Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/8/1995MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY S, 1995 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Flamenbaum. ROLL Present: Commissioners: Chairman -Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman Huff, Meyer, Schad, Fong. Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Associate Planner Robert Searcy; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Assistant City Attorney Michael Estrada; Consultant Engineer Mike Myers; Special Counsel Robert Owen; and Recording Secretary Carol Dennis. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: Lydia Plunk, Diamond Bar resident, respectfully requested that the Commission give due consideration to go beyond the legalities and consider the appearance of having the highest ethical standards in discussions"and decisions. When a public official serves on the board of an organization which stands to benefit in value, in her opinion, the Commissioner should step down as a member of the Planning Commission and address the item as a private citizen. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of April 24, 1995. VC/Huff indicated the minutes should reflect the opening and continuing of the public hearing for New Business Item Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382. A motion was made by VC/Huff and seconded by C/Schad to �} approve the minutes as amended. The motion was approved 4-1 with the following roll call: May 8, 1995 Page 2 Planning Commission! AYES: COMMISSIONERS:.VC Huff, Schad, Fong, Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS:None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None OLD BUSINESS: 1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 and Master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2. Consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 and Master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2 for review and comment pursuant to Government Code, Section 65857. At the joint session on April 6, 1995, consideration of the project was continued before the Planning Commission for their review and comments. Applicant/Owner: Diamond Bar ,Associates, Inc., 3480 Torrance Boulevard #301, Torrance, 6A 90503 CDD/DeStefano stated that, during this meeting,'the Planning Commission will be discussing Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850. In addition to staff, Tom Smith and,Steve Nelson, Environmental Consultants from Michael Brandman and Associates, and the developer's team are present. Also present is Robert Owen, Special Legal Counsel, Rutan'& Tucker, who was retained to provide the City with specific legal advice regarding this project. He further stated that since this is not a public hearing item, the Commission has the discretion to entertain public comments. Staff recommends that the Commission provide, comments regarding the project which will be forwarded to the City Council for the May 16, 1995 public hearing. AP/Searcy stated that this project has been referred back to the Planning Commission at the direction of the City Council pursuant to the action taken at the conclusion of the Joiiht Session held on April 6, 1995. The Planning Commission expressed the desire for further information to provide clarification on issues and perceived inconsistencies related to development of the project. The Planning Commission cited a lack of familiarity with the project, as there are no current members from the 1992 Commission that approved the project. The Commission forwarded an itemized list of questions via public testimony to staff for responses. Staff has compiled answers to the expressed issues as attachments lto this overview. i May 8, 1995 Page 3 Planning Commission II The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission in a series of public hearings beginning in September of 1991. At the October 28, 1991 Planning Commission hearing, the Commission directed staff to prepare Resolutions of Approval and to amend the draft conditions of approval to most notably preserve an additional seven (7) oak trees in the western most canyon. The project was returned to the Commission on November 25, 1991. The Commission took action to certify the Master Environmental Impact Report for the purpose of approving the hillside development/SEA Conditional Use Permits and Oak Tree Permits and to recommend approval of the VTM 47850, 47851, and 48487 in addition to the Certification of the Master Environmental Impact Report (MSIR). The City Council began deliberation on the project in January, 1992 following a series of public hearings over several months. In June of 1992, the Council certified the MSIR and approved VTM 47851 and VTM 48487 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Several issues arose out of the public hearing that focused on the geotechnical information on VTM 47850. The Council required the applicant to provide _n extensive information in order to respond to the questions. In November of 1992, the Council set a public hearing to deliberate on the project. The applicant had not provided the required information to respond to the plan check review questions in time for the public hearing and requested an extension of time to respond to the issues. The Council took action to deny the requested extension of time and additionally took action to deny the application without prejudice. In so doing, the Council found that they could not approve the project without' definitive information on the geotechnical issues and allowed the applicant to submit a new application for the project once the information had been gathered. Subsequently, the applicant filed a lawsuit to appeal the decision. The lawsuit was resolved when the City and the developer entered into an out of court settlement agreement. The settlement agreement required the City to re-initiate processing of the project commencing with a Joint Session to be conducted with the Planning Commission. 