HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/25/1994MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 25, 1994
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. at the
South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, Diamond
Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Meyer.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Meyer; Vice Chairwoman Plunk;
Commissioners: Flamenbaum, and Fong
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano; Associate Planner Rob Searcy;
~s Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Interim City
F Attorney Michael Montgomery; Engineer
Consultant Mike Myers; and 'Administrative
Secretary Marilyn Ortiz
Absent: None
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
Chair/Meyer indicated Agenda Item changes as follows: item #3
is moved to item #l.
I. Zone Change No. 92-2 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51169
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3 Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3 and
Environmental Impact Report No. 92-2.
In response to Chair/Meyer, AP/Searcy reported that on June
13, 1994 the Planning Commission concluded the Public Hearing
on this application and directed staff to prepare resolutions
and conditions for approval. That meeting was continued to
July 11, 1994. The Planning Commission, at that meeting,
continued the application to this evening so that they could
take care of business related to the General Plan.
This project is located at the terminus of Blaze Trail and
1 includes a residential subdivision for thirteen (13) custom
homes and one (1) vacant lot.
July 25, 1994 Page 2 Planning Commission;'
Also included ,for the Planning Commission is a copy of a memo
from Triad Geotechnical Consultants which was delivered to the
City at about 3:45 p.m. today, July 25, 1994 in response to
questions raised by C/Fong at the July 21, 1994 meeting I
Staff feels that the draft conditions address all of the
issues related to the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, to.thO_
Conditional Use Permit for hillside development, for the Oal�
Tree permit, and for the zone change. Additionally, there is
verbiage which addresses the certification of the
environmental document. This has been circulated to the
public for the past six or seven months. The conditions of
approval address items which vary from inclusion of the SEATAC
final report which is the committee charged with reviewing
projects in significant Ecological Area 15. The conditions
also cover items such as the Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions which were required to comply and conform to the
adjacent gated community known as "The Country Estates".
Also included are items which address hours of construction,
CUP conditions of approval, and items which relate to final
product development during the period of time in which the
homes will be developed. These homes, at the time of yr
development, will go through development review process before
the Community Development Director. The applicant has agreed
to box and relocate the oak tree. In addition, there is a
condition which speaks to the removal of black walnut and the
habitat which is formed by those black walnuts, on site. This
condition would provide that the City be the recipient of an
in lieu fee which is measured from judging the value of the
replacement trees at a 2 to 1 ratio. The value of those trees
is then calculated, the number of trees which may be planted
on-site in a viable habitat is determined, and the difference
between the total number of trees and the trees planted on-
site is then determined with a cash value. The cash value is
placed with the City for either off-site mitigations or for a
program which deals with the education of the community with
respect to the,value of oak trees and their habitats.
Responding to Chair/Meyerfs request, Lex Williman, Planning
Director, Hunsaker and Associates, 10179 Huennekens Street,
San Diego representing Unionwide, and Jerry Yeh, applicant,
indicated they have read the resolutions and conditions of
approval. Mr. Williman stated that except for a few minor
clarifications from staff they have no problem with the
conditions as currently written.
C/Fong asked staff to respond to Exhibit "B" of �he
engineering requirement with respect to approval for building
7 July 25, 1994 Page 3 Planning commission
construction and public improvement after the grading is
completed and requirement or condition for issuing approval of
a final compaction report, final grading and geologic map.
In response to C/Fong, Engineer Meyers indicated that
condition 143 will be added as follows: "After completion of
the rough grading, final compaction report as graded maps
shall be submitted for review and approval by the City
Engineer."
In response to C/Fong, ICA Montgomery explained the
correlation between the Vesting Map and the 1992 General Plan
indicating that during the window period of the 1992 General
Plan the developer satisfied the requirement of the Vesting
Map. Therefore, as C/Flamenbaum pointed out, the letter from
the Homeowner's Association is too late. The hearing has been
held, the vote has been taken, and the developer is entitled
to resolution.
In response to C/Fong; AP/Searcy restated that staff received
the memo at 3:45 p.m. and forwarded it to the Planning
j Commission. It has not been reviewed by Leighton and
Associates.
