HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/12/1993CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 12, 1993
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at
7:11 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: Community Development Director James DeStefano.
SWEARING IN: Commissioner Li was sworn in by City Clerk Linda
Burgess as Planning Commissioner.
ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Plunk, Li, Vice Chairman
Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum.
Also present were Community Development Director
James DeStefano, Planning Technician Ann Lungu,
Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, Interim City
Engineer George Wentz, and Contract Recording
Secretary Liz Myers.
CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Plunk requested the Minutes of March 22, 1993 be
amended on page 10 to indicate "..and according to
Minutes of the gentlemen from the Whittier Conservancy, it
Mar. 22, 1993 took..."
VC/Meyer indicated that he has read the minutes,
listened to the tapes of the subject meeting, and
is prepared to vote on the minutes.
C/Li will be abstaining from voting on the minutes
because he was not in attendance at the subject
meeting.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/Plunk
and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of March 22,
1993, as amended. C/Li abstained.
CONTINUED
CDD/DeStefano stated that the proposed Master Plan
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
project is located on 171 acre area bounded
generally by property located north of Pathfinder,
General Plan
west of Brea Canyon Road, south of Rapid View and
Amendment 92-2;
the South Pointe Middle School, and east of Morning
DA 92-1, 2, and 3;
Sun. The project was continued from the March 22,
Vesting TT Map
1993 meeting. The applicants representative, Jan
51407, CUP 92-8 &
Dabney, has requested, via a letter dated March 30,
OT 92-8; ZC 91-2 &
1993, that the public hearing be continued again in
OT 91-2; TT Map
order to allow more time for review, refinement,
51253 & CUP 92-12;
and negotiation of the Development Agreements
OT 92-9; SP Master
between the City and the applicants, and to further
Plan; & EIR 92-1
examine the final staff recommendations being
prepared, and that consideration be given to a
special meeting on April 19, 1993.
Following discussion, the Planning Commission
concurred to continue the item to the regular
Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 1993 at
April 12, 1993
Page 2
G4n',�a�lCd
6:00 p.m.. The requested date of April 19, 1993
was in conflict with the schedules of some of the
Commissioners. The Master Plan project 'is to be
placed first on the agenda, and if all other items
cannot be heard that evening, then the meeting will
be continued to April 29, 1993.
Jan Dabney, representing the applicants, stated
that April 26, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. is acceptable.
Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing
opened.
Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig, indicated -
that a continuance to April 26, 1993 appears to be
acceptable to audience members.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum
declared the public hearing closed and continued.
Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the meeting to
April 26, 1993 at 6:00 p.m.
Variance 92-3
PT/Lungu presented the staff report regarding
The
& Planned Sign
Planned Sign Program 92-2 and Variance 92-3.
Program 92-2
applicant has submitted a revised Planned si gn
Program dated March 24, 1993 which included minor
language changes to accommodate the Diamond Bar
Improvement Association and the deletion of
specific details of the proposed six monument
signs. If this project is approved, it is staff's
opinion that the applicant should submit a revised
written Planned Sign Program which includes
specific details of the proposed six monument
signs. 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 and Fact,
and conditions as listed within the attached
resolutions.
Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing
opened.
Connie Nicholas, owner of BCN Lighting & Sign
Company, representing the applicant, requested that
the Resolution be amended, on page 4, to indicate
"signs currently without valid permit", replacing
"not part of this approval", and that signs without
current valid permits be removed by the applicant
within 60 days. The applicant would also like the
City to provide him with a list of those signs, as
""—� —._-. ,• �---�_��LLa��.kibuub.4�liim�reAeV.l�a.F-ry __ .
April 12, 1993 1 paLge• ,3
well as provide an opportunity for the tenants to
secure their original permits.
CDD/DeStefano indicated that the City can provide
such a list as part of the review already
undertaken for this project. The applicant would
have to pay a processing fee if any additional work
needed.
Hearing no further testimony, the Public Hearing
was declared closed.
C/Grothe, referring to items (f) , (g) , and (h) on
page 3, pointed out that there has not been
sufficient evidence that indicates that there are
special circumstances explicable to this property
that would warrant a variance. If the Sign
Ordinance is wrong, then it should be appropriately
amended. Approving this project because these
signs are better than the existing signs is not
grounds for a variance
VC/Meyer stated that even though he would support
C/Grothe's suggestion to revisit the Sign
Ordinance, the City has a responsibility to
expeditiously review these applications. It would
be a disservice to the applicant to revisit the
Sign ordinance at this late date in his
application. He suggested that the Commission
first deal with the applicant's request, then set
up a proactive review of the Sign Ordinance.
Motion was made by C/Grothe to deny Planned Sign
Program No. 92-2 and Variance No. 92-3.
The Motion died for lack of a second.
C/Plunk expressed her concern that an undue
hardship may be created for those businesses with
non conforming signs because they may not be able
to economically afford to change their sign at this
time.
PT/Lungu explained that staff will work with
businesses to allow them time to change their signs
CDD/DeStefano recommended that the word "monument",
--� on page 4, condition 5(e), page 4 of the draft
Resolution, and 5(g) of the Sign Plan approval, be
replaced to "non -permitted".
DCA/Fox, concerned with page 5, condition (i),
inquired, of the applicant, if the variance is
granted, would it be their intent to implement the
April 12, 1993
Page 4
terms of, or the privileges granted by, the
variance.
Connie Nicholas stated that the applicant has
indicated that he is in agreement with all of the
conditions as stated, with the exception of the
change indicated earlier. It is the intent of the
applicant to implement the variance, if granted.
C/Li requested that -the Resolution be amended on
page 3, item 4, to properly alphabetize the sub -
items.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and
CARRIED to adopt the Resolution for Variance 92-3.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Plunk, and VC/Meyer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: G r o t h e a n d
Chair/Flamenbaum.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Li, and
CARRIED to approve the Resolution conditionally
approving the Planned Sign Program 92-2, as
amended.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Plunk, VC/Meyer, and
Chair/Flamenbaum.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
DR & CUP 91-1 AP/Searcy reported that staff received the
and EIR 91-4 additional information from the applicant, pursuant
to the Commission request, and has prepared
Resolutions and conditions of approval, and
Statements of Overriding Consideration for CUP 91-
1, DR 91-1 and EIR 91-4, an application for an
approximately 425,000 square foot, three phase,
medical complex, known as Diamond Bar Medical
Plaza, generally located west of Grand Avenue,
south of Golden Springs Drive, east of Gateway
Corporate Center and north of the Montefino
condominiums.
Marc Blodgett, the City's consultant, gave a brief
overview of the information requested by the
Commission, as presented in the staff report. The
following is a summary of his report:
f ---
rr 141h 'N'Hl1 L' -w 1,6-014, -
April 12, 1993age'5
Medical Waste Spills - The representative of the
Los Angeles County Health Hazardous Materials Unit
indicated that medical waste was categorized as a
hazardous material, however, they did not
anticipate any problem unique to this facility.
All carriers of medical waste must be licensed by
appropriate agencies, and that the Diamond Bar
Medical representatives would be permitted to
assist in any cleanup as long as they were
appropriately trained and certified.