'AP/Searcy further stated that the City Attorney's recommendation for following the settlement agreement is included in the Planning Commission packets. As a result of the April 6, 1995 joint session, the public hearing for this project has been set by the City Council for May 16, 1995. The Planning Commission's May 8, 1995 Page 4 Planning Commissionn��ia, comments from tonight's meeting will be forwarded to the City Council for the public hearing session. AP/Searcy continued that this project is a 73 acre site located in Northern'Tonner Canyon. The 57 lot subdivision is proposed for a site which currently developed with extensive oak and walnut woodland. This project_, contains .the most valuable biota of the three tracts proposed for development. VTM 47850 contains significant walnut woodlands that cover approximately34 acres contain almost 700 trees. Approximately 110 oak trees are primarily found within two stands comprising 2.5 acres. The trees located in the southwest portion of the tract have been identified to be protected and contain some of the oldest and healthiest trees on-site. Sixteen oak trees have been marked for removal as apart of this project. These oak trees will be replaced at a 4:1 ratio as will all walnut trees removed as part of the project. The 'been grown from seeds collected on-site replacement trees have in order to ensure the continuation of the genetics of native plant, community. The landscape plan for the project has been crafted to reproduce an environment that is compatible with remaining vegetation and natural habitat to be complementary with residential development and the 'mitigation measures recommended by the SEATAC. The project was submitted and deemed complete in 1989 and is vested in the standards in effect at that time. The Government Code (section 65360) allows actions to be taken in the absence of a General Plan with approvals of the projects requiring the City to make findings of consistency with the future adopted General Plan. The map as proposed is consistent with the .zoning classifications which traverse the site. Approximately 50 percent (35 acres) of the site is within the R-1-8,000 zone classification with the remainder of the project to be developed within.the R-1-20,000 zone. 'The project proposes development of the site with a total of 57 units, although the total number units under the zoning entitlement for'the R71- 8,000 acreage (net acres) would be approximately 142 units. The applicant, designed the project to conform to the 1 unit per acre density (RR/Rural Residential) classification proposed in the draft General Plan and the Community General _��„uumw4i uuuunl. n�dnm..�o-., ,_.—.lii• -Er=� --�L��.,__—___-��w �,-bi m.Yx�A,iwdmlrb.�.d�u.�,dLwd�- _--_ --- r May 8, 1995 Page 5 Planning Commission I Plan previously approved by the County of Los Angeles. If the most restrictive application of density (1 unit per acre) were to be applied to the project, the project would be entitled to 72 units. The proposed density of the 57 unit project is .73 units per acre. The concept of clustered development has been utilized to maximize open space opportunities within hillside projects throughout the City. The subject project does not cluster development in the sense that all of the proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum lot sizes required by the zone. The applicant has provided additional open space by simply reducing the density. The project as a whole conforms to the land use designation RR as proposed within the Draft General Plan. The geotechnical issues primarily revolve around soil stability and the calculations which were used to design the project. The design parameters of this project meet or exceed state of the art factors of safety which are traditionally set at 1.5. The site is designed to meet all design standards. The design was reviewed and approved by the City. The site extensively implements conservative measures to account for worst case scenarios. For example, the site is designed as if materials such as 'bentonite are found on-site, although none has been identified. All shear strength calculations were performed using lesser shear strength values associated with this material. Additionally, the project will be overgraded with a 10 foot blanket fill. The standard overfill depth is typically three (3) feet. The environmental issues raised at the Joint Session reflect that staff -needed to highlight the environmental documents that include technical appendices which supplement the presentation with the revised EIR. The primary issues staff identified as being raised are centrally related to the animals found or thought to be found on-site. All of the animals found on-site cannot be observed in the surveys that can be conducted on-site in a couple of visits. Therefore, staff compiled lists of animals expected to be on-site or traverse the site based on historical surveys. The site may be used by certain animals at certain times but because of the development surrounding the site on three sides, the value of the site as a primary corridor is !ga negligible. The site does, however, provide limited habitat for certain animals that will be reduced as a part of the - -- _—_ _s=-T��___f":77 Iiiim,u9"Tf s -_7R_« ­v.