIR, inquired
why it is recommended that the secondary access
road to Golden Springs Road would not need to be
done until Phase III. The traffic study indicates
,1 -I,, h Ad!, 1 ill "i,
March 8, 1993 Page 3
F --
y that Phase I alone will have a significant impact
on Grand Avenue.
Mr. Blaget explained that the level of traffic
generated by the Phase I development would be
substantially less than the buildout traffic, and,
althouh any addition will exasperate the level of
servic , the additional a.m./p.m. peak hour trips
that would have been generated by both Phase I and
Phase II can be readily accommodated. The
additional number of trips would be far less than
what is seen with an employment type of use that
has a higher peak hour trip generation.
Furthermore, the applicant also indicated a concern
that t_ie facility would not be able to economically
support the connector road with the construction of
Phase I.
Chair/Flamenbaum, concerned with traffic congestion
at the Golden Springs/Grand Ave. intersection
without the secondary road access, inquired if it
would not be more advantageous, in attempting to
mitigate air quality damage, to keep cars moving as
opposed to idling in a cue.
Mr. Blaget stated that since the Golden
springs/Grand Ave. intersection is currently
operating at a substandard level of service during
peak hours, as is the intersection of Grand
Ave./Diamond Bar Boulevard, then there wouldn't be
any real benefit in terms of air quality. In
response to another inquiry made by
Chair/Flamenbaum, he indicated that the AQMD
generates more vehicle trips, and as a result more
mobile emissions than the proposed Medical Complex.
C/Li requested a comparison of the use of the
helicopter pad for a facility with and without a
trauma center.
Mr. Blaget stated that a telephone survey of all
the hospitals in the area was conducted and the
numbers of helicopter landings identified in the
EIR have been confirmed.
Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing
opened.
Martha Bruske, 600 S. Great Bend, made the
following inquiries: will this community support a
hospital?; how much noise impacts will result from
the helicopter use?; what is the anticipated
private and Medical pay for the hospital?; how many
day treatment procedures will there be?; how much
_M.�..._ __. __._ _ .,__ .:._
March 8, 1993 Page 4
!',IVIf�r4
emergency care will there be?; will they take a lot 44,
of freeway accidents?; and how do the other
hospitals feel about another medical facility?
Richard Jankowski, a resident of Montefino,
inquired how the project's current plan can be
considered when it has been indicated that,
beginning with Phase II, it exceeds noise and
emissions standards set by the EPA. The location
chosen is the worst possible location in terms of
traffic congestion, pollution, and noise. The
addition of the helicopter pad, in such a confined
area, will be a nightmare for the surrounding
homeowners.
Ed Hilden, who served as President of the Chamber
of Commerce in 1988, stated that a Chamber study
conducted in 1988, among the merchants in the
community, indicated that most, wanted a "Shop
Diamond Bar" campaign, and a local medical
facility.
Nancy Jankowski, resident of Montefino, made the
following comments: Grand Ave. is the worst
possible location for a hospital facility; the area
is too confined for a helicopter pad; 28% of
medical facilities do not treat their waste before
disposing of it; and there are only 3 or 4
inspectors State wide to assure proper disposal of
waste.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum
declared the Public Hearing closed.
Deborah Nicholas, Vice President of Corporate
Development for Inter -Community Health Services,
made the following responses to the comments made:
the telephone survey conducted by Inter -Community
indicated a need for a medical facility in Diamond
Bar; this will not be a major medical facility, but
a small community hospital; the services will be
available for all type of insurance plans; the
helicopter will only be provided for extreme
emergency cases, and will probably only be used a
couple of times a year; and Inter -Community Medical
Center has to comply with all the standards, and
all the Federal and State regulations in regards to
waste disposal.
VC/Meyer inquired if the applicant would be willing
to commit to a specified number of helicopter trips
to the facility, to be included as a mitigation
measure, since it has been indicated that the total
number of trips will be about two a year.
March 8, 1993 Page 5
Deborah Nicholas pointed out that the problem with
committing to a specified number is that if there
is an extreme emergency that would put the hospital
over the limit, would the hospital then be required
to turn away an individual. We would be amenable
to specifying that the helicopter is to be used in
emergency situations only.
C/Grothe requested some statistics on the quantity
of trips, in and out, in the last two to three
years, in the surrounding hospitals.
Dwayne Carlberg, President and Chief Executive
officer of Inter -Community Health Services, stated
that Inter -Community has not had a licensed helipad
at it's other facilities, but used an area in the
parking lot semi -regulated by the FAA to allow for
emergency helicopter landings and take offs as
necessary, which did not exceed 12 trips per year.
The helicopter was not used to bring patients to
the medical facility but to transport emergency
patients, such as burn patients, neonatal intensive
care patients, requiring specialized treatment
facilities. He assured the Commission that the
number of helicopter landings and take offs on the
a,.. proposed site would not exceed 24 per year. If
there is to be a ceiling on the number of trips
allowed, then there needs to be an understanding
from the City that patient number twenty five (25)
is justifiable in his transport as is patient
number six (6).