Analyzation of the Air Quality Impact compared to
the SEAQMD - Calculations for the trip generation
emissions indicate that the proposed medical
complex would generate, in phase I, less emissions
than the existing SEAQMD facility, and at buildout,
they would be roughly comparable.
Helicopter Usage - hospital facilities identified
in the EIR were contacted regarding_ helicopter
usage, as indicated in the memorandum dated March
19, 1993. The three facilities with the most
helipad usage was Pomona Valley Medical Center,
; with 14-15 landings per year at Brackett field in
La Verne, and Whittier Presbyterian Hospital, with
14-15 landings per year at their own FAA approved
helipad. The Foothill Presbyterian Hospital had
possibly 60 landings recorded in one year, but that
information will be checked.
The Secondary Access - To determine how much
benefit would be realized with the secondary access
on Golden Springs Road, Marc Blodgett referred to
the exhibits, provided in the staff report, which
was taken out of the DEIR: The Trip Assignment
Percentages - a gravity model that indicated that
10% of the trips will use Golden Springs east-
bound; Phase 1 Project Trip Assignment - indicated
that the 6 p.m. peak hour & the 6 peak hour trips
will be able to avoid the Golden Springs/Grand
Avenue intersection with the secondary access;
Phase 2 Project Trip Assignment - indicated that 18
p.m. peak hour & 18 a.m. peak hour trips can avoid
the Golden Springs/Grand Avenue intersection with
the secondary access road; and Phase 3 Project Trip
Assignment - indicated that 36 p.m. peak hour & 35
a.m. peak hour trips can avoid the Golden
Springs/Grand Avenue intersection with the
secondary access. It is felt that the secondary
access would be warranted in the third phase.
In response to VC/Meyer, Marc Blodgett explained
that the same generation factors were used for the
medical complex as was used for the SEAQMD
April 12, 1993
Page 6
headquarters, therefore, if there is an error, it
is erred on the high side.
ICE/Wentz, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, stated
that the traffic generations appear appropriate for
the methodologyused, however, he would conclude
that ultimately the secondary access would still
prove beneficial.
VC/Meyer expressed his concern that there appears
to be a mixing and matching of the conditions, or
that the CUP is being wrapped around the
development review package. He then inquired what
kind of assurances the City will provide to assure
that the secondary access would be put in when it
is determined that it is needed.
AP/Searcy explained that the application is a
conceptual approval for the land use and the future
development of a three phase project over a 20 year
period. Staff has sought to approve the land use,
to mitigate the impacts of the land use, and to
condition the future development to give it
parameters by which the development review
application, required for each phase, must apply
with. The CUP conditions set the foundation, and
ur
the Development Review application bring that
review into various specific areas that can be
addressed. The CUP condition of approval will not
constrain the Commission from addressing any part
of this ensuing development process.
DCA/Fox, in regards to the secondary access road,
explained that condition #16 provides for future
Commission development review prior to issuance of
building permits.
C/Grothe, in response to Chair/ Flamenbaum Is inquiry
regarding the requirements for cable facilities,
explained that off site improvements to the
property are typically required so that future
cable improvements can be accomplished without
tearing up the streets.
ICE/Wentz, in response to C/Plunk, stated that if
an adjoining property's development affected the
need for the secondary access road sooner than
anticipated, then that development would be
required to put in that access, and if another
phase of this project came in, then it would be
required to participate in their proportionate
share.
April 12, 1993 Page 7
p .
AP/Searcy reviewed the following revisions to the
conditions: page 10, condition 136 has been
amended to indicate that the developer shall
contribute a predetermined prorata share toward the
design and installation of traffic signal; and add
a sentence to condition #37 to read, "Applicants
prorata share may be decreased based upon future
development at the discretion of the City
Engineer".
ICE/Wentz, in response to C/Grothe's concern,
explained that the intent of the additional
sentence to condition #37 is to provide for an
opportunity to recalculate the applicant's prorata
share towards the cost of the signal in the event
that another development comes in that will also
use that intersection. This provides an
opportunity for the medical facility to recoup some
of their costs.
C/Plunk suggested that the second sentence added to
condition #37 be amended to indicate
"recalculated", replacing the word "decrease".
AP/Searcy continued with his review of the
p revisions made to the conditions: amend condition
141 to read, "When access is provided to Golden
Springs Road, the applicant shall provide cash or
bonds as a condition of approval of the development
review application $120,000 dollars towards
construction and installation of a traffic signal
on Golden Springs Drive"; condition #43 has been
amended to read, "The applicant shall contribute a
predetermined prorata share towards the street
overlay of Grand Ave. and Golden Springs in the
amount of $25,000.11; and amend condition #52 to
read, "If any required public improvements have not
been completed by the developer and accepted by the
City prior to final approval, the developer shall
enter into improvement agreement with the City and
shall post the appropriate security in an amount
specified by the City Engineer.". In response to
VC/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated that staff will add the
verbiage to adequately spell out that it is
referring to Phase I only.
ICE/Wentz recommended that a sentence also be added
to condition 141, similar to condition #37,
allowing a provision for a reduction in their
participation, or a recalculation, shall other
developments come in at that location so that they
would also participate in that signal.
April 12, 1993
Page 8
Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
I'
The meeting was reconvened at 8:55 p.m.
Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing
opened.
Nancy Jankowski, a resident of the Montefino
Townhomes, expressed her concern with the increase
in traffic on Grand Ave. resulting from this
medical plaza.
Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 peaceful
Hills, also expressed her concern with the increase
in traffic in an area that already has intolerable
traffic conditions.
Max Maxwell suggested that the traffic issue first
be solved on Grand Avenue before this project moves
forward.
Richard Jankowski indicated that he feels that the
location is inappropriate for such a development.
Norman Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful
Hills, concurred that the traffic problem should t���
first be mitigated before proceeding with further ice_
development.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum
declared the Public Hearing closed.
Deborah Nicholas, from Inter Community Health
Services, in response to VC/Meyer, stated that they
understand, and are in concurrence with, all the
conditions of approval, including the modifications
presented by staff. She indicated that they would
not object to adding a condition of approval that
hospital personnel shall be properly trained in
order to participate in the cleanup of hazardous
waste.
C/Grothe requested that item #16 be amended to
specify that the applicant must, prior to each
phase, obtain development review prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that condition #16 be split
such that condition #16 would read "All other phase
I project characteristics shall be as represented
on the conceptual plan presented before the
i
Planning Commission and marked as exhibit "B", and
new condition 177 would read, "The applicant must
apply for and obtain Development Review approval
April 12, 1993
Page 9'
from the Planning Commission prior to issuance of
building permits for any development phase."
C/Grothe, referring to condition #20c, expressed
his objection to compact parking stalls.
CDD/DeStefano stated that it is staff's
recommendation that compact parking stalls be
incorporated when dealing with land uses that have
generally all day parkers, such as in this
application.
DCA/Fox suggested that, if it is the intent of the
Commission to revisit this item, and to not set a
maximum at this time, then condition 120c should be
modified or deleted.