__. i ill 1,11! !,1 ill May 8, 1995 Page 6 Planning Commission C development' of the site but the proximity of Tonner Canyon provides a viable area for relocation. CDD/DeStefano' reiterated that the City's staff and consultants, as well as the developer's consultants are present to assist the Planning Commission in its deliberation. The project has been returned to the City as a result of a settlement agreement. This matter was the focus of a Joint Session held by the City Council and the Planning Commission on April 6, 1995. The project was also the subject of a community -wide study session held March 11, 1995 to outline the project and 'related issues.' The project is before the Planning Commission tonight as la'result of City, Council's direction requesting Planning Commission comments. Responding to C/Meyer and public comment by Lydia Plunk, CA/Owen stated that he agreed with the conclusion of the legal opinion from ICA/Montgomery that C/Schad may participate in any deliberations regarding this project. In response to VC/Huff, C/Schad asked that ICA/Montgomery's memo be entered into the record. It reads as follows: 'The mayor has asked' if Commissioner Schad is disqualified from voting on a zoning application, if the -developer may decide to donate to the Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy as part of its mitigation of the, environmental impact. Based upon the documents that I have been provided with, the Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy was incorporated effective April 30, 1992, by Commissioner Schad as'sole incorporator as a tag exempt, charitable corporation, pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3). Paragraph V(A), of the articles of incorporation recites: "The property of this corporation is 'irrevocably dedicated to charitable purposes and no part of a net income or assets of the corporation shall every inure to the benefit of any director, trustee, member, or officer of -this corporation, or to any private person,and upon dissolution, the assets shall be distributed to a governmental or ndn- profit charitable entity (Subdivision B)." '§��. �.. ., ��.c��. �.. .., n �,� _-.�i.�. ... .. ,,.: � -. t. iip. c` ��-..l .�-�. �1��, � i��� i �.:• � A+P1�..""`T': i�"_nl I"i+"�i �4Lmlx �.,y.-a1ri�SJ HIInPi i�"I�s7..f.�J.it �lr�du.4.�: k, tlr.:�e��aPCwalo3 F � May 8, 1995 Page 7 Planning Commission The State of California issued a tag exemption to the Conservancy on October 20, 1992. The United States government issued its tax exemption on July 19, 1993. Commissioner Schad stated for the record at a public Planning Commission Meeting on June 13, 1994, that he does not, has never, and will not in the future, take any personal remuneration of any nature from the Conservancy. Based upon the foregoing, the Fair Political Practices Commission, on June 15, 1994, issues a telephonic opinion, that Commissioner Schad has no present financial or incompatibility conflict of interest, with respect to the Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy, and pending applications, wherein the applicant retains the final decision as to which environmental preservation entity will receive the mitigation payments." C/Schad stated that he has never made a penny from this Conservancy. His goals, gains and enjoyment have been achieved by working with the children and assisting them in t, understanding and enjoying nature. He further stated he has run this Conservancy out of his own pocket and it has never made a cent. VC/Huff requested C/Schad to respond to whether the conditions in effect at the time are still in effect including the fact that ,there are no bylaws, directors or employees of the Conservancy. C/Schad responded that these facts or currently in effect. Responding to C/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated the recommendations from the staff are now before the Planning Commission for comment and recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Owen, responding to C/Meyer, stated that, at this meeting, the Planning Commission cannot make a formal recommendation to approve or deny the project. This can only be done at a public hearing under the City's local subdivision ordinances and tonight's meeting is not a public hearing. C/Meyer recommended that the City Council be encouraged to determine whether it wants land or money as meeting the Quimby Act. In response to C/Meyer, CDD/DeStefano stated that the question of project reduction in relation to the amount of grading May 8, 1995 Page 8 Planning Commission required had been addressed in the EIR. In addition, the project is consistent with the density provisions of the Draft General Plan being reviewed by the City Council on May 16, 1995. AP/Searcy stated, in response to C/Meyer that the common lot is the lift station to be given to the Homeowners Association for maintenance. C/Meyer asked if the street would affect the density responded that the project the proposed General Plan streets are subtracted from easements proposed for the project projections, to which 'AP/Seamy would still be in conformity with even if the easements for the m the equation. In response to C/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated that the project must conform to the minimum 10,000 square foot building pad size. Regarding annexation, to "The Country Estates", 'AP/Seamy stated that a provision of approval states that the developer must actively seek annexation.'. CDD/DeStefano stated, that based upon the approval of the companion tract, it is the City's expressed desire that this property become a part of "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association. 'However, the City Council did not specifically mandate annexation. The Council said that there shall be an application for annexation and a good faith effort toward annexation. The Council also indicated that the annexation fees should not exceed those fees which were paid by the developers of Tract No. 47722.'. Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, CA/Owen stated that the City Council can make reasonable- conditions on its approval.. often, with respect to subdivision maps, there is 'a requirement that a homeowners association be formed. Regarding this map, the matter is under consideration for the project to join an existing homeowners association. The City does not have the power to force the existing association to accept new development. However, as a condition of approval, the City Council can require that the developers of this project make their best efforts to annex to the existing homeowners association. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Meyer, stated that the "Buyer Awareness Package" was established approximately four years ago by the City of Diamond Bar for all new subdivision tracts. The idea of the package is to provide an additional meanslof information to the potential buyer of any given lot within the h ^� _.i-�A.....__.,.,,_,._ ,��� .�._ .V2�9 1 .., f._ r '..}�r l ,.T!e.'„"h_...,.w 4 k F May 8, 1995 Page 9 Planning Commission tract of homes. For example, this project is adjacent to a significant ecological area that has sensitive species of flora and fauna, predatory animals and a number of different items unique to the subdivision immediately adjacent to this project. The "Buyer Awareness Package" for this project would indicate the type of fencing material that would permit these types of animals to traverse the site. In addition, the package would indicate the buyer needs to be aware that there are animals present that may "eat your cat". Therefore, food should not be left outside. Additionally, the buyer would also be advised that careful consideration should be given toward the use of pesticides and other chemicals which might be hazardous to the immediate environment. He further stated that the package goes beyond that required by the Department of Real Estate and is prepared by the developer and designed to 'be specific to the tract. The City must sign off on the package and there must be evidence that every buyer and potential buyer has received the package. Again responding to C/Meyer, CDD/DeStefano stated the application was submitted as a Vesting Tentative Tract Map in 1989. The City did not have a Hillside Management Ordinance until October, 1990. This developer chose 'to adopt some of the standards of the Hillside Management Ordinance and incorporate them in their product even though they were not required to do so. C/Fong suggested that a reduction in density should result in a reduction of the amount of grading required. C/Fong stated his concerns regarding shear strength value and requested further explanation of staff's comments that lower shear strengths were used in adjacent tracts. C/Fong recommended that the developer, and consultant should state in writing their understanding of Smectite and Bentonite and clarification of the actual element contained in the project site. C/Fong stated that the project should implement the spirit of the Hillside Management Ordinance. VC/Huff recommended that the sentence referring to fences on T Page 2, Paragraph 2 under Wildlife Habitat of the Buyers Awareness Package" be changed to read: "No fences or other barriers can be constructed within these areas except for fences approved by the City of Diamond Bar." May g, 1995 Page 10 Planning Commission Chair/Flamenbaum requested clarification of the response to his question regarding planting of .trees on the hillside. He stated the response indicated that .the EIR does not state that trees shall not be planted on the hillsides. He read from the EIRas follows: "In general, the planting of trees on slopes is, not recommended, since the individual root systems, although very deep, are limited in extent and the process of normal growth may loosen the soil and create channels for the ingress of water into the soils". Chair/Flamenbaum again requested to know what happens at the end of the five year monitoring program for.tree growth.; Responding to questions