Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/24/1994MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR r_ JANUARY 24, 1994 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Meyer, vice Chairman Plunk, Commissioners: Grothe and Li .Commissioner Flamenbaum arrived at 7:10 p.m. Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Assistant City Attorney John Harper, Building Official Dennis Tarango, and Recording Secretary Liz Myers, Absent: None MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS i Don Schad, a resident, inquired if the City had been notified of the project, now underway, located southwest of Brea Canyon Cut-off and the 57 freeway, which impacts the environment and existing views of local residents. He expressed concern that another project, located next to the Fire Station on the southeast corner of Pathfinder and Brea Canyon Cutoff, will impact existing Willow trees in the area because the pipeline has been tapped, thus losing the natural spring. CDD/DeStefano stated that the project located south of Brea Canyon Cut-off was approved by Los Angeles County approximately one year ago. The City of Diamond Bar, upon receiving notice, protested the project in terms of its environmental impact and traffic impact. He stated that staff will further investigate the status of that project, as well as the status of the project located at Pathfinder and Brea Canyon Cutoff, near the Fire Station. CDD/DeStefano introduced John Harper, of the firm Harper and Burns, serving as the Assistant City Attorney. CONSENT CALENDAR: r 1. Minutes of December 13, 1993 r January 24, 1994 Page 2 C/Li indicated that he will be abstaining from voting on the minutes because he was absent at that subject meeting. Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Grothe and carried to approve the minutes of December 13, 1993, as presented. C/Li abstained. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 2. Request by the Pomona Unified School District Finding Conformity with the Draft General Plan for Construction of the Diamond Ranch High School Pursuant to Section 21151.2 of the Public Resources Code CDD/DeStefano reported that the Pomona Unified School District (PUSD) has asked the Planning Commission to review its Diamond Ranch High School site for purposes of consistency with the General Plana He stated that Diamond Bar has supported the efforts of the District in the desire to develop a school for several years. Each version of the General Plan describes a clear commitment to development of a second high school within the Tres' Hermanos area. It is recommended that the Planning Commission take action, by minute motion, to direct staff to communicate, in writing, to the Pomona Unified School District the City's support of their continuous efforts to develop this high school project, and -that the Planning Commission find the proposed high school is consistent with the City's draft General Plan. Patrick Leier, the Assistant Superintendent of Business Service of the PUSD, displaying a graphic of the design plan for the proposed high school, presented a brief history of the long approval process undergone by the District in the last few years to build a high school, as well as the process of selecting the site. He stated that, through the efforts of several individuals, the City of Diamond Bar, the Redevelopment Agency, and the District, a decision was made to build the high school in the Tres Hermanos area; the final boundaries are yet to be determined. The District conducted an 'architectural competition for the best design plan, focusing their selection on the plan that had the best use of the site, and included the educational philosophy and mission in the design. He explained that one of the major issues of developing on the site is the complex set of soils problem; however, it has been determined, through extensive investigation, that the problems can be mitigated. A rough grading plan will be developed and it January 24, 1994 Page 3 is hoped that grading activity will commence in the very near future. Ed Walsh, the Administrative Director of Business Services of the PUSD, explained that one of the parameters set for the architectural competition was an interest in the Diamond Ranch High School to be highly used by the community, both interior and exterior, yet still maintain high security of campus equipment. The award winning design, presented before the Commission, has many features in place that seem to work, realizing of course that it still needs to be fine tuned. He then discussed the educational philosophy and guidelines of the program elements, and how it is incorporated into the design plan. Patrick Leier explained that Phase I of the construction of the high school will have a capacity of 1200 students, outlined in the Environmental Impact Report, which is the number determined by State formula for loading capacity. Beyond that number problems arise in regards to connecting roads from the west that is beyond the Districts capabilities to deal with at this time. Gary Andreas, the Civil Engineer with Andreas & Engineering, stated that their firm was asked to determine what impacts and problems could be solved both economically and environmentally on the site. Upon analyzing the drainage, hydrology, and the drainage pattern of the areas tributary to the freeway, it was determined that the campus could be developed by keeping those drainage patterns in place, and utilizing the existing facilities to deal with runoff. It was also determined that access to the site could be obtained off of Chino Hills Parkway, on the east side of the campus, bringing a meandering roadway into the main central theme of the campus into the parking facilities on the west side. He stated that the campus is stair -stepped in a manner to utilize the tremendous view from that site. He also stated that all utilities, except for water will be brought in from the east side of the campus. He explained that the first scheme -of the project is to detail how the site will be graded, determining the remedial grading that is necessary for construction. In response to a series of inquiries made by Chair/Meyer, Patrick Leier stated the following: the EIR has been certified; preliminary approval has been received from the State Department of Education; consideration has been given to discourage through traffic; access to the site will come from the east, and eventually from the west when the student population exceeds 1,200; the immediate concern is the ability to satisfy the requirements for January 24, 1994 Page 4 emergency vehicle access using a connector road from the west; Phase 'II would be contingent upon a connection from the west; and the purpose of this presentation is to comply with Section 211512.2 of the California Environmental Quality. Act (CEQA). In response to a series of inquires made by C/Flamenbaum, Patrick Leier stated the following: many Oak Trees are affected, but none will be destroyed; the design site in the EIR includes the school site and the road leading up to the school site (referred to as parcel "A" and parcel "B"); at'the conclusion of the grading, those slope areas will revert back to the City of Industry and the remaining areas will be the responsibility of the District to maintain; the road to the east from Chino Hills Parkway is located in the City of Diamond Bar; at this time, it has not been determined if the proposed design complies with Diamond Bar's Hillside Management Ordinance; at buildout, it is anticipated that there will be approximately 1,500 students, but there is sufficient land to house about 2,000 to 2,400 students; and, it was felt that it was more appropriate to begin the process for construction of the school, dealing with the problem of access from the west at a later time. C/Grothe suggested that much consideration be given to parking since many student will have to drive to school, and there are no City street surrounding the campus to accommodate overflow parking. He then inquired when the opening date is anticipated. Patrick Leier stated that, until grading activity commences, it is difficult to determine an opening date; however, one can estimate that the opening date may be around 1996-97, relative to the Board of Education making a determination on phasing. Gary Andreas, in response to VC/Plunk, explained that the detail grading design still needs to be completed, relative to the architect's elevations in his design. Patrick Leier, in response to VC/Plunk stated that the facility is approximately 121,000 square feet for a capacity of 1,200 students; however, the boundaries for the student population have not yet been determined. Chair/Meyer inquired of the purpose of the presentation by PUSD since the City has reviewed portions of the site with the Tres Hermanos Specific Plan and has been;, instrumental in the passage of SB1718, thus already complying with Section 21151.2 of CEQA. He pointed out that the Planning Commission is unable to find the -4-ti �.._�hIT Li January 24, 1994 Page 5 project consistent with the General Plan since *it was rescinded by the City Council in December of 1993. VC/Plunk suggested that the Planning Commission take a position of fully supporting the school, with the understanding that the Planning Commission is unable to find the project consistent with the General Plan due to existing circumstances regarding the document. C/Li suggested that the matter be carried over for 30 to 60 days to allow time for the revision of the General Plan and the reconfiguration of the Planning Commission. CDD/DeStefano concurred that the PUSD probably already has the needed answer in terms of the City's support for this project; however, the District staff is most likely assuring that all guidelines established by CEQA are met. He recommended that the Planning Commission take a minute action to direct staff to prepare a letter regarding the acquisition of this property, mentioning that the City does not have a current General Plan, but that all previous documents have expressed support and designation of the school at this location. Patrick Leier stated that a continuance would not be a problem, with the understanding outlined by CDD/DeStefano. C/Flamenbaum, noting that the District can proceed regardless of the Planning Commission's -finding, suggested that the Commission make no finding regarding consistency since there is no General Plan, Moved by C/Grothe, seconded by C/Li to direct staff to prepare a letter to the PUSD concerning the Planning Commission's investigation of the acquisition of this site in accordance to Section 21151.2 of"CEQA. Chair/Meyer opened the meeting and invited those wishing to speak to come forward. Council Member Papen encouraged the Planning Commission to move forward with the motion made.. She concurred that the PUSD should be requested to use land form grading techniques to maintain the views of the natural slopes along the freeway. Noting that final grading designs cannot be completed until the architectural design is complete, she inquired when the architectural and grading plans will be designed, and when a real groundbreaking could be anticipated. She also noted that the indicated occupancy date of 1997 is two years off from what was told to the City 90 days ago. She also inquired if the District has the available funds for the construction of i ' III II I!illlll' 1141'I January 24, 1994 Page 6 the building for the 1,200 students, as well as for the - furniture and equipment needed. Patrick Leier stated that the construction budget for the building for 1,200 students is estimated at $17 million, which is an amount that the District has available to them. It is anticipated that the next State bond election will be the source of money to complete the project; however, because of the situation in Los Angeles, there is no assurance of the Governors and the State legislatures position. He stated that PUSD clearly has the ability to move forward with the first phases for the 1,200 students. Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove Drive, stated that the residents involved with this project desire two western access roads: one from Deep Springs and one from Golden Springs. He requested the Planning Commission accept staff's recommendation as presented. There being no one else in the audience wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed the meeting and returned the matter back to the Commission for consideration. Chair/Meyer, noting the suggestions made by the audience, suggested that the motion be amended to incorporate the following: the project should comply with land form grading techniques in compliance with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance; and the District should continue to work with the City concerning compliance with the City's development standards in the development of the school. C/Flamenbaum inquired of the PUSD's obligation to'comply with City ordinances regarding hillside grading, and the alianment of the road to the west or the east. CDD/DeStefano stated that the District must comply with the City's grading standards, which would incorporate the aesthetics combined within the . hillside grading ordinance. He stated that, other than the EIR's description of offsite impacts, the District would probably not be required to comply with the specific standards the City might have with respect to the roadway construction. However, the district would need to respond by providing mitigation for the off site impacts. Moved by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Li to direct staff to prepare a report to the PUSD concerning the Planning Commission's investigation of the acquisition of this site in accordance to Section 21151.2 of CEQA; and request the District to comply with land form grading techniques in compliance with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance, and to continue to work with the ��,° �' i, �, �'C''�� a kd� '� �,.r�. �'°�,i, ai,. .1 fit; 'w 9�x 11� '�l� t11�';� N� a� �9 1 RIA _ _ January 24, 1994 Page 7 L -}•i City concerning compliance with the City's development standards in the development of the school. The Motion CARRIED 4-1 as follows: AYES: Grothe, Flamenbaum, VC/Plunk, and Chair/Meyer NOES: Li ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m. RECONVENED: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:32 p.m. C/Li explained that the reason he voted no on the motion regarding the Diamond Ranch High School was because he feels, since the District can proceed regardless off the Planning Commission's action, the matter could have been continued 30 days. He stated that he would also like to protect the City from being held responsible if a road is not built even though the student population exceeds 1,200. j CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 3. Development Review No. 93-1 & Conditional Use Permit No. 93-4 Property Location: 21671 E. Gateway Center Drive Applicant: Dr. Akbar Omar PT/Lungu reported that the applicant has submitted a grading plan to the City, which has been reviewed by the Engineering Department and Planning Division, that reflects changes to the proposed building and retaining wall. Staff has requested the applicant to submit a revised site plan, floor plan, and elevations reflecting the changes indicated in the grading plan, as well as a lighting plan and landscape/irrigation plan. It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to February 14, 1994. Chair/Meyer, noting that the City cannot make discretionary decisions with the absence of a General Plan, suggested that the matter either be tabled, or be continued to a date following the adoption of the General Plan. f" Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited those wishing to speak to come forward. There being no one in the audience wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer returned the matter back to the Commission for consideration. January 24, 1994 Page 8 Moved by C/Flamenbaum to continue the matter to the first regular Planning Commission meeting of June 1994. The motion died for lack of a second. CDD/DeStefano stated that the City has applied for an extension of time for the General Plan with the State Office of Planning and Research, which, if approved, would allow the City to process CUP's, Development Reviews, Variances, etc. that are consistent with the draft General Plan and the contemplated future General Plan. He suggested that, rather than continuing the project more than 30 to 45 days, staff would recommend that the item be tabled, allowing staff to work with the applicant, and renotice the project when it is ready for review. Moved by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to table Development Review No. 93-1 & Conditional Use Permit No. 93-4. 4. Zoning Code Amendment No. 93-3 - Property Maintenance Ordinance Applicant: The City of Diamond Bar Property Location: All property within the City limits of Diamond Bar CDD/DeStefano reported that the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the Property Maintenance Ordinance (PMO) on December 13, 1993, in order. for staff to further evaluate the PMO and compare the -draft provisions with Los Angeles County Code Chapter 99, Sections 9901-9934, which was previously a component of the City Code and was replaced in 1992 by the Uniform Housing Code (UHC) with the adoption of City Council Ordinance No. 3(1992). After reviewing each document, it is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission consider a "blended" approach of the PMO, Chapter 99, and the UHC into one document. C Flamenbaum noted that the recommendations made b the / Y Planning Commission at the December 13, 1993 meeting have not been incorporated into the PMO. He expressed concern that the Planning Commission is being presented with three different documents to consider, which was initially believed to have already been incorporated into the proposed ordinance first presented to the Commission. It appears that the Commission is moving backwards, not forwards in their review. C/Grothe concurred that the Planning Commission had directed staff to bring the ordinance back to. the Planning Commission in a final version. January 24, 1994 Page 9 C/Li concurred with C/Flamenbaum that the Planning Commission's direction was not incorporated into the document. VC/Plunk stated that the matrix presented by staff was quite useful in review of the document. However, she concurred that it is time to move forward. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing opened and invited those wishing to speak to come forward. Bob Zirbes, residing at 2141'Tierra Loma Drive, stated that he, too, had thought that the final version of the PMO was to be presented to the Planning Commission this evening. He noted that the PMO would have to be in final form in order to accurately compare it with the other two documents, or for the City Attorney to accurately review it. He 'recommended that the document reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 13, 1993, incorporating the recommended changes, and the Subcommittees final draft document be brought back to the Commission, along with a comparison matrix of the two documents, as well as the City Attorney's comment on the documents. He suggested that the Commission also review the abatement procedures at the same meeting. Council Member Papen, residing at 1124 Cleghorn, pointed out that it is unlawful to describe what a public nuisance is, as indicated on the bottom of page 2, Nuisances, in the Comparison Matrix, the definitions on page 4 describing nuisances, and the definitions on the entire page 7 and 8 of the Subcommittee draft PMO. She then stated that the abatement procedures should include a section for the financially disabled. Frank Dursa, a resident, suggested that the item be tabled until after the adoption of the General Plan. Al Rumpella, residing at 23958 Golden Springs, concurred that the Subcommittee's PMO and the PMO presented to the Commission on December 13, 1993, incorporating the appropriate changes, should be compared and brought back for review. He also concurred with the suggestions made by the City Attorney to the enforcement policies, as well as the suggestion made to include a section addressing the financially disabled. There being no one else in the audience wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed the public hearing and returned the matter back to the Commission for consideration. Chair/Meyer inquired if it were possible to amend the zoning ordinance without a General Plan. January 24, 1994 Page 10 CDD/DeStefano explained that most likely OPR will noteIRI allow a zoning code amendment until a General Plan has been adopted. VC/Plunk suggested that the Commission begin review of the "Penalties" section. C/Grothe suggested that staff be directed to request the City Attorney to draft the Abatement Procedures, to be brought back to the Commission for review. C/Flamenbaum, in response to VC/Plunk-Is suggestion to make comments for the City Attorney's reference, suggested that the City Attorney review the minutes of the December 13, 1993 meeting, and the minutes of the meetings previous to that as a reference guide. VC/Plunk, preferring to make some suggestions, stated the following: each infraction should be a one step fine, as suggested by the District Attorney, so that the individual is not fined day after day for the same infraction; and mention imprisonment only if it purposely affects health and safety. ACA/Harper explained that the District Attorney's commentj� relating to a staging of penalties for subsequent violations refers to increasing the fine each time an infraction occurs, not considering each and every day a continuing violation. The District Attorneys comments, made regarding criminal penalties is a recitation of the statutory definition of misdemeanors. He pointed out that cities do not impose jail time, judges do. VC/Plunk inquired where the conditions relating to financial or physical limitations is best located in the document. ACA/Harper suggested that those conditions would be best located in the Abatement Procedures. He then suggested that comments regarding the abatement procedures, or the PMO in general, be put in writing and submitted to staff for the City Attorney's review. Chair/Meyer noted that the consideration of the PMO was a result of an indication from the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) that because Chapter 99 was not adopted, there were no code enforcement procedures. He suggested that, if there is a problem regarding property Yh maintenance enforcement, perhaps the City Council should consider readopting Chapter 99 as an immediate solution, while continuing to work out the issues of the PMO. i i,p ., n�R,.. r �- d I e� i i tl•.z.� n�"'G; ��t� 1 Z,C �} tl4h'4 � January 24, 1994 Page 11 CDD/DeStefano, in response to VC/Plunk, stated that violations of the building Code is handled through the abatement process of the Building Code. VC/Plunk stated that, since the Commission has already done all this extensive review, it would be appropriate for the Commission to finish the review. Moved by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Flamenbaum to direct staff to draft a letter to the City Council recommending adoption of Chapter 99, on an interim basis if deemed appropriate, allowing the Commission time to continue review of the document; to continue the public hearing to the next meeting, directing staff to make all the modifications of the PMO, from the December 13, 1993 meeting and any comments made during this meeting and any submitted in writing; and to request the City Attorney to draft the abatement procedures for the next meeting. VC/Plunk inquired how readopting Chapter 99 will be effective. -< Dennis Tarango, the Building Official, referring to his memo dated January 17, 1994, stated that Chapter 99 adds I provisions regarding substandard housing to the Uniform Housing Code in relationship to values of surrounding properties. Al Flores, the CEO, pointed out that Chapter 99 does not address the issue of vehicles parked on the lawn, which is the vast number of complaints received. He suggested that the Planning Commission move forward since so much time and effort has been given in preparing the PMO. VC/Plunk stated that it seems to be a lot of trouble and expense to adopt an interim ordinance for just four weeks. The Planning Commission concurred to split the motion into two motions. Moved by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Flamenbaum to direct staff to write a letter to the City Council suggesting that Chapter 99 be readopted if deemed appropriate. The Motion CARRIED 3-2 as follows: AYES: Grothe, Flamenbaum, and Chair/Meyer j NOES: Li and VC/Plunk ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None January 24, 1994 . Page 12 Moved by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Flamenbaum to continue the public hearing to the next meeting, and direct staff to modify the PMO as presented at the December 13, 1993 meeting, incorporating the comments made at the December 13, 1993 meeting, the comments made this evening, and any written comments received by the end of the week. The Motion CARRIED 5-0 as follows: AYES: Grothe, Flamenbaum, Li, VC/Plunk, and Chair/Meyer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None VC/Plunk suggested setting a timeline to conclude the review of the PMO. She inquired if the Planning Commission is able to pass the document on to the City Council for their review. CDD/DeStefano, noting that it is doubtful that the City can make a zoning code amendments without a General Plan, suggested that staff be directed to work with the City Attorney in terms of the appropriate vehicle to bring this document back to the City Council. The Planning Commission concurred to so direct staff. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None ANNOUNCEMENTS C/Flamenbaum reported that the City of Brea is proceeding with the Olinda Heights Specific Plan development. CDD/DeStefano stated that the City is preparing comments in response to the EIR for the Olinda Heights Specific Plan. VC/Plunk expressed her hopes that the perception in the community will change with the revision of the General Plan. Chair/Meyer stated that the chairmen of each City Commission, and his appointee, was chosen as non-voting members of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). He explained that he appointed C/Flamenbaum to the committee because he had participated in the original GPAC. He noted that the GPAC is extremely representative of the community, and it appears that the process will move forward in a timely manner. Chair/Meyer explained that he suggested to cancel the last Planning Commission meeting, scheduled January 12, 1994, because of a lack of items on the agenda. He then suggested l i r'��.Aw,��"�i���u1,!�'��q`�'�k � January 24, 1994 Page 13 that, since it is the beginning of the budgetary process, perhaps it would be appropriate if the Planning Commission developed a program of projects and policies considered to be important in the planning of this community, and present those suggestions to the City Council for their review and direction. He suggested that the Commission's personal comments and goals should be prepared for the next meeting. CDD/DeStefano stated that any Commissioner planning to attend the Planning Commissioners Institute scheduled March 9 - 11, 1994,.should notify staff as soon as possible. He reported that staff has distributed the final version of the Planning Commissioners Policy Manual to the Commission. Staff has also distributed the latest draft of the meeting matrix. Chair/Meyer reported that the East San Gabriel Planning Committee is meeting January 27, 1994. ADJOURNMENT Moved by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 9:43 p.m. Respectivel , mes DeStefa.—T Secretary l Attes David Meyer/ Chairman