VC/Meyer suggested that condition #20c be modified
to indicate that compact parking stalls 81.x16' may
be provided at a maximum not to exceed 30% of the
total with 70% standard 91x19' spaces, and adding
that the City reserves the right to review the
number of compact spaces at time of development.
The Commission concurred.
Chair/Flamenbaum requested that there be a
provision requiring the applicant to maintain and
reconstruct those hillsides on their property.
Deborah Nicholas indicated that it is their intent
to continue monitoring the hillside as needed.
ICE/Wentz, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's
concern regarding enforcement of condition #40,
stated that the wording, as presented, does give
the City the option, at the time phase I is
reviewed by the Planning Commission, to put some
conditions on any improvement that takes place to
assure that the City's interests are met.
Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to recommend adoption of
the Resolution, as amended by staff and the
Commission.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Plunk, Grothe,
V C/ M e y e r, a n d
Chair/Flamenbaum.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
{
April 12, 1993 Page 10
Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 9:45 p.m.
CUP 93-2 AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the
Calvary Chapel request by Calvary Chapel/Hidden Manna, for
approval to establish a church sanctuary in an
existing two floor office building located at 22324
Golden Springs Drive. Additionally, the applicant
is requesting the following appurtenant uses: a
recording studio, day care facility, and assembly
rooms. The occupancy is proposed for a maximum of
1,800. Parking provided for the project site
totals 700. The site is served by three (3) points
of ingress and egress to Golden Springs and one to
Grand Avenue. In a traffic report prepared for and
reviewed by the City, impacts to each of these
points of access was identified as a concern and
mitigation measures were identified to reduce these
impacts. The applicant is additionally proposing a
31x 8' freestanding sign. The 6' freestanding sign
is in compliance with the sign code and displays
the "Future Home" of Calvary Chapel. The subject
site is located in Zone C -M. It is recommended
that the Commission adopt the draft Resolution of
Approval with findings and facts and conditions of
approval. AP/Searcy then reviewed the conditions
of approval that have been amended: condition 114
now reads, "The applicant shall contribute a
predetermined prorata share of $10,000 dollars for
the installation of a traffic signal approach and
entrance improvements at the Medical Plaza's
entrance designated as entrance #l."; condition #16
now reads, "The applicant shall provide access to
Golden Springs Drive, shall enter into a reciprocal
access agreement with adjacent land owners as
necessary, and shall participate in the
construction and access road per City standards to
Golden Springs Drive via the property by the
property owner which is the subject of CUP 91-1 at
such time the property owner is required to provide
such access."; and amend the dates from March 12,
1993 to April 12, 1993 as indicated on page 7.
ICE/Wentz, in response to C/Grothe, stated that
item #20 can be amended to indicate that a sign
will be installed prohibiting left turns during the
peak hours of Monday - Friday.
VC/Meyer suggested that the applicant also be
required to provide a 25 foot wide dedication so as
to be consistent with the 25 foot dedication
requested from the adjacent property along Grand
Avenue. He then inquired why a focused
environmental impact report was not required for
_u..11 1 1 1 1- 1. -1 1 -11� r�1111 I I , V" -1 , : , - � 7, �M,, , t : " � 'i " 4 � ", � 74, �] � �� �, , , �k rl�
r
April 12, 1993 P44e 11
this -project since it has similar traffic
generating capacities as the project previously
before the Commission.
AP/Searcy explained that because of the time frame
that this project will peak, the impact on the
traffic will not be significant. The nursery
facility to be provided are related to the church
services, and are not proposed on a daily basis.
The condition will be amended to indicate that the
applicant will not be providing a full service day
care.
Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing
opened.
Tom Matlock, of Matlock Associates 4405 E. Airport
Ste. 106, Ontario, the architect for the church
project, stated that they are in concurrence with
the conditions presented. He inquired if the
$10,000 prorata fee, as indicated in condition 114,
would be paid when they receive beneficial use of
that intersection. At this point in the
development of our plans, we have no access to that
intersection.
ICE/Wentz explained that it is normally required
that the applicant pay for the cost of improvements
at the time those improvements are made. Since
these are already in, the applicant would be asked
to provide a reimbursement for their proportionate
share at the time, that the use is anticipated.
staff would have to review the agreement with
Diamond Bar Associates as far as reimbursement to
determine if there is any time commitments or time
restrictions in that agreement before determining
when the fee should be paid.
Tom Matlock, in response to VC/Meyer's inquiries,
stated that, at this time, it is not their intent
to provide a preschool/day care operation. In
regards to the proposed combination access out to
Grand Ave. and Golden Springs, it was felt that it
would be too difficult to address the issue at this
time because of the topography of the two sites and
because it has not yet been determined, at this
date, what the physical site will actually look
like. He indicated that he has not yet contacted
the medical facility to discuss the location of a
proposed access road.
VC/Meyer, surprised to hear that the architect has
not been aware of the discussion regarding a
proposed combination access, suggested that the
April 12, 1993
Page 12
"
architect, and the hospital architect, do some N u
preliminary site analysis to determine if the road-
would
oad-would be feasible.
C/Grothe suggested that the applicant reconsider
using plywood and paint for the temporary sign in
case the permanent signage program is not
implemented on time.
Tom Matlock, in response to C/flunk's inquiry,
stated that any remodeling done will be inside of
the building as tenant improvement, and there will
be no additional grading to the property.
CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Plonk's inquiry,
explained that because the projects peak use hours
are at the non peak traffic hours, staff felt that
it did not warrant the requirements for an EIR.
Staff felt that a negative declaration, with
conditions, was sufficient to deal with the traffic
impacts generated by this project. Staff also felt
that this project was not exceeding any thresholds
on air quality.
Bernie Grant, representing Calvary Chapel, made the
following comments: they will pay the City the
$10,000 fee when asked; they have met with the
hospital personnel regarding the access road and
various access points were considered; maximum use
will be on Sundays; there is a women's group, of
200, meeting on Tuesday morning; a bible study is
held Wednesday night; 1,800 people will be an
average size service; and they plan on holding 3
services on Sundays.
Rick Sehagen, a resident, in support of the
project, confirmed that the traffic activity is
mostly off hours.
Freddie Lavano, residing at 23659 Golden Springs,
in support of the project, stated that the church
is not a 24 hour operation like the medical
facility. Traffic is not a real issue because the
activity is off hours.
Joe Vallierno, a resident, pointed out that the
church has been abiding by every wish of the City
for the last two years. The church has held events
on that site in which no problems occurred as a
result. The hours of services are during off peak
traffic hours.
Steve Martinez; a resident, stated that Diamond Bar
has provided for his physical needs and he would
I - 1 11 1 1__ _ _.:.. I _ : . ,,..�,. � . uSt.. k L. > , 1 .1 .1 i w;I.a,I,R� . i_ ek �� �±� ���,.wu' 'fin V!,u<&A
r- ,
.1111-ws41,Adhkk-W.�".Il.-.__-
April 12, 1993 Pag'b 13
like for the City to provide for his spiritual
needs as well.