Responding to a request for discussion on the geotechnical
aspects of the project, Engineer Meyers indicated that there
will be full resolve of the matter prior to continuance of the
project.
In response to C/Flamenbaum, ICA Montgomery explained that a
citizen may address the Planning Commission on any agenda
item. The address on the agenda item will be limited to
whether or not the Planning Commission will take the proposed
action; however, an agenda item cannot be used to revisit
matters which have already been concluded.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Lane, Diamond Bar, stated he did
not feel it was appropriate to have closed the Public Hearing
when all of the information has not been presented to the
public and to the Planning Commission. In addition, Mr. Smith
stated that on several visits to City Hall, he was unable to
acquire the information for study and because of apparent
contradictions, all of the paperwork should be forthcoming.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, Diamond Bar, requested
definition of Vesting and Tentative.
L
July 25, 1994 Page 4 Planning commission
Responding to Max Maxwell, ICA Montgomery referred to his memo
which explains how the permits fall into the periods of the
General Plan and that it was in relation to the South Pointe
application and the various maps. He referred Mr. Maxwell to
Government Code 66424.5.
Responding to Chair/Meyer, Tom Smith, Michael Brandman
Associates, 17310 Redhill, Irvine, stated that it is - not
uncommon to have things come up post project approval. In
those instances, you handle them on a case by case basis„
investigate solutions, and compare them with `the current
documentation and determine whether additional documentation
is required. -Quite often these issues that come up in the
field are simply resolved through the application of standard
engineering practices and through the satisfaction of uniform
building code requirements. in general, more environmental
evaluation may not be needed, but it has to be considered.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by VC/Plunk
recommending certification of Environmental Impact Report No.
92-2 and approval of Hillside Management and Significant
Ecological Area Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3 and Oak Tree
Permit No. 92-3, for a project located in northern Tonner
Canyon, within SEA No. 15, southerly and easterly of
Steeplechase Lane and Wagon Train Lane, in Diamond Bar,
California, and making findings in support thereof. Motion
carried 5-0.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, Fong, Schad, Vice
Chairman Plunk, and Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by C/Schad
recommending certification of Environmental Impact Report No.
92-2 and approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51169,
for a project located in northern Tonner Canyon, within SEA
No. 15, southerly and easterly of Blaze Trail Drive, in
Diamond Bar, California, and making findings in support
e thereof. Motion carried 5-0.
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Flamenbaum, Fong, Schad, Vice
i
Chairman Plunk, and Chair/Meyer
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
1 ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
1
July 25, 1994 Page 5 Planning Commission
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by C/Schad
recommending certification of Environmental Impact Report No.
92-2 and approval of Zone Change 92-2, a request for a
reclassification of a portion of real property currently'
designated as Zone A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture) to R-1-40,000
(single family residence) zone, for a project located in
northern Tonner Canyon, within SEA No. 15, southerly and
easterly of Blaze Trail Drive, in Diamond Bar, California, and
making findings in support thereof. Motion carried 5-0.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, Fong, Schad, Vice
Chairman Plunk, and Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
C/Flamenbaum asked for concensus of the Planning Commission to
have the City Attorney respond to the letter from "The Country
Estates" asking for CC&R enforcement.
CONTINUED PUBLIC SEARING:
2. Parcel Map 22102; request to subdivide 4.39 acre parcel
located at 1575 Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar into two lots.
one lot will contain 3.5 acres and the other lot will contain
.89 of an acre.
In response to Chair/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated this is an
application for a lot split within the Gateway Corporate
Center. The zoning for this center is C-M-BE-U/C which is a
unilateral contract, the only one of its kind in the County,
which basically codified the CC&R's that exist over this area.