VC/Meyer pointed out that concerned residents would
like some assurance that they can reside in their
homes without the intrusion of a helicopter flying
by every five to ten minutes or some sort of
unspecified period of time. There needs to be some
sort of empirical data in terms of the use of the
helicopter. Furthermore, it may be prudent to
avoid allowing some other agency, such as FAA, to
control the facility because such agencies are not
always reliable.
C/Plunk stated that she prefers getting the
probability of usage rather than a maximum.
Deborah Nicholas, in response to, Chair FlamenbaumIs
F inquiry regarding trip generation, indicated that
she will provide those numbers, projecting how
many patients will go to the site who currently
- reside in the Diamond Bar/Walnut, Chino Hills, and
other surrounding communities.
March 8, 1993 Page 6
Mark Blaget stated that a hospital type of facility''''''
isn't the type of project that results in
spontaneous generation, like a commercial shopping
center. However, it will generate employee trips
of about 500 to 700 vehicle trips daily in Phase I
that will be new trip generation. The other 1,400
trips, of the 2,000, coming to and from the site
are diverted trips of people who would have gone to
a medical facility 'in the surrounding area.
Therefore, there will actually be a reduction in
the vehicle miles traveled, which was not factored
in the environmental review process. There are
other types of land'uses that could be developed on
that site that have less daily trip generation than
this project, however, these are employment
generating types of activities where heavy levels
of traffic would be experienced during the
a.m./p.m. peak hours.
VC/Meyer stated that he is in disagreement with the
conclusions in terms of the secondary access road
to the project. The traffic will seek the line of
least resistance if there is an opportunity to do
SO. There is also a proposed Church, and
commercially zoned parcels of land, that wouldli
'
utilize that same access point. That alternate"-
circulation route is important, and there is a
possibility of having that cost spread over other
developments to happen in the area. Though the
conclusions in the EIR has been well founded,
VC/Meyer indicated that he does not whole heattedly
embrace the conclusions made.
Dwayne Calberg stated that their engineering and
architectural consultants have indicated that it
will be very difficult and costly to develop some
other access to that property, through the sites
immediately below, because of the steep bank
separating the properties.
VC/Meyer noted that a 450,0.00 square foot medical
facility on 10 acres goes beyond a small community
hospital. Perhaps it should be considered that
there may be an optimum growth situation for the
City. The applicant needs to consider an alternate
safety route, sharing costs with the other
facilities going in.
Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:26 p.m. y
The meeting was reconvened at 8:43 p.m.
C/Plunk reiterated her suggestion that the project
should go before the TTC for their review.
March 8, 1993 Page 7
VC/Meyer suggested that the, Commission move forward
with the certification of the EIR, dealing with the
CUP, but not acting on the design review until
there is more than a conceptual plan. In this
manner, the applicant could go back to their
architectural engineering staff and cost out those
types of improvements that are laid out in the EIR,
and then go the TTC, as suggested by C/Plunk, with
a more clearly defined development proposal.
Furthermore, it is difficult to consider Phase III
of the project which is 20 years down the road.
CDD/DeStefano reminded the Commission that the
intent of the applicant and staff is to look at
this application as an umbrella project, with an
EIR that discusses the project with as much details
known at this point, including the projects impacts
with neighboring projects. Any phase being awarded
an approval to begin construction would first need
to be brought before the Planning Commission for
review and approval with appropriate conditions at
that time. With respect to the approval process,
the EIR and the CUP could be approved outside of
the', design features, understanding where we're
going in order to come up with the proper
L— mitigation measures. Furthermore, the current
policy of the City Council indicates that it is not
part of the TTC's current scope of authority or
responsibility to review a specific project's
traffic impacts. Staff can be directed to first
deal with all of the issues raised by the
commission up to this point, and to provide answers
to those questions.
Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by
VC/Meyer to redraft the resolution of approval with
the following modifications: further develop the
circulation plan to include the secondary access
road; set shift changes so they do not occur during
a.m./p.m. peak hours for the ancillary staff; the
air conditioning units should be screened from
visibility on top looking down on the roof, not
just a horizontal straight line; and condition the
heliport for emergency use only.
C/Plunk reiterated her request to have further time
to review the documents presented to the Commission
this evening.
Chair/Flamenbaum noted that the document presented
appear to be substantially similar to the one
provided earlier. The resolution of approval will
come back to the Commission for further review. He
then requested staff, referring to condition #16,
_- -- - -- - ... _ . -- - — -- -, — ____ --- _ ... ...-
March 8, 1993 Page 8
to clarify that the front property line is Grand
Avenue:
Ken Liu, the architect, using a model of the
project presented before the Commission, pointed
out where the secondary access road could possibly
be located. There is a major slope issue coming
down from the site.
C/Grothe explained that the Commission is looking
to assure that the project is designed so that the
whole ingress and egress is a major entry statement
going up and down to the lower center. He pointed
out that half of the entrance to the project site,
and all of the retaining walls, are drawn on the
neighbors property. It is difficult to imagine
that the .neighboring property has granted an
easement to build half of a road that does not even
go down to their property. The signal installed on
Grand Avenue is to service those three properties.
The details should be worked out with the
neighboring property owners.