Raphael Carrera, residing at 745 Panhandle, in
support of the project, stated that the church has
a lot to contribute to Diamond Bar.
Bill Tinsmen, residing at 1014 Capen, stated that
he does not feel there is a need for an EIR because
it is not the same type of traffic situation as a
medical center or a commercial development. He
would prefer a church over a commercial
development.
Richard Sieves, residing at 354 Prospectors,
expressed his support for the project.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum
declared the Public Hearing closed.
C/Plunk indicated that, because there is change of
the use, she would prefer a traffic study. She
then expressed her concern regarding the mechanism
by which the overflow parking would be implemented.
AP/Searcy, in response to Chair Flamenbaum, stated
that a traffic analysis was prepared in October of
1992 for a temporary use permit project for a 2,000
occupancy tent that was located in the area now
designated as the future overflow parking area.
C/Grothe suggested that staff address all concerns
now because there is no on going generation of
revenue from this piece of property to pay for
services in the City.
C/Li stated that, since a traffic analysis was
completed in October of 1992, at a worse case
scenario of 2,000 people, another traffic study is
not warranted.
VC/Meyer expressed his concern that the corner of
Grand Ave. is being incrementally developed in an
area that has the potential for creating a
disastrous gridlock situation. Many churches look
at business opportunities because they need to
generate revenue to maintain and expand their
i facilities. The City needs to protect resources
already pretty well maximized.
�nnw -
C/Plunk suggested that the item be continued to the
next meeting to allow further time to review the
April12, 1993
Page' 14
traffic study,
and for staff to address the u
overflow parking.situation.
C/Grothe stated that, since this project is only an
interior 'improvement, and not the development of
any new portion of that site, he does not feel that
a specific plan for the entire site is necessary at
this time.
Chair/Flamenbaum inquired what safeguards are in
place to assurer that the applicant will note
maximize the use of the church facility if_the CUP
is approved as amended by staff.,
.AP/Searcy stated that the:site plan, which will be
indicated in condition #3 to be also the floor
plan, will be expanded to provide the provisional
schedule of activities. It was staff's intent -to
have the applicant specifically call out the hours
of operation by use -on this application to make it
evident on the floor plan and site plan approved by
the Commission, and to. 'lock them into those hours.
CDD/DeStefano stated that the analysis and -the
ultimate decision; in terms of an approval, is
based upon the application before the City: The
issue of increasing the use beyond what has been
applied for is a code enforcement issue. Condition -
#3 could be utilized by expanding the language to
include the usage of the facility, the hours of
Operation- the schedule- of activities,, and so
forth.
AP/Searcy; in response to C/Plunk's concern
regarding overflow parking, stated uthat an
amendment could be included that would reflect the
reevaluation of the use of sheriffs deputies for
traffic control,. -to be utilized based upon the
review and the evaluation of the City Engineer.
-Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Plunk
to direct staff to draft the Resolution of Approval.
with the modifications discussed this evening,- to
be placed on the -Consent Calendar for the next
Commission meeting.--
vC/Meyer pointed out that the secondary access road
to the medical facility will be nonfunctional
without the participation of this property.
Discussion has been on the function ofthe facility
•and the proposed use, but there has been no review
of the site to determine if the reciprocal access-'
road to Golden springs is economically and
April 12, 1993
Page 15
physically feasible. The issues of public interest
are not being adequately addressed.
ICE/Wentz stated that the conditions have indicated
that both the medical facility and the church are
responsible to construct the access road at the
time that the City deems it to be appropriate. The
language in the condition is such that it does not
make the construction mandatory if for some reason
it is not engineering wise feasible to construct
the access road.
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the matter be
continued for two weeks, requesting the applicant
to discuss the road location with the medical
facility architect.
CDD/DeStefano stated that the concept of an access
road from the medical facility site to Golden
Springs, and the need for a master plan with both
land use as well as circulation patterns, is not a
new discussion. The problem at hand is a timing
problem because it is not known what will occur at
the subject corner.
DCA/Fax, in response to C/Plunk, stated that it is
felt that the appropriate safeguards were included
to insure the obligation on the part of the church
to construct a road. The Commission could require
the applicant to enter into a reciprocal access
agreement "prior to commencement of the use, rather
than "as necessary", to assure that the property
owners are in agreement. However, the problem of
where the actually building footprint would be,
would still exist.
A substitute Motion was made by VC/Meyer and
seconded by Chair Flamenbaum to request that
preliminary feasibility studies be presented to the
Planning commission -prior to voting on a CUP.
Tom Matlock, in response to VC/Meyer, indicated
that such a study would be virtually impossible
because at this time it is not known what is to be
developed on this site. He requested that this
issue be set aside from this CUP and be put into a
future development agreement.
C/Li suggested that the applicant present four or
five alternatives that could possibly occur on the
site so that the Commission can get a better
picture.
April 12, 1993 Page 16
VC/Meyer stated that even though ,the application is
for an interior improvement, there is a change of
use. This is an opportunity to inexpensively look
at the options available for an intersection that
is presently unsatisfactory.
The Commission voted upon VC/Meyer's substitute
motion', as seconded by Chair/ Flamenbaum; to request
that preliminary feasibility studies be presented
to the' Planning Commission prior to voting on a
CUP.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: V C/ M e y e r a n d
Chair/Flamenbaum.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe and Plunk.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Li.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
The Substitute Motion FAILED.
The Commission voted upon C/Grothe's Motion, as
seconded by C/Plunk, to direct staff to draft the
Resolution of Approval with the modifications
discussed this evening, to be placed on the Consent'"
Calendar for the next Commission meeting.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Plunk, Li,
V C/ M e y e r, a n d
Chair/Flamenbaum.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
The Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Variance 93-1 CBD/DeStefano reported that Variance No. 93-1 and
Oak Tree Permit Oak Tree Permit No. -93-1 is for four specific `
93-1 properties located in "The Country". The project
is before the Commission as a result ,of code
enforcement activities specifically at the property
identified as owned by Jake Williams at 22840
Ridgeline Road. It is staff's recommendation that
the project be continued to April 26, 1993.
The Commission concurred to, continue the item to
the meeting of May 10, 1993 and to reserve the
meeting of April 26, 1993 for discussion of the
South Pointe Master Plan.
Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to
the meeting of May 10, 1993.
�i
I J iIIV,�iiP �!lll.''II"rll IIniP°'•
April 12, 1993 Page 17
INFORMATIONAL -CDD/DeStefano reported that, in the process to
ITEMS: revise the General Plan, the City will hold
Community workshops April 21 & 24, 1993 for the
purpose of introducing the General Plan revision
process, and April 28 & May 1, 1993 for discussion
of policy options. The City Council public hearing
process is scheduled for May 12, 19, & 26, 1993.
The City Council has indicated that they will be
inviting the Planning Commission to participate in
those public hearings revising the General Plan.
The firms of Cotton/Beland Associates, and MIG have
been retained to assist the City with this process.
CDD/DeStefano then reported that staff has received
an appeal from the applicant of the Carls Jr.
project in regards to some of the conditions that
require off site parking. The appeal should be
before the City Council about the middle of May of
1993. CDD/DeStefano also reported that the City
Council approved the Crowley project, utilizing a
site plan alternative previously rejected by the
Planning Commission.