This project has been remanded back to the Planning Commission
by the City Council as a result of a decision rendered 'in
January, 1992. At that public hearing the Planning Commission
denied the project based upon the design and a lack of
information to determine whether the Map's approval would
create a non-viable lot. As a result, the City Council
directed the staff and applicant to take a second look at the
project to determine if it could be reconfigured to guarantee
a viable and productive lot split. As a result, the applicant
submitted a redesigned parcel map to the City and included a
conceptual plan of what an office building of approximately
2500 to 2700 square feet would look like. Based upon a review
of these items, staff held a one-stop meeting. As a part of
the review, staff critiqued the conceptual design as it
relates to.the creation of the two parcels and made certain
CI IIII "i i77711 �
July 25, 1994 Page 6 Planning Commission IIII'
the parcel had adequate ingress and egress; that the lot
coverage was not excessive; and the proposed landscaping would
fit into the character and nature of the subdivision, as well
as the Gateway Corporate Center. Gateway Corporate Center has
design guidelines. The design guidelines are an outgrowth of
the unilateral contract and the CC&R's which exist in this
area, as well as, policies which have evolved over this City's
five year history. Staff determined ,that the current
subdivision is a viable lot. This lot is no smaller than the
smaller lots in the Gateway Corporate Center. Smaller'lots
can be exhibited by looking at the Cole Development, which is
at Bridgegate and Gateway Center Drive. That mixed use
complex looks like a small cluster of buildings and has lots
which are considerably smaller than the proposed lot.
AP/Searcy further stated that staff has reviewed this project
making certain the public improvements which exist on the site
are either present or will be placed on site once a
development project comes before the City. Staff has
determined that the lot split is viable and will not create
additional significant impact. Therefore, staff has prepared
a negative declaration for review and approval. Staff N�
recommends that the Planning .Commission open the public
hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing, and
adopt the Resolution of Approval.
In response to C/Schad, AP/Searcy indicated that there are no
development plans at this time and the reason for going ahead
with- the subdivision would be to make the lot saleable.
Currently, the 3.5 acre portion of the proposed subdivision is
developed with a two-story office building. It is self-
contained within the parameters of that site. It is an
independent parcel. It appears there are currently two
independent pads. The proposed site is a completely graded
and unimproved site.
Responding to Chair/Meyer, AP/Searcy indicated that the C -M
Zone does not have a minimum lot size. The maximum FAR for
commercial site is approximately .5. The maximum height for
current CM Zoning is thirteen (13) times the buildable area.
The Gateway Corporate Center design guidelines restrict the
height in the project area to three stories.
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing open.
Linda Czarkowski, representative of Specialty Equipment Market
Association (SEMA) had nothing further to add at this time and
offered to entertain any questions. LJ
July 25, 1994 Page 7 Planning commission
In response to Chair/Meyer, Linda Czarkowski indicated she has
read and understands the conditions for approval and can
comply with the conditions.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, Diamond Bar, asked if the
subdivision applies to the current proposed General Plan and
not the 1992 General Pian to which AP/Searcy responded that it
is, in fact, a non -vesting Map. It is a Tentative Map subject
to the conditions in effect at the time of approval.
Mr. Maxwell voiced his concerns that this proposed lot may be
valuable and because of its location and visibility from the
freeway, requested that the Planning Commission control the
building of another access road which will extend the growth
of the Gateway Corporate Center.
Responding to Chair/Meyer, Linda Czarkowski indicated that Mr.
Maxwell's fears are unfounded. Contained in the plans which
were submitted, Specialty Equipment Market Association
included the possibility of sharing the same driveway which
the SERA building currently has, so there would be no
additional driveway or any additional roads. With respect to
signage on any building which may be built, the owners. are
regulated by the CC&R's of Gateway Corporate Center and the
building codes are quite strict in that regard.
CDD/DeStefano indicated -that for purposes of clarification,
the lot in question is immediately adjacent to the existing
SEMA building. It is essentially a graded pad, and
development would take place on the 38,500 proposed square
feet of that, existing pad. Depending upon the market
conditions, the financial feasibility, tenant requirements,
etc., a building on that site would range from approximately
10,000 to 20,000 square feet, staying within the floor area
ratio maximums of the Gateway Corporate Center and the current
development trend within the Gateway Corporate Center. There
are no trees on the site which would be affected by
development. It is presently a flat, rough graded pad.