VC/Meyer inquired if, by including a secondary
access road in the EIR, a foundation would be
established to motivate these other property owners
to explore the best location for the secondary
access road down to Golden Springs Road.
CDD/DeStefano stated that there has been discussion
with the property owner adjacent to this site, and
they are aware of the need to secure access off of
Grand Avenue at the signalized intersection, and to
create some additional access road somewhere
through the site from Grand Avenue to Golden
Springs. The EIR review for the proposed church
and sanctuary use would include reviewing this EIR
and implementing those mitigation measures that
would be applicable to their site.
VC/Meyer expressed his concern for hazardous waste
removal, as well as off site spills. He requested
that the applicant look into possibly training
personnel in some sort of cooperative effort with
the Fire Department to assist in minimizing the
down time for Grand Avenue if there was an off site
spill of hazardous waste.
Ken Liu stated that certain types of regulated 4
waste are required by law to be removed only by a
licensed vendor who is trained for safety transport
to designated sites for disposal.
0 F, i, Y_W
r - -,
March 8, 1993 Page,,9
The Commission voted on the Motion made by C/Grothe
and seconded by VC/Meyer to redraft the resolution
of approval with the following modifications:
further develop the circulation plan to include the
secondary access road; set shift changes so they do
not occur during a.m./p.m. peak hours for the
ancillary staff; the air conditioning units should
be screened from visibility on top looking down on
the roof, not just a horizontal straight line; and
condition the heliport to emergency use only. The
Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 9:46 p.m.
DR 92-6 &
PT/Lungu presented the staff report regarding the
CUP 93-1
request made by the applicant, Carl Karcher
Enterprises, Inc., to amend an existing CUP and
process a Development Review in order to construct
a children's play area with supervisory seating on
an outdoor patio. As directed at the February 22,
1993 meeting, staff and the applicant discussed the
following alternatives, as outlined in the staff
report, to alleviate the shortage of parking stalls
ir4v,
on site: redesign the parking area in order to
acquire more parking stalls; incentives for ride -
sharing and the utilization of other means of
transportation besides employee's car; reciprocal
parking agreement with a neighboring site to
mitigate the parking shortage; and to consider the
availability of parking on Gentle Springs Lane.
Upon visiting the site on four separate occasions,
staff observed that the Carl's Jr. site was
congested during lunch hour, with no available on
site parking, no available parking on Gentle
Springs Road, and stacking of cars in the drive-
thru lane extending to the front entrance of the
restaurant. It is staff opinion that even though
the design of the playground area is appropriate
and compatible with the existing restaurant and the
surrounding area, the addition of the playground
area is not appropriate due to the fact that the
number of parking spaces are inadequate for the
potential occupancy load of the restaurant and the
on-site congestion, even with the implementation of
several alternatives. It is recommended that the
Commission deny Development Review No. 92-6, and
,,n
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1.
Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing
opened.
Hearing no testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the
Public Hearing closed.
March 8, 1993
Page to
Mike Callahan, ' employed by Carl Karcher
Enterprises, Inc., made the following comments:
the stacking of cars at the drive-thru may have
occurred because it was the manager's day off on
one of the days that staff visited the site; K -Mart
has been approached to allow us to park six cars on
their parking lot during noontime;-there will be
40 parking stalls on site; the play area will meet
all disable access, fire egress, and other building
and safety requirements; final plan approval will
be obtained by' the Diamond Bar Improvement
Association (DBIA) prior to plan check submission;
a separate landscape plan,.prepared by a licensed
landscape architect, shall be submitted for
approval; a six place 'bicycle rack will be included
on site; a ride sharing incentive program, for the
employees, will be maintained; the terms of the
Agreement of Protective Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions, recorded February 26, 1974, will be
abided; all necessary building permits will be
obtained prior to construction; the use of the
playground area shall be limited to patrons of
Carl's Jr. who are supervised by a parent or adult
guardian; they will cooperate with the City
Engineer to repair it's portion of Gentle Springs
Lane; and they will obtain a written agreement with
a neighboring business to allow off site parking of
six (6) employee vehicles during the noon time meal
period. He stated that he has not heard anything
from the City Engineer or staff regarding a Traffic
Signal Assessment Fund, in which a $2,000 payment
was offered as indicated in the letter dated
February 23, 1993.
C/Plunk stated that, upon visiting the site, she
concurs with staff's concern that the applicant has
a parking problem during the a.m. hours.
PT/Lungu, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, stated
that the play area is included as part of the
occupancy load. As far as the traffic signal, the
City Engineer has indicated that, at this time, he
feels that the signal is not appropriate.
I
CDD/DeStefano expressed his concern that allowing
off site parking across a major street will not
only set a precedent, but is also dangerous for the
employees being asked to cross that busy street.
He suggested that, if the Commission is leaning
towards approval of the project with additional
parking, there be a condition that the applicant be
required to provide documentation evidence that the
adjacent property owner has agreed to allow them to
use six (6) spaces.
1�
March 8, 1993 Page 11
Motion was made by C/Plunk and seconded by C/Grothe
to concur with staff's recommendation to deny
Development Review No. 92-6, and Conditional Use
Permit No. 93-1.
C/Grothe concurred that the play area is a needed
feature for the restaurant, however, he indicated
his concern that there is not adequate parking on
site, and that the intersection and street is
unsafe.
VC/Meyer stated he is not as concerned with the
lack of parking spaces since staff has indicated,
at the last public hearing, that the facility did
not have a parking problem that spills out into the
public right-of-way. It appears that we are
planning for the vehicle and not for the intended
users of the property. Some businesses are quite
successful without any, or perhaps minimal, parking
spaces. Furthermore, the applicant has expressed
his willingness to obtain an agreement to allow his
employees to park off site. However, since the
City does have specific parking standards, he
stated that he will support staff's recommendation.
C/Plunk pointed out how difficult it is to verify
if the applicant's employees are parking off site.
She expressed her concern that children will be
crossing a busy street to get to the facility
because there is inadequate parking.
C/Li noted that parents have a responsibility to
assure that children cross the street safely. He
stated that, though he concurs with staff's
decision to deny the application based upon the
parking standards, he also concurs with the
applicant's desire to expand his facility to
increase his profit, especially since the applicant
is willing to negotiate with the adjacent
businesses for additional parking.
The Commission voted upon C/flunk's Motion, as
seconded by C/Grothe, to deny Development Review
No. 92-6, and Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1. The
MOTION FAILED.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk and VC/Meyer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: G r o t h e, L i, a n d
Chair/Flamenbaum.
j ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Plunk
to direct staff to draft the resolution of approval
outlining a variety of conditions deemed
March 8, 1993 Page 12
appropriate by staff; incorporating the following
items discussed: 40 stalls on site to be
maintained; a minimum of six (6) off site parking
spaces to be provided during the noon hour on an
adjacent property site; some form of traffic
mitigation at the intersection, such as a
crosswalk; and prior to granting the CUP, the
applicant must demonstrate that the adjacent
property owner(s) have granted the off site
parking.
CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Li, stated that
staff will secure a document from the adjoining
property owner(s) that concurs with the
responsibility for allowing the six (6) parking
spaces to be located on that property. An
occasional spot check of the area will be conducted
by staff.
The Commission voted upon the Motion made by
C/Grothe, as seconded by C/Plunk, to direct staff
to draft a resolution of approval with the
appropriate conditions. The MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Plunk, Li,
V C/ M e y e r a n d
Chair/Flamenbaum.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: CDD/DeStefano reported that the applicant and staff
is requested that this item, a request fora CUP to
CUP 93-2 turn the existing office building located off of
Golden Springs Drive, near Grand Avenue, into a
sanctuary for Calvary Chapel, be continued to March
22, 1993.
Chair/Flamenbaum ,declared the Public Hearing
opened.
Hearing no testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the
Public Hearing closed and continued.
Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum, seconded by
C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
matter to April 12, 1993.
INFORMATIONAL CDD/DeStefano made the following comments: copies
ITEMS: of the material received from the Planners
Institute seminar, plus a list of tapes available
for purchase, will be provided to the Commission;
the public review period has ended for the City of
Industry's EIR; the Referendum petition was
,. a
March 8, 1993
Page, 13
certified by judges order,, and the Council has
directed staff to prepare a resolution to rescind
the General Plan, and to put together a team to
deal with the General Plan issues; the City will
continue to operate under Ordinance 14 until the
General Plan is deemed in effect and enforceable;
the TDM was approved by the City Council; and the
City Council approved the Parcel Map for the Yellow
Brick Road.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
10:40 p.m.
Attes
Bruce Flamenbaum
Chairman
Res ective y�
J m 's DeStefano
Secretary
PLE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 8, 1993
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7: 10 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality
Management District Auditorium, 218,65 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: commissioner Grothe.
ROLL CALL: commissioners: Grothe, Li, Plunk, Vice Chairman Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum.
Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Contract
Secretary Liz Myers.
CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Li will be abstaining from voting on the Minutes I of
February 22, 1993 because he was not present Minutes of during that meeting.
Feb. 22 &
Feb. 25, 1993 Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of
February 22, 1993, as presented. C/Li abstained.
C/Plunk indicated that, even though she left the
meeting early, she will be voting on the Minutes of February 25, 1993 because
she listened to the audio tapes of that meeting.
C/Grothe will be abstaining from voting on the minutes because he was not
present at that meeting. Motion was made by Cha-it/Flamenbaum, seconded by
VC/Meyer and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of February 25, 1993, as
presented. C/Grothe abstained.
CONTINUED CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report regarding PUBLIC HEARINGS: the request made by
Inter -Community Health Services
to develop a three phase 425,000 square foot DR & CUP 91-1 medical plaza
project on 43 acres generally located and EIR 91-4 west of Grand Avenue, south of Golden Springs
Drive, east of Gateway Corporate center and
north of the Montef ino condominiums. At the conclusion of the February 8, 1993,
the Planning Commission directed staff to complete the final EIR and prepare a
resolution of approval for presentation at the March 8, 1993 meeting. Staff has
finalized the Response to Comments section of the EIR and prepared statements
of overriding consideration f or the air quality (post Phase I construction) and
traffic impacts. Staff has also provided a multi page -list of conditions
corresponding with the staff recommended approval of the project. There has
been recent changes to the resolution that deal with technical legal issues,
grammatical problems,
March 8, 1993 Page 2
and clarifications needed by the City and requested by the applicant. Additionally,
the Planning Commission received the statement of fact this evening and the final
statement of overriding considerations on the EIR. It is recommended that the
commission reopen the public hearing on the project, receive testimony from the
applicant and the audience, and conclude by closing the public hearing, directing
staff to reorganize specifically the resolution of approval, to be placed on the
Consent Calendar for the meeting of March 22, 1993.
Chair/ Flamenbaum recalled that the Commission had only discussed the EIR,
and not' CUP items for conditions of approval.
C/Plunk suggested that the traffic and Transportation Commission (TTC) review
the traffic plans for the various phases of the proposed project, to include
surrounding development.
Mark Blaget, consultant, reported that the conclusions outlined in the EIR reflect
the conclusions made in the presentation proceeding it I s submittal. The specific
responses received have been identified and responded to, and additional
explanations have been provided responding to issues raised at the last public
hearing. A number of minor modifications are anticipated to the format of the draft
Statement of overriding considerations and Statement of Fact. In response to
some of the concerns raised by the Commission, Mr. Blaget made the following
comments: the traffic analysis did consider a buildout traffic scenario for the years
1997, 2000, and 2010; the traffic analysis is consistent with the buildout analysis
that was undertaken as part of the recent General Plan program; the projects
buildout traffic was also considered with, and without mitigation, focusing on the
large number of improvements anticipated city wide over the life of the General
Plan; and, in regards to the concern of the potential damage that has occurred to
the slopes on the project site, there was some evidence of erosion that were not
being mitigated and could present a real damage, however, the applicant has met
with the Public Works Department to resolve the erosion issue.
Chair/Flamenbaum, referring to item 3.2, the Revision Section, on page 3.2 of the
DEIR, inquired why it is recommended that the secondary access road to Golden
Springs Road would not need to be done until Phase III. The traffic study
indicates
March 8, 1993 Page 3
that Phase I alone will have a significant impact on Grand Avenue.
Mr. Biaget explained that the level of traffic generated by the Phase I
development would be substantially less than the buildout traffic, and, althou h
any addition will exasperate the level of servicz, the additional a.m./p.m. peak
hour trips that would have been generated by both Phase I and Phase II can be
readily accommodated. The additional number of trips would be far less than
what is seen with an employment type of use that has a higher peak hour trip
generation. Furthermore, the applicant also indicated a concern that the facility
would not be able to economically support the connector road with the
construction of Phase I.
Chair/ Flamenbaum, concerned with traf f is congestion at the Golden
Springs/Grand Ave. intersection without the secondary road access, inquired if it
would not be more advantageous, in attempting to mitigate air quality damage, to
keep cars moving as opposed to idling in a cue.
Mr. Blaget stated that since the Golden Springs/Grand Ave. intersection is
currently operating at a substandard level of service during peak hours, as is the
intersection of Grand Ave./Diamond Bar Boulevard, then there wouldn't be any
real benefit in terms of air quality. In response to another inquiry made by
Chair/Flamenbaum, he indicated that the AQMD generates more vehicle trips,
and as a result more mobile emissions than the proposed Medical Complex.
C/Li requested a comparison of the use of the helicopter pad for a facility with
and without a trauma center.
Mr. Blaget stated that a telephone survey of all the hospitals in the area was
conducted and the numbers of helicopter landings identified in the EIR have
been confirmed.
Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened.
Martha Bruske, 600 S. Great Bend, made the following inquiries: will this
community support a hospital?; how much noise impacts will result from the
helicopter use?; what is the anticipated private and MediCal pay for the hospital?;
how many day treatment procedures will there be?; how much
March 8, 1993 Page 4
emergency care will there be?; will they take a lot of freeway accidents?; and how
do the other hospitals feel about another medical facility?
Richard Jankowski, a resident of Montefino, inquired how the project's current plan
can be considered when it has been indicated that, beginning with Phase II, it
exceeds noise — and emissions standards set by the EPA. The location chosen is
the worst possible location in terms of traffic congestion, pollution, and noise. The
addition of the helicopter pad, in such a confined area, will be a nightmare for the
surrounding homeowners.
Ed Hilden, who served as President of the Chamber of Commerce in 1988, stated
that a Chamber study conducted in 1988, among the merchants in the community,
indicated that most wanted a "Shop Diamond Bar" campaign, and a local medical
facility.
Nancy Jankowski, resident of Montef ino, made the following comments: Grand
Ave. is the worst possible location for a hospital facility; the area is too confined for
a helicopter pad; 28% of medical facilities do not treat their waste before disposing
of it; and there are only 3 or 4 inspectors State wide to assure proper disposal of
waste.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing
closed.
Deborah Nicholas, Vice President of Corporate Development for Inter -Community
Health Services, made the following responses to the comments made: the
telephone survey conducted by Inter -Community indicated a need for a medical
facility in Diamond Bar; this will not be a major medical facility, but a small
community hospital; the services will be available for all type of insurance plans;
the helicopter will only be provided for extreme emergency cases! and will
probably only be used a couple of times a year; and Inter -Community Medical
Center has to comply with all the standards, and all the Federal and State
regulations in regards to waste disposal.
VC/Meyer inquired if the applicant would be willing to commit to a specified
number of helicopter trips to the facility, to be included as a mitigation measure,
since it has been indicated that the total number of trips will be about two a year.
Xarch 8, 1993 Page 5
Deborah Nicholas pointed out that the problem with committing to a specified
number is that if there is an extreme emergency that would put the hospital over
the limit, would the hospital then be required to turn away an individual. We
would be amenable to specifying that the helicopter is to be used in emergency
situations only.
C/Grothe requested some statistics on the quantity of trips, in and out, in the last
two to three years, in the surrounding hospitals.
Dwayne Carlberg, President and Chief Executive Officer of Inter -Community
Health Services, stated that Inter -Community has not had a licensed helipad at
it's other facilities, but used an area in the parking lot semi -regulated by the FAA
to allow for emergency helicopter landings and take offs as necessary, which did
not exceed 12 trips per year. The helicopter was not used to bring patients to the
medical facility but to transport emergency patients, such as burn patients,
neonatal intensive care patients, requiring specialized treatment facilities. He
assured the Commission that the number of helicopter landings and take offs on
the proposed site would not exceed 24 per year. if there is to be a ceiling on the
number of trips allowed, then there needs to be an understanding from the City
that patient number twenty five (25) is justifiable in his transport as is patient
number six (6).
VC/Meyer pointed out that concerned residents would like some assurance that
they can reside in their homes without the intrusion of a helicopter flying by every
five to ten minutes or some sort of unspecified period of time. There needs to be
some sort of empirical data in terms of the use of the helicopter. Furthermore, it
may be prudent to avoid allowing some other agency, such as FAA, to control the
facility because such agencies are not always reliable.
C/Plunk stated that she prefers getting the probability of usage rather than a
Deborah Nicholas, in response to, Chair Flamenbaum Is inquiry regarding trip
generation, indicated that she will provide those numbers, projecting how many
patients will go to the site who currently reside in the Diamond Bar/Walnut, Chino Hills,
and other surrounding communities.
March 8, 1993 Page 6
Mark Blaget stated that a hospital type of facility isn't the type of project that
results in spontaneous generation, like a commercial shopping center. However, it
will generate employee trips of about 500 to 700 vehicle trips daily in Phase I that
will be new trip generation. The other 1,400 trips, of the 2,000, coming,to and
from the site are diverted trips of people who would have gone to a medical
facility'in the surrounding area. Therefore, there will actually be a reduction in the
vehicle miles traveled, which was not factored in the environmental review
process. There are other types of land 'uses that could be developed on that site
that have less daily trip generation than this project, however, these are
employment generating types of activities where heavy levels of traffic would be
experienced during the a.m./p.m. peak hours.
VC/Meyer stated that he is in disagreement with the conclusions in terms of the
secondary access road to the project. The traffic will seek the line of least
resistance if there is an opportunity to do SO. there is also a proposed Church,
and commercially zoned parcels of land, that would utilize that same access
point. That alternate circulation route is important, and there is a possibility of
having that cost spread over other developments to happen in the area. Though
the conclusions in the EIR has been well founded, VC/Meyer indicated that he
does not whole heartedly embrace the conclusions made.
Dwayne Calberg stated that their engineering and architectural consultants have
indicated that it will be very difficult and costly to develop some other access to
that property, through the sites immediately below, because of the steep bank
separating the properties.
VC/Meyer noted that a 450,GOO square foot medical facility on 10 acres goes
beyond a small community hospital. Perhaps it should be considered that there
may be an optimum growth situation for the City. The applicant needs to consider
an alternate safety route, sharing costs with the other facilities going in.
Chair/Flamenbaum. recessed the meeting at 8:26 p.m. The meeting was
reconvened at 8:43 p.m.
C/Plunk reiterated her suggestion that the project should go before the TTC for
their review.
March 8„ 1993 Page 7
VC/Meyer suggested that the Commission move forward with the certif ication of
the EIR, dealing with the CUP, but not acting on the design review until there is
more than a conceptual plan. In this manner, the applicant could go back to their
architectural engineering staff and cost out those types of improvements that are
laid out in the EIR, and then go the TTC, as suggested by C/Plunk, with a more
clearly, defined development proposal. Furthermore, it is difficult to consider
Phase III of the project which is 20 years down the road.
CDD/DeStefano reminded the Commission that the intent of the applicant and
stat f is to look at this application as an umbrella project, with an EIR that
discusses the project with as much details known at this point, including the
projects impacts with neighboring projects. Any phase being awarded an
approval to begin construction would first need to be brought bef ore the Planning
Commission f or review and approval with appropriate conditions at that time.
With respect to the approval process, the EIR and the CUP could be approved
outside of the design features, understanding where we're going in order to come
up with the proper mitigation measures. Furthermore, the current policy of the
City Council indicates that it is not part of the TTC I s current scope of authority or
responsibility to review a specific project's traffic impacts. Staff can be directed to
first deal with all of the issues raised by the commission up to this point, and to
provide answers to those questions.
Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by VC/Meyer to redraf t the
resolution of approval with the following modifications: further develop the
circulation plan to include the secondary access road; set shift changes so they
do not occur during a.m./p.m. peak hours for the ancillary staff; the air
conditioning units should be screened from visibility on top looking down on the
roof , not just a horizontal straight line; and condition the heliport for emergency
use only.
C/Plunk reiterated her request to have further time to review the documents
this evening.
Chair/Flamenbaum noted that the document presented appear to be substantially
similar to the one provided earlier. The resolution of approval will come back to
the Commission for further review. He then requested staff, referring to condition
#16,
__I___=_________ ____ 71i ____ _1 - ___ ____ 1__1_
March 8, 1993 Page 8
to clarify that the front property line is Grand Avenue-.
Ken Liu, the architect, using a model of the project presented before the
Commission, pointed out where the secondary access road could possibly be
located. There is a major slope issue coming down from the site.
C/Grothe explained that the Commission is looking to assure that the project is
designed so that the whole ingress and egress is a major entry statement going
up and down to the lower center. He pointed out that half of the entrance to the
project site, and all—of the retaining walls, are drawn on the neighbors property. It
is difficult to imagine that the neighboring property has granted an easement to
build half of a road that does not even go down to their property. The signal
installed on Grand Avenue is to service those three properties. The details should
be worked out with the neighboring property owners.
VC/Meyer inquired if, by including a secondary access road in the EIR, a
foundation would be established to motivate these other property owners to
explore the best location for the secondary access road down to Golden Springs
Road.
CDD/DeStefano stated that there has been discussion with the property owner
adjacent to this site, and they are aware of the need to secure access off of
Grand Avenue at the signalized intersection, and to create some additional
access road somewhere through the site from Grand Avenue to Golden Springs.
The EIR review for the proposed church and sanctuary use would include
reviewing this EIR and implementing those mitigation measures that would be
applicable to their site.
VC/Meyer expressed his concern for hazardous waste removal, as well as off site
spills. He requested that the applicant look into possibly training personnel in
some sort of cooperative effort with the Fire Department to assist in minimizing
the down time for Grand Avenue if there was an of f site spill of hazardous waste.
Ken Liu stated that certain types of regulated waste are required by law to be
removed only by a licensed vendor who is trained for safety transport to
designated sites for disposal.
March 8. 1993 Pane 9
DR 92-6 &
T/Lunqu presented the staff report regarding the
UP 93-1
request made by the applicant, Carl Karcher
The Commission voted on the Motion made by C/Grothe and seconded by
VC/Meyer to redraft the resolution of approval with the following modifications:
further develop the circulation plan to include the secondary access road; set
shift changes so they do not occur during a.m./p.m. peak hours for the ancillary
staff; the air conditioning units should be screened from visibility on top looking
down on the roof, not just a horizontal straight line; and condition the heliport to
emergency use only. The Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
nter rises, Inc., to amend an existing CUP and
Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:35 p.m. The meeting was
reconvened at 9:46 p.m.
Irocess
a Development Review in order to construct
DR 92-6 &
children's pla area with supervisory seating on
n outdoor patio. As directed at the February 22,
1993 meeting, staff and the applicant discussed the
'ollowing alternatives, as outlined in the staff
,eport, to alleviate the shortage of parking stalls
n site: redesign the parking area in order to
c uire more parking stalls; incentives for ride-
�haring and the utilization of other means of
rans ortation besides employee's car; reciprocal
:)arkinci acireement with a neighboring site to
iti ate the parkin shortage; and to consider the
3vailability of parking on Gentle Springs Lane.
on visiting the site on four separate occasions,
taff observed that the Carl's Jr. site was
on ested during lunch hour, with no available on
ite parking, no available parking on Gentle
rin s Road, and stacking of cars in the drive-
hru lane extending to the front entrance of the
estaurant. It is staff opinion that even though
he design of the playground area is appropriate
nd com atiblewith the existingrestaurant and the
urroundin area, the addition of the playground
rea is not appro riate due to the f act that the
umber of parkinq spaces are inadequate f or the
otential occupancy load of the restaurant and the
)n-site congestion, even with the implementation of
everal alternatives. It is recommended that the
ommission deny Development Review No. 92-6, and
onditional Use Permit No. 93-1.
hair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearin
ened.
Barin no testimon , Chair/ Flamenbaum declared the
ublic Hearin closed.
March 8, 1993 Page 10
Mike Callahan, ' employed by Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., made the following
comments: the stacking of cars at the drive-thru may have occurred because it
was the manager's day off on one of the days that staff visited the site; K-Mart
has been approached to allow us to park six cars on their parking lot'during noon
time;-there will be 40 parking stalls on site; the play area will meet all disable
access, fire egress, and other building and safety requirements; final plan
approval will be obtained by — the 1 Diamond Bar Improvement Association
(DBIA) prior to plan check submission; a separate landscape plan,.prepared by a
licensed landscape architect, shall be submitted for approval; a six place bicycle
rack will be included on site; a ride sharing incentive program, for the employees,
will be maintained; the terms of the Agreement of Protective Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions, recorded February 26, 1974, will be abided; all
necessary building permits will be obtained prior to construction; the use of the
playground area shall be limited to patrons of Carl's Jr. who are supervised by a
parent or adult guardian; they will cooperate with the City Engineer to repair it's
portion of Gentle Springs Lane; and they will obtain a written agreement with a
neighboring business to allow off site parking of six (6) employee vehicles during
the noon time meal period. He stated that he has not heard anything from the City
Engineer or staff regarding a Traffic Signal Assessment Fund, in which a $2,000
payment was offered as indicated in the letter dated February 23, 1993.
C/Plunk stated that, upon visiting the site, she concurs with staff /s concern that
the applicant has a parking problem during the a.m. hours.
PT/Lungu, in response to Chair/ Flamenbaum, stated that the play area is
included as part of the occupancy load. As far as the traffic signal, the City
Engineer has indicated that, at this time, he feels that the signal is not
appropriate.
I CDD/DeStefano
expressed his concern that allowing off site parking across a major street will not
only set a precedent, but is also dangerous for the employees being asked to
cross that busy street. He suggested that, if the Commission is leaning towards
approval of the project with additional parking, there be a condition that the
applicant be required to provide documentation evidence that the adjacent
property owner has agreed to allow them to use six (6) spaces.
March 8„ 1993 Page 11
Motion was made by C/Plunk and seconded by C/Grothe to concur with staff's
recommendation to deny Development Review No. 92-6, and Conditional Use
Permit No. 93-1.
C/Grothe concurred that the play area is a needed f eature f or the restaurant,
however, he indicated his concern that there is not adequate parking on site, and
that the intersection and street is unsafe.
VC/Meyer stated he is not as concerned with the lack of parking spaces since
stat f has indicated, at the last public hearing, that the facility did not have a
parking problem that spills out into the public right-of-way. It appears that we are
planning f or the vehicle and not f or the intended users of the property. Some
businesses are quite successful without any, or perhaps minimal, parking
spaces. , Furthermore, the applicant has expressed his willingness to obtain an
agreement to allow his employees to park of f site. However, since the City does
have specific parking standards, he stated that he will support staff Is
recommendation.
C/Plunk pointed out how difficult it is to verify if the applicant's employees are
parking off site. She expressed her concern that children will be crossing a busy
street to get to the facility because there is inadequate parking.
C/Li noted that parents have a responsibility to assure that children cross the
street safely. He stated that, though he concurs with staffs decision to deny the
application based upon the parking standards, he also concurs with the
applicant's desire to expand his facility to increase his prof it, especially since the
applicant is willing to negotiate with the adjacent businesses for additional
parking.
The Commission voted upon C/Plunk's Motion, as seconded by C/Grothe, to
deny Development Review No. 92-6, and Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1. The
MOTION FAILED.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk and VC/Meyer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: G r o t h e L i and Chair/Flamenbaum. ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: None.
Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Plunk to direct staff to draft the
resolution of approval outlining a variety of conditions deemed
March 8, 1993 Page 12
appropriate by stat f - incorporating the f olfowing items discussed: 40 stalls on site to
be maintained; a minimum of six (6) off site parking spaces to be provided during the
noon hour on an adjacent property site; some form of traffic mitigation at the
intersection, such as a crosswalk; and prior to granting the CUP, the applicant must
demonstrate that the adjacent property owner(s) have granted the off site parking.
CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Li, stated that staff will secure a document
from the adjoining property owner(s) that concurs with the responsibility for
allowing the six (6) parking spaces to be located on that property. An occasional
spot check of the area will be conducted by staff.
The Commission voted upon the Motion made by C/Grothe, as seconded by
C/Plunk, to direct staff to draft a resolution of approval with the appropriate
conditions. The MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Plunk, Li, V C/ M e y e r a n d
Chair/Flamenbaum.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: CDD/DeStefano reported that the applicant and staff is requested that this item, a
request for -a CUP to
CUP 93-2 turn the existing office building located off of Golden Springs Drive, near Grand Avenue, into a
sanctuary for Calvary Chapel, be continued to March 22, 1993.
Chair/ Flamenbaum I declared the Public Hearing opened.
Hearing no testimony, Chair/ Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed
and continued.
Motion was made by Chair/ Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to April 12, 1993.
INFORMATIONAL CDD/DeStefano made the following comments: copies ITEMS: of the material received from the Planners
Institute seminar, plus a list of tapes available for purchase, will be provided to the Commission; the
public review period has ended for the City of Industry's EIR; the Referendum petition was
March 8, 1993 Page,13
certified by judges order, and the council has directed staff to prepare a
resolution to rescind the General Plan, and to put together a team to deal with
the General Plan issues; the City will continue to operate under ordinance 14
until the General Plan is deemed in effect and enforceable; the TDM was
approved by the City Council; and the city council approved the Parcel Map for
the Yellow Brick Road.
ADJOUR14MENT: Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to
adjourn the meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Res ectiv--"%y ctiv
—s Mee
J m DeStefdno m s DeSt Secretary
Bruce Flamenbaum
chairman