COMMISSION VC/Meyer,i referring to page 5 of the draft
COMMENTS: Ordinance attempting to control graffiti, pointed
out that the approach used could make a victim of
graffiti guilty of the crime punishable by 6 months
in jail or a $500.000 fine.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
11:50 p.m to April 26, 1993 at 6:00 p.m.
Respectively,
Jame DeStefano
Secretary
Atte
Bruce Flamenbaum
Chairman
'LEDGE
DD/DeStefano stated that the proposed Master Plan
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 12, 1993
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality
Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
Burgess as Planning Commissioner.
ROLL CALL: commissioners: Grothe, Plunk, Li, Vice Chairman Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1project is located on 171 acre area bounded
Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Planning
Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, Interim City Engineer
George Wentz, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers.
enerally by property located north of Pathfinder,
CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Plunk requested the Minutes of March 22, 1993 be amended on page 10 to indicate
"..and according to
Minutes of the gentlemen from the Whittier Conservancy, it Mar. 22, 1993 took...
eneral Plan kest of Brea Canyon Road, south of Rapid View and
VC/Meyer indicated that he has read the minutes, istened to the tapes of the
subject meeting, and is prepared to vote on the minutes.
South Pointe Middle School, and east of Morning
C/Li will be abstaining from voting on the minutes because he was not in
attendance at the subject meeting.
A 92-1, 2, and 3; un. The project was continued from the March 22,
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED to approve
the Minutes of March 22, 1993, as amended. C/Li abstained.
esting TT Map 11993 meeting. The applicants representative, Jan
CONTINUED
51407, CUP 92-8 & abney, has requested, via a letter dated March 30,
JT 92-8; ZC 91-2 & 11993, that the public hearing be continued again in
JT 91-2; TT Map 1prder to allow more time for reviewl refinement,
1253 & CUP 92-12; 3nd negotiation of the Development Agreements
T 92-9; SP Master etween the City and the applicants, and to further
Ian; & EIR 92-1 Dxamine the final staff recommendations being
re ared, and that consideration be given to a
ecial meeting on April 19, 1993.
Followin discussion, the Plannin commission
oncurred to continue the item to the regular
Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 1993 at
April 12, 1993 Page 2
6:00 p -.m.. The requested date of-Ai3ril 19, 1993 was in conflict with the
schedules of some of the Commissioners. The Master Plan project 'is to be
placed first on the agenda, and if all other items cannot be heard that evening,
then, the meeting will be continued to April 29, 1993.
Jan Dabney, representing the applicants, stated that April 26, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. is
acceptable.
Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened.
Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig, indicated that a continuance to April 26,
1993 appears to be acceptable to audience members.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing
closed and continued. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the meeting to April 26, 1993 at 6:00
p.m.
Variance 92-3 PT/Lungu presented, the staff report regarding & Planned Sign Planned Sign Program 92-2
and Variance 92-3. The Program 92-2 applicant has submitted a revised Planned Sign
Program dated March 24, 1993 which included minor language changes to
accommodate the Diamond Bar Improvement Association and 'the deletion of
specific details of the proposed six monument signs. If this project is approved, it
is staffs opinion that the applicant should submit a revised written Planned Sign
Program which includes specific details of the proposed six monument signs. 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 and Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached
resolutions.
Chair/ Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened.
Connie Nicholas, owner of BCN Lighting & Sign Company, representing the applicant, requested that
the Resolution be amended, on page 4, to indicate "signs currently without valid permit", replacing
"not part of this approval", and that signs without current valid permits be removed by the applicant
within 60 days. The applicant would also like the City to provide him with a list of those signs, as
Ap:ril 12, 1993 Page —3
well as provide an opportunity for the tenants to secure their original permits.
CDD/DeStef ano indicated that the City can provide such a list 'as part of the
review already undertaken for this project. The applicant would have to pay a
processing f ee if any additional work needed.
Hearing no further testimony, the Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Grothe, referring to items (f), (g), and (h) on page 3, pointed out that there has
not been sufficient evidence that indicates that there are special circumstances
explicable to this property that would warrant a variance. If the Sign ordinance is
wrong, then it should be appropriately amended. Approving this project because
these signs are better than the existing signs is not grounds for a variance
VC/Meyer stated that even though he would support
C/Grothe's suggestion to revisit the sign ordinance, the City has a responsibility
to expeditiously review these applications. It would be a disservice to the
applicant to revisit the Sign ordinance at this late date in his application. He
suggested that the commission first deal with the applicant's request, then set up
a proactive review of the Sign Ordinance.
Motion was made by C/Grothe to deny Planned Sign Program No. 92-2 and
Variance No. 92-3.
The Motion died for lack of a second.
C/Plunk expressed her concern that an undue hardship may be created for those
businesses with non conforming signs because they may not be able to
economically afford to change their sign at this time.
PT/Lungu explained that staff will work with businesses to allow them time to
change their signs
CDD/DeStefano recommended that the word "monument", on page 4, condition
5 (e) , page 4 of the drat t Resolution, and 5(g) of the Sign Plan approval, be
replaced to "non -permitted".
DCA/Fox, concerned with page 5, condition (i), inquired, of the applicant, if the
variance is granted, would it be their intent to implement the
-7-7 : — - 7-1 -_ = —
April 12, 1993 Page 4
terms of, or the privileges granted by, the
variance.
Connie Nicholas stated that the applicant has indicated that he is in agreement
with all of the conditions as stated, with the exception of the change indicated
earlier. It is the intent of the applicant to implement the variance, if granted.
C/Li requested that -the Resolution be amended on page 3, item 4, to properly
alphabetize the subitems.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED to adopt the
Resolution for Variance 92-3.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: Li, Plunk, and VC/Meyer. G rot he and
COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: Chair/Flamenbaum. None.
COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Motion was made None. seconded by C/Li, and Resolution
by VC/Meyer, conditionally Sign Program 92-2, as Li,
Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Fla-
CARRIED to approve the approving menbaum. Grothe.
the Planned amended.
ROLL CALL: None. None.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
DR & CUP 91-1 AP/Searcy reported that staff received the and EIR 91-4 additional information from the
applicant, pursuant
to the Commission request, and has- prepared Resolutions and conditions of
approval, and Statements of Overriding consideration for CUP 911, DR 91-1 and
EIR 91-4, an application for an approximately 425,000 square foot, three phase,
medical complex, known as Diamond Bar Medical Plaza, generally located west of
Grand Avenue, south of Golden Springs Drive, east of Gateway Corporate Center
and north of the Montefino condominiums.
Marc Blodgett, the City's consultant, gave a brief overview of the information
requested by the Commission, -as presented in the staff report. The following is a
summary of his report:
April 12, 1993
Medical Waste Spills The representative of the Los Angeles County
Health Hazardous Materials Unit indicated that medical waste was
categorized as a hazardous material, however, they did not c
anticipate any problem unique to this facility. All carriers of medical
waste must be licensed by appropriate agencies, and that the
Diamond Bar Medical representatives would be permitted to assist
in any cleanup as long as they were appropriately trained and
certified.