Signage is controlled by the City's sign code which currently
allows for wall signage commensurate with size of the
building's frontage. This building is not likely to have any
significant visibility from the freeway. Free standing
signage is currently limited to six (6) feet in height and
therefore, would not be seen from the freeway. As the
applicant's representative indicated, there is no access
proposed in terms of streets from this site to any other part
of our community. Access would be wholly preserved by the
`� I Cl�l1IIIIIIII' 'fIII
July 25, 1994 Page 8 Planning Commission �Gt�lii
driveway configurations contemplated, present and future, off
of Valley Vista Drive.
CDD/DeStefano stated that, finally, the Planning Commission
will review any future development proposed on this site. The
City has a development review process which requires Planning
Commission review of all new commercial construction. This
may include an office building which might be presumed to be
located at the site sometime in the future.
In response to a question by C/Fong regarding the effect of
the subdivision on existing parking for a two story building,
AP/Searcy indicated that there is no impact on the'parking as
a result of this project .and, with respect to future
development, it would be considered part of the development
review process before the Planning Commission.
AP/Searcy further stated in response to C/Fong that the
primary difference between this project and the project
13 previously rejected by the City Council is located in shifting
j the lot line to the center of the ingress and egress which
currently serves the SEMA building. This guarantees there -A
r will be one only ingress and egress for both lots and there
will be a shared access agreement which -will be required In
addition, there is no zone change or variance applied for as
a part of this application.
VC/Plunk stated that she is struggling with approval of.,the
4
lot split without plans.
Chair/Meyer indicated that he would like to see that the
street improvements completed to the satisfaction of the
i` Public Works Director. In response to Chair/Meyer, City
Engineer/Meyers indicated that his department has .reviewed the
site and the improvements have been completed. He. further
j stated that there currently exists a gap in the sidewalk
through the frontage of the project; however, there is some
discussion whether a sidewalk is desirable at the front of
this project. The City is reluctant to encourage pedestrian
'traffic to focus at a point of crossing where there is no
intersection. Street lights are in. There is a condition
which requires the extension of sanitary sewer mainline and
construction of a lateral to this pad.
I Chair/Meyer stated that the wording in the resolution states
I only to "show the proposed sewer hookup". He recommended the
wording should be changed to "install the sewer hookup". City ;
Engineer/Meyers concurred. �-
July 25, 1994 Page 9 Planning commission
Motion to adopt Resolution No. 94-18 made by Chair/Meyer and
seconded by VC/Plunk recommending conditional approval of
Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 with the following changes:
Condition F be changed to indicate that a sewer hookup shall
be provided for Parcel No. 2 to the satisfaction of the City
,Engineer; Condition G, that all drainage devices shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in
compliance with the hydrology calculations; reciprocal
ingress/egress easement shall be recorded on the map between
Parcel No. 1 and Parcel No. 2 along the common property line;
and street improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer. Motion was passed 4 -1,. -
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Flamenbaum, VC/Plunk,
Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:34 p.m.
RECONVENED:, Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at -8:52 p. -m.
CDD/DeStefano indicated that he has presented the audience and
the members of the Planning Commission with a graphic which is
Figure,No. 1 in the Introduction section of the General Plan.
This graphic outlines the community participation program, as
well as the specific dates of the General Plan Advisory (GPAC)
meetings. Since the most recent Planning Commission meeting,
the City Council has taken up the issue of, and the schedule
for, the adoption of the General Plan. The City Council
discussed this matter on July 19, 1994 and concluded that they
will table their review of the General Plan until the Planning
Commission completes its efforts. He further stated that
because of the October 31, 1994 termination dat�l of the Office
of Planning and Research extension of time, letter, the
deadline for the Planning Commission to complete the General
Plan will be moved ahead. He stated that the Planning
Commission will soon receive information regarding the new
deadlines.
CDD/DeStefano advised that tonightrs discussion will be about
the Public Health and Safety Element. He introduced Patrick
Mann of Cotton/ Beland/Associates. Mr. Mann has been assisting
the City in dealing with this element and will present the
element to the Planning Commission this eveninj�.
July 25, 1994 Page 10 Planning Commission eMpi,"
,
Patrick Mann, Cotton/ Be land/Associates stated that the changes
made by GPAC in the Public Health and Safety Element are
limited to the noise portion of the element. These changes
expand the noise element from recognizing only those areas
where noise is a severe problem, to recognizing there is value
in preserving a quiet community and establishing standards for
what is desirable, not only what is ''unacceptable. In doing,
so, he further stated, GPAC established goals for various lana
uses which are lower than the absolute standards which were
set. GPAC required that new projects mitigate the noise
impacts, provided that noise mitigation measures be
empirically testable and field verified, and required that the
City regularly update its information on noise levels.
After reviewing the comments of the GPAC including changes
which were made, Mr. Mann stated that'he has recommendations
for specific language changes to two of the strategies
contained in the Noise Element.
The first change is Strategy 1.10.3, Page IV -10: for the
language following the final "or" in the last line of the
strategy read as follows: "or to significantly, adversely,
i
effect the existing CNEL of those neighborhoods." This would
allow some discretion at the time of approval of the
development.
The second item is Strategy 1.10.111 Page IV -11 and the
recommendation is to replace the entire strategy with the
following language: "The City shall utilize the Noise
ordinance to eliminate unnecessary noise which would interfere
with the peace and quiet of the community, or the normal use
of the land. The ordinance shall use noise standards
appropriate to each potential noise problem and shall not be
limited to the CNEL standards of Table IV -1." Mr. Mann
indicated that this gives discretion to deal with specific
noise problems in ways which are appropriate to the noise
problem.
In response to concerns raised by C/Flamenbaum, Mr. Mann
indicated that he believes the CNEL is a very appropriate
method for regulating noise in the General Plan where the
Planning commission is attempting to establish standards for
location of land uses. This is the specific language used in
the strategy which adopts the CNEL table in the Noise Element.
C/Flamenbaum further expressed his concern regarding the noise
types, citing a constant freeway noise to which one might
,
x'M �G iia bu} P
x14
rF = n
I
July 25, 1994 Page 11 Planning Commission
adjust, versus the intermittent noise of a machine shop which
might have an air hammer.
Responding to C/Flamenbaum, Mr. Mann referred to his specific
recommendation to" have a noise ordinance which allows
flexibility in dealing with other specific types of noise
problems. The CNEL is well designed to deal with problems of
a transportation noise. When we have a noise ordinance, this
more specifically deals with problems which arise from
specific human activities which are not necessarily related to
a type of land use or transportation corridor and unique
noises. He further indicated that there is no single measure
such as the CNEL which can account for all of the different
characteristics of types of sounds.
C/Schad stated that he would like to see the CNEL eliminated
since it is not a true condition of sounds. He referred to
Table IV -1, Page IV -12 and indicated that GPAC had made many
recommendations to alleviate some of the levels of sound which
are shown in the chart, He prefers to see the table utilized
in the General Plan.
CDD/DeStefano referred the Planning Commission to_the Master
Environmental Assessment (MEA) about noise in terms of sending
and receiving points. He indicated that II -G-1 lists
everything from 0-145 dBA's. He cited several specific
examples_ which are contained in the MEA. CDD/DeStefano
reiterated that the Noise Element is one of the seven
California State mandated elements of the General, Plan. It is
designed to identify and apprise noise problems within -the
community. He further stated that the idea is that the noise
levels are used as a guide for establishing land uses. The
Safety Element, State mandated, establishes thelpolicies and
programs which deal with all of the risks associated with the
seismic conditions, geological conditions, flood, fire, etc.
This element also deals with emergency evacuation procedures
and response time for public safety services and equipment.
CDD/DeStefano stated that one of the things the Planning
Committee needs to do is to forward the document to the
Division of Mines and Geology which has been done and that we
are awaiting a response from them with respect o any mapped
or known facilities within our community. We do not have
mines and geology that the Department of Conservation is
interested in which we are aware of at this time. This is why
-� you see the notation following the element which indicates
j there are no issues "and no areas of discussionl for Diamond
4 Bar.
i �md
121
July 25, 1994 Page 12 - Planning commissiond7
CDD/DeStefano further indicated that one of the other items
within the Public Health and Safety Element are a number of
changes which were made after 1984 which deal with seismic
issues. Between the Policy Document, the Master Environmental
Assessment, which sets the foundation for the policy document,
and the Environmental Impact Report, we believe we have
presented to you an element which meets the test of the State
requirements and, as Mr. Mann has pointed out, has been
reviewed by GPAC and brings forward their recommended changes
dealing primarily with the issue of noise.
VC/Plunk questioned the accuracy of the figures shown on the
map and the table, and the fact that the figures do not match
the chart. C/Schad agreed and questioned the accuracy of the
map.
In response to VC/Plunk and C/Schad, Mr. Mann stated that the
map is based upon a computer program which estimates noise
levels based upon the number of vehicles passing by a given
point at a given time and the distribution of those vehicle's .,
over the 24 hour period. He further indicated that it doe's !'#
not reflect the topography, and the shielding from existing ui
structures. He stated that it is a very simplified Map which
represents the noise level at an unshielded site from the
traffic on the roadways.
In response to CDD/DeStefano, Mr. Mann stated that map does
not have to agree with the table. The map is a best estimate
to define what the expected noise levels would be based upon
the simple computer program and simply provides some guideline
for locating future residential or other noise sensitive uses
with respect to the transportation corridors.
Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open on the Public
Health and Safety Element.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig, Diamond Bar, stated that he finds
it offensive that Mr. Mann has come back to the Planning
Commission with another recommendation. He indicated he would
like to see something implemented in this document guiding
future members of this Planning Commission and the City
Council and that is why the Chart is specific. He requested
that the Planning Commission accept this section as is.
Tom Van Winkle, 21103 Gerndahl, Diamond Bar, stated that the
concerns of the Planning Commission are valid. If the.
Planning Commission finds it difficult to determine what the
report means, a clerk or City employee may have the same
�3
I
July 25, 1994 Page 13 Planning Commission
difficulty determining what is to be done to comply with an
Ordinance. Mr. VanWinkle told the Planning Commission they
need to be aware that the levels of noise in Diamond Bar are
severe, and in many locations are unacceptable. He asked that
a standard be included in the element which states that when
new property is developed the goal be maintained and, in
addition, guidelines be established for further redevelopment
or correction of these areas,
Chair Meyer declared the public hearing closed.
Chair/Meyer asked for input from the Planning Commission.
C/Fong suggests that the Planning Commission add verbiage
regarding landslides and earthquakes. He further suggested
that in the first paragraph under Geology and Seismicity, the
Planning Commission re -ward the first sentence to -read:
"Diamond Bar is located in a dynamic geological region." In
addition, C/Fong recommended that the last part of the last
sentence read: "Local soils are mainly derived from
weathering of the bedrock units."
I
C/Fong further recommended that the Planning Commission insert
an additional paragraph following the opening paragraph to
read as follows: "There are numerous existing landslides and
potential unstable hillside areas in Diamond Bar."
C/Fong asked that the Planning Commission add the following
words to the first sentence of second paragraph: "Diamond Bar
is also located in a part of Southern California which is a
highly seismically active region where there are a number of
major faults."
C/Fong requested that the second sentence on Page IV -3, No. 5,
Emergency Services and Facilities, second sentence, last word,
change 15 mile drive to read 1115 mile radius".
VC/Plunk requested the following additions, corrections:
Page IV -3, No. 5, last sentence should be changed to read:
"The City has recently developed a response plan for
emergencies."
Page IV -3, No. 6, last sentence should be changed to read:
j "As per State Law, the City has developed a Household
Hazardous Waste Element."
I Ill. I lkl l' _111';1 I !I
July 25, 1994 Page 14 Planning Commission ��p���lN'
C/Flamenbaum Page IV -4 Item No. 1 bottom of the page, delete
the word "adequately" so that the sentence will read: "The
City needs policies to'protect existing and future residents
from local geologic and seismic related threats."
C/Fong suggested the following changes:
Geology and Seismicity, the first sentence, change to read:'
"Because of the high seismic and diverse geologic conditions,)
etc."
Next sentence "The City needs policies to protect existing and
future residents from local geologic and seismic related
hazards."
C/Flamenbaum Issue Analysis on Page IV -5, No. 3 and 4 strike
"in the Diamond Bar area and in Diamond Bar."
VC/Plunk V, Issue Analysis, No. 5 last sentence should read:
"The City needs to implement the Disaster Preparedness Plan tq
respond to regional or local emergencies."
C/Fong suggested the following changes on V-7:
Objective 1.1, last word, last sentence replace "events" with
"hazards" to read as follows: "ground shaking and other
geologic hazards."
Strategy 1.1.1, replace the word "seismic" with the word
"earthquake" to read: "----maximum credible earthquake
event."
1.1.2 reword paragraph as follows: "As required by the
Uniform Building Code, require site specific geotechnical
investigation be performed to determine appropriate design
parameters for construction of public and private facilities
in order to minimize the effects of any geologic and seismic
hazard on such development."
Insert Strategy 1.1.3 to read as follows: "Adopt a Grading
Manual to supplement the City of Diamond Bar grading code with
detailed information regarding rules, interpretation,
standards specification, procedures, requirements, forms and
other information applicable to control excavation, grading
and earthwork construction and provide guidelines for
aF.
preparation of geotechnical reports in the City."
l"4j
,Y
July 25, 1994 Page 15 Planning Commission
Change Page IV -8, Objective 1.5, to read: "Minimize the risk
and fear of crime through physical planning strategies.
Create a high level of public awareness and support for crime
prevention."
Page IV -9, Objective 1.7 to read: "Implement effective
emergency preparedness and response programs."
Page IV -10, Strategy 1.10.3 adopt Mr. Mannls suggestion:
Change the last phrase to read: "or to significantly
adversely affect the existing CNEL of those neighborhoods."
Page IV -11, Strategy 1.10.4 C/Flamenbaum suggested wording
"Natural noise barriers such as hillsides shall not be
modified without evaluating the noise impact to surrounding
residential areas."
Page IV -11, Strategy 1.10.8 C/Flamenbaum suggested to read:
"As part of the future General Plan review, or every five
years, the Noise Contour Map shall be updated."
Page IV -11, Strategy 1.10.10 delete the words "Page I-1
Page IV -11, Strategy 1.10.11 adopt Mr. Mann's,suggestion to
add prior to 1.10.11 and add another column to the Noise
Standards Table which would be a "Maximum Hourly LEQ
Standard", and, in each case where there is a maximum exterior
CNEL standard, establish the maximum LEQ to be that same noise
level. In addition, for residential use, establish an evening
maximum hourly LEQ to be 60 decibels. These changes would be
consistent with the noise ratings which are used in
calculating the CNEL value.
CDD/DeStefano indicated that the discussion of CNEL and LEQ is
worthy of more presentation. He stated that it is his belief
that GPAC was concerned about the CNEL standard as being a 24
hour weighted average, and whether or not that is an
appropriate measurement tool to set a policy. He further
indicated that he believed that GPAC was moving toward an LEQ
or noise equivalent level standard.
In response to CDD/DeStefano, Mr. Mann explained that the CNEL
'essentially takes all of the sound energy that you receive
over a period of time, puts it in a big bucket, and averages
it. A minute which has a level of 80 decibels adds ten times
as much energy to that bucket as a minute which has an average
• ri Y'
July 25, 1994 Page 16 Planning Commission
of 70 decibels. The higher noise levels contribute strongly
to the CNEL which you measure. It is an attempt to combine
all of the noise and report in a way humans respond to. It
does not necessarily deal with specific and unique noise
situations that have unusual characteristics.
Chair/Meyer charged Mr. Mann to investigate the concerns of
C/Schad and C/Flamenbaum and -return to the Planning Commission
with his suggestions.
i
CDD/DeStefano suggested that Mr. Mann return with his
suggestions to the Planning Commission and be available for
questions the Commission may have. In addition, CDD/DeStefano
recommended that the Commission add a map which shows the
existing noise contours.
Motion by VC/Plunk and second by C/Flamenbaum to move the next
meeting to Monday,'August 1, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. at the SCAQMD.
Motion carried 5-0.
Planning Commission items: - None
Informational Items: - none
Motion by C/Schad and C/Fong to adjourn. Motion carried 5-0,
Respectfu ,
James DeStefanj
Secretary
i
e
Oil
1
d
C
F
p