Analyzation of the Air Quality Impact compared to the SEAQMD -
Calculations for the.trip generation emissions indicate that the
proposed medical complex would generate, in phase I, less
emissions than the existing SEAQMD facility, and at buildout, they
would be roughly comparable.
Helicopter Usage - Hospital facilities identified in the EIR were
contacted regarding helicopter usage, as indicated in the
memorandum dated March 19, 1993. The three facilities with the
most helipad usage was Pomona Valley Medical Center, with 14-15
landings per year at Brackett field in La Verne, and Whittier
Presbyterian Hospital, with 14-15 landings per year at their own
FAA approved helipad. The Foothill Presbyterian Hospital had
possibly 60 landings recorded in one year, but that information will
be checked.
The Secondary Access - To determine how much benefit would be
realized with the secondary access on Golden Springs Road, Marc
Blodgett referred to the exhibits, provided in the staff report, which
was taken out of the DEIR: The Trip Assignment Percentages - a
gravity model that indicated that 10% of the trips will use Golden
Springs eastbound; Phase 1 Project Trip Assignment - indicated
that the 6 p.m. peak hour & the 6 peak hour trips will be able to
avoid the Golden Springs/Grand Avenue intersection with the
secondary access; Phase 2 Project Trip Assignment - indicated that
18 p.m. peak hour & 18 a.m. peak hour trips can avoid the Golden
Springs/Grand Avenue intersection with the secondary access road;
and Phase 3 Project Trip Assignment - indicated that 36 p.m. peak
hour & 35 a.m. peak hour trips can avoid the Golden Springs/Grand
Avenue intersection with the secondary access. It is f elt that the
secondary access would be warranted in the third phase.
In response to VC/Meyer, Marc Blodgett explained that the same
generation factors were used for the medical complex as was used
April 12, 1993 Page 6
headquarters, therefore, if there is an error, it is erred an the high side.
ICE/Wentz, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, stated that the traf f is generations
appear appropriate for the methodology used, however, he would conclude that
ultimately the secondary access would still prove beneficial. ,
VC/Meyer expressed his concern that there appears to be a mixing and matching
of the conditions, or that the CUP is being wrapped around the development
review package. He then inquired what kind of assurances the City will provide to
assure that the secondary access would be put in when it is determined that it is
needed.
AP/Searcy explained that the application is a conceptual approval for the land use
and the future development of a three phase project over a 20 year period. Staff
has sought to approve the land use, to mitigate the impacts of the land use, and
to condition the future development to give it parameters by, which the
development review application, required for each phase, must apply with. The
CUP conditions set the foundation, and the Development Review application
bring that review into various specific areas that can be addressed. The CUP
condition of approval will not constrain the Commission from addressing any part
of this ensuing development process.
DCA/Fox, in regards to the secondary access road, explained that condition #16
provides for future commission development review prior to issuance of building
permits.
C/Grothe, in response to Chair/ Flamenbaum Is inquiry regarding the
requirements for cable facilities, explained that off site improvements to the
property are typically required so that future cable improvements can be
accomplished without tearing up the streets.
ICE/Wentz, in response to C/Plunk, stated that if an adjoining property's development affected the
need for the secondary access road sooner than anticipated, then that development would be
required to put in that access, and if another phase of this project came in, then it would be required
to participate in their proportionate share.
April 12, 1993 Page 7
AP/Searcy reviewed the following revisions to the conditions: page 10, condition
#36 has been amended to indicate that the developer shall contribute a
predetermined prorata share toward the design and installation of traffic signal;
and add a sentence to condition #37 to read, "Applicants prorata share may be
decreased based upon future development at the discretion of the City
Engineer".
ICE/Wentz, in response to C/Grothe's concern, explained that the intent of the
additional sentence to condition #37 is to provide for an opportunity to recalculate
the applicant's prorata share towards the cost of the signal in the event that
another development comes in that will also use that intersection. This provides
an opportunity for the medical facility to recoup some of their costs.
C/Plunk suggested that the second sentence added to condition #37 be
amended to indicate "recalculated", replacing the word "decrease".
AP/Searcy continued with his review of the revisions made to the conditions:
amend condition #41 to read, "When access is provided to Golden Springs Road,
the applicant shall provide cash or bonds as a condition of approval of the
development review application $120,000 dollars towards construction and
installation of a traffic signal on Golden Springs Drive"; condition #43 has been
amended to read! "The applicant shall contribute a predetermined prorata share
towards the street overlay of Grand Ave. and Golden Springs in the amount of
$25,000.11; and amend condition #52 to read, "If any required public
improvements have not been completed by the developer and accepted by the
City prior to final approval, the developer shall enter into improvement agreement
with the City and shall post the appropriate security in an amount specified by the
City Engineer.". In response to VC/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated that staff will add the
verbiage to adequately spell out that it is referring to Phase I only.
ICE/Wentz recommended that a sentence also be added to condition #41, similar
to condition #37, allowing a provision for a reduction in their participation, or a
recalculation, shall other developments come in at that location so that they
would also participate in that signal.
April 12, 1993 Page 8
Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:35 p.m. The meeting was
reconvened at 8:55 p.m.
- Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened.
Nancy Jankowski, a resident of the Montefino Townhomes, expressed her
concern with the increase in traffic on Grand Ave. resulting from this medical
plaza.
Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 peaceful Hills, also expressed her
concern with the increase in traffic in an area that already has intolerable traffic
conditions.
Max Maxwell suggested that the traffic issue first be solved on Grand Avenue
before this project moves forward.
Richard Jankowski indicated that he feels that the location is inappropriate for such a development.
Norman Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills, concurred that 'the
traffic problem should first be mitigated before proceeding with further
development.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing
closed. ,
Deborah Nicholas, from Inter Community Health Services, in response to
VC/Meyer, stated that they understand, and are in concurrence with, all the
conditions of approval, including the modifications presented by staff. She
indicated that they would not object to adding a condition of approval that hospital
personnel shall be properly trained in order to participate in the cleanup of
hazardous waste.
C/Grothe requested that item #16 be amended to specify that the applicant must,
prior to each phase, obtain development review prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that condition #16 be split such that condition #16
would read "All other phase I project characteristics shall be as represented on
the conceptual plan presented before the Planning Commission and marked as
exhibit "B", and new condition #77 would read? "The applicant must apply for and
obtain Development Review approval
April 12, 1993 Page 9
from the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits for any
development phase."
C/Grothe, referring to condition J20c, expressed his objection to compact parking
stalls.
CDD/DeStefano stated that it is staff's recommendation that compact parking
stalls be incorporated when dealing with land uses that have generally all day
parkers, such as in this application.
DCA/Fox suggested that, if it is the intent of the commission to revisit this item,
and to not set a maximum at this time, then condition 120c should be modified or
deleted.
VC/Meyer suggested that condition #20c be modified to indicate that compact
parking stalls 81.x161 may be provided at a maximum not to exceed 30% of the
total with 70% standard 91x191 spaces, and adding that the City reserves the
right to review the number of compact spaces at time of development. The
commission concurred.
Chair/Flamenbaum requested that there be a provision requiring the applicant to
maintain and reconstruct those hillsides on their property.
Deborah Nicholas indicated that it is their intent to continue monitoring the
hillside as needed.
ICE/Wentz, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's concern regarding enforcement
of condition #40, stated that the wording, as presented, does give the City the
option, at - the time phase I is reviewed by the Planning Commission, to put
some conditions on any improvement that takes place to assure that the City's
interests are met.
Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY to recommend adoption of the Resolution, as amended by staff
and the Commission.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: Li, Plunk, Grothe, V C/ M e y e r a n d
COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: Chair/Flamenbaum.
COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None. None. None.
COMMISSIONERS:
April 12, 1993 Page 10
Chair/Flamenbaun recessed the meeting at 9:35 p.m. The meeting was
reconvened at 9:45 p.m.
CUP 93-2 AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the Calvary Chapel request by Calvary
Chapel/Hidden Manna, for
approval to establish a church sanctuary in an existing two floor office building
located at 22324 Golden Springs Drive. Additionally, the applicant is requesting
the following appurtenant uses: a recording studio, day care facility, and
assembly rooms. The occupancy is proposed for a maximum of 1,800. Parking
provided for the project site totals 700. The site is served by three (3) points of
ingress and egress to Golden Springs and one to Grand Avenue. In a traf f is
report prepared for and reviewed by the City, impacts — to each of these points of
access was identified as a concern and mitigation measures were identified to
reduce these impacts. The applicant is additionally proposing a 31x 81
freestanding sign. The 61 freestanding sign is in compliance with the sign code
and displays the "Future Home" of Calvary Chapel. The subject site is located in
Zone C -M. It is recommended that the Commission adopt the draft Resolution of
Approval with findings and facts and conditions of approval. AP/Searcy then
reviewed the conditions of approval that have been amended: condition #14 now
reads, "The applicant shall contribute a predetermined prorata share of $10,000
dollars for the installation of a traffic signal approach and entrance improvements
at the Medical Plaza's entrance designated as entrance 11.11; condition #16 now
reads, "The applicant shall provide access to Golden Springs Drive, shall enter
into a reciprocal access agreement with adjacent land owners as necessary! and
shall participate in the construction and access road per City standards to Golden
Springs Drive via the property by the property owner which is the subject of CUP
91-1 at such time the property owner is required to provide such access."; and
amend the dates from March 12, 1993 to April 12, 1993 as indicated on page 7.
ICE/Wentz, in response to C/Grothe, stated that item #20 can be a -mended to
indicate that a sign will be installed prohibiting left turns during the peak hours of
Monday - Friday.
VC/Meyer suggested that the applicant also be required to provide a 25 foot wide
dedication so as to be consistent with the 25 foot dedication requested from the
adjacent property along Grand Avenue. He then inquired why a focused
environmental impact report was not required for
April 12, 1993 P44e 11
this -proj ect since it has similar traffic generating capacities as the project
previously before the Commission.
AP/Searcy explained that because that this project of the time frame impact on
will peak, the traffic will not be significant. facility to the
be provided are related services, and are not The nursery
proposed to the church on a
The condition will be amended to applicant will not daily basis.
be providing a care. indicate that the full service
day
Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened.
Tom Matlock, of Matlock Associates 4405 E. Airport Ste. 106, Ontario, the
architect for the church project, stated that they are in concurrence with the
conditions presented. He inquired if the $10,000 prorata fee, as indicated in
condition #14, would be paid when they receive beneficial use of that
intersection. At this point in the development of our plans, we have no access to
that intersection.
ICE/Wentz explained that it is that the applicant normally required cost of
pay for the at the time those improvements these improvements
are already in, the applicant to provide a are made. since would be
reimbursement for share at the time, that the use asked their proportionate
staff would have to review Diamond Bar is anticipated. the
Associates as far determine if there is any time agreement with as
restrictions in that agreement when the fee reimbursement to commitments
should be paid. or time
before determining
Tom Matlock, in response to VC/Meyer's inquiries, stated that, at this time, it is
not their intent to provide a preschool/day care operation. In regards to the
proposed combination access out to Grand Ave. and Golden Springs, it was felt
that it would be too difficult to address the issue at this time because of the
topography of the two sites and because it has not yet been determined, at this
datel what the physical site will actually look like. He indicated that he has not yet
contacted the medical facility to discuss the location of a proposed access road.
VC/Meyer, surprised to'hear that the architect has not been aware of the discussion
regarding a proposed combination access, suggested that the
April 12, 1993 Page 12
tated that any remodeling done will be inside of
architect, and the hospital architect, do some preliminary site analysis to determine if the
roadwould be feasible.
he building as tenant improvement, and there will
C/Grothe suggested that the applicant reconsider using plywood and paint for the
temporary sign in case the permanent signage program is not implemented on
time.
e no additional grading to the property.
Tom Matlock, in response to C/Plunk's inquiry,
DD/DeStefano, in response to C/Plunk's inquiry
x lained that because the projects peak use hours
re at the non peak traffic hours, staff felt that
t did not warrant the requirements for an EIR.
taff felt that a negative declaration, with
onditions, was sufficient to deal with the traffic
m acts generated by this project. Staff also felt
hat this project was not exceeding any thresholds
n air quality.
Bernie Grant, representing Calvary Chapel, made the
of lowing comments: they will pay the City the
10,000 fee when asked; they have met with the
os ital personnel regarding the access road and
various access points were considered; maximum use
ill be on Sundays; there is a women's group, of
00, meeting on Tuesday morning; a bible stud is
eld Wednesday night; 1,800 people will be an
vera e size service; and they plan on holding 3
ervices on Sundays.
Rick Sehagen, a resident, in support of the
project, confirmed that the traffic activity is
mostly off hours.
Freddie Lavano, residing at 23659 Golden Springs, in support of the project,
stated that the church is not a 24 hour operation like the medical facility. Traffic is
not a real issue because the activity is off hours.
Joe Vallierno, a resident, pointed out that the church has been abiding by every wish of the City for
the last two years. The church has held events on that site in which no problems occurred as a result.
The hours of services are during off peak traffic hours.
Steve Martinez a resident, stated that Diamond Bar has provided for his physical needs and he would
—Wftr,
•Anrii 12, 1993 P A C-1'6 13
like f or the City to provide- f or his spiritual needs as well.
Raphael Carrera, residing at 745 Panhandle, in support of the project, stated that
the church has a lot to contribute to Diamond Bar.
Bill Tinsmen, residing at 1014 Capen, stated that he does not feel there is a need
for an EIR because it is not the same type of traffic situation as a medical center
or a commercial development. He would prefer a church over a commercial
development.
Richard sieves, residing at 354 Prospectors, expressed his support for the
project.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing
closed.
C/Plunk indicated that, because there is change of the use, she would pref er a
traf f is study. She then expressed her concern regarding the mechanism by
which the overflow parking would be implemented. AP/Searcy, in response to
Chair Flamenbaum., stated that a traffic analysis was prepared in October of
1992 for a temporary use permit project for a 2,000 occupancy tent that was
located in the area now designated as the future overflow parking area.
C/Grothe suggested that staff address all concerns now because there is no on
going generation of revenue from this piece of property to pay for services in the
City. '
C/Li stated that, since completed in a traffic analysis was 1992, at a worse
October of scenario of 2,000 people, not case another traffic study is
warranted.
VC/Meyer expressed his concern that the corner of Grand Ave. is being
incrementally developed in an area 'that has the potential for creating a
disastrous gridlock situation. Many churches look at business opportunities
because they need to generate revenue to maintain and expand their facilities.
The City needs to protect resources already pretty well maximized.
C/Plunk suggested that the item be continued to the next meeting to allow further time to
review the
o' -address the
raffic study,. and'- for staft
verflow parking, situation.
Grothe stated that, since this project is only an
nterior improvement, and not the development of
my new portion of that site, he does not feel that
specific plan for the entire site is -necessary at
his,time.
hair/Flamenbaum inquired what safeguards- are in
lace to assure, that the applicant will not-
aximize the use of the church facility if.the CUP
is approved as amended by staff.-
'AP/Searcy stated that the, -s ite plan which will be-
ndicated, in' condition 43 to be also the f loor
Ian, will be expanded to provide the provisional
chedule of activities. It was staff'
intent -
:'o
ave the applicant specifically call out the hours
f operation by use on this application to make i
vident on the floor plan and site plan approved b
Commiss ion , and to. 'lock - em into those hours.-',:
he th
DD/DeStefano stated that the analysis and -the
(timate decision- in terms of an approval, is
ased upon the application before the City.' The
ssue of increasing the use beyond what has been
3pplied for is a code enforcement issue. condition
3 could be utilized by expanding the language to
nclude the usage of the facility, the hours of
eration-1 the schedule- of- activities„ and- so
orth.
P/Searc - in res onse' to C/Plunk's concern
'eciardina overflow parking, stated that an
mendment could he included that would reflect -the
eevaluation of the use of sheriffs deputies for
raffic control to be utilized based upon the
eview and the evaluation of the Ci 'En ineer.'
C/Plunk
Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded b
o direct staff to draft the Resolution of Approval.
ith the modifications discusse-d-this' evening, - to
e -placed on
he -Consent Calendar for the next
ommission meeting.-,
,oad
eetin .-
oad
C/Me er pointed out that—the secondary access-,
o the medical facility will be nonfunctional
ithout the participation of this property.
iscUssioh has been on the function of'the facility -
fie proposed use, but there has been no review!
Of the site to determine if the'reci rocal accesi--
oad' to Golden Springs is economical) and
FII— ,I—I
Of
April 12, 1993 Page 15
physically feasible. The issues of public interest are not being adequately
addressed.
ICE/Wentz stated that the conditions have indicated that both the medical facility
and the church are responsible to constriict the access road at the time that the
City deems it to be appropriate. The language in the condition is such that it does
not make the construction mandatory if for some reason it is not engineering wise
feasible to construct the access road.
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the matter be continued f or two weeks,
requesting the applicant to discuss the road location with the medical facility
architect.
CDD/DeStefano stated that the concept of an access road from the medical -
facility site to Golden Springs, and the need for a master plan with both land use
as well as circulation patterns, is not a new discussion. The problem at hand is a
timing problem because it is not known what will occur at the subject corner.
DCA/Fox, in response to C/Plunk, stated that it is felt that the appropriate
safeguards were included to insure the obligation on the part of the church to
construct a road. The Commission could require the applicant to enter into a
reciprocal access agreement "prior to commencement of the use, rather than "as
necessary", to assure that the property owners are in agreement. However, the
problem of where the actually building footprint would be, would still exist.
A substitute Motion was made by VC/Meyer and seconded by Chair Flamenbaum
to request that preliminary feasibility studies be presented to the Planning
commission-prior to voting on a CUP.
Tom Matlock, in response to VC/Meyer, indicated that such a study would be
virtually impossible because at this time it is not known what is to be developed
on this site. He requested that this issue be set.aside from this CUP and be put
into a future development agreement.
C/Li suggested that the applicant present four or five alternatives that could
possibly occur on the site so that the Commission can get a better picture.
April 12, 1993 Page 16
VC/Meyer stated that even though,the application is for an interior improvement„ there
is a change of use. This is an opportunity to inexpensively look at the options available
for an intersection that is presently unsatisfactory.
The commission voted upon VC/Meyer's substitute motion, as seconded by Chair/
Flamenbaum j to request that preliminary feasibility studies be presented to the,
Planning Commission prior to voting on a CUP.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: V C/ M e y e r a n d Chair/Flamenbaum.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe and Plunk.
ABSTAIR: COMMISSIONERS: Li. ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: None. The Substitute
Motion FAILED.
The Commission voted upon C/Grothe's Motion, as seconded by C/Plunk, to direct
staff to draft the Resolution of Approval with the modifications discussed this evening,
to be place 'd on the Consent Calendar for the next Commission meeting.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Plunk, Lit V C/ M e y e r, .a n d
Chair/Flamenbaum.
NOES-: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: None.
The Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Variance 93-1 CDD/DeStefano reported that Variance No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit Oak Tree Permit No. -
93-1 properties located in "The Country". The project is before the commission as a result of code enforcement
activities specifically at the property identified as owned by Jake Williams at 22840
Ridgeline Road. It is staffs recommendation that the project be continued to April
26, 1993.
The Commission concurred to, continue the item to the meeting of May 10, 1993
and to reserve the meeting of April 26, 1993 for discussion of the South Pointe
Master Plan.
Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue
the,matter to the meeting of May 10, 1993.
April 12, 1993 Page 17
INFORMATIONAL -CDD/DeStef ano reported that, in the process to ITEMS: revise the General Plan, the city will
hold
Community Workshops April 21 & 24, 1993 for the purpose of introducing the
General Plan revision process, and April 28 & May 1, 1993 for discussion of
policy options. The City Council public hearing process is scheduled for May 12,
19, & 26, 1993. The City Council has indicated that they will be inviting the
Planning Commission to participate in those public hearings revising the General
Plan. The f irms of Cotton/Beland Associates, and MIG have been retained to
assist the City with this process.
CDD/DeStefano then -reported that staff has received an appeal from the
applicant of the Carls Jr. project in regards to some of the conditions that require
of f site parking. The appeal should be before the Ci -ty Council about the middle
of May of 1993. CDD/DeStef ano also reported that the city Council approved the
Crowley project, utilizing a site plan alternative previously rejected by the
Planning commission.
COMMISSION VC/MeyerF, referring to page 5 of the draft COMMENTS: Ordinanc attempting to control graffiti,
pointed
,put that the approach used could make a victim of graf f iti guilty of the crime
punishable by 6 months in jail cr a $500.000 fine.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to
adjourn the meeting at 11:50 p. to April 26, 1993 at 6:00 p.m.
Respectively,
NV"
Jame eStefano Secretary Atte
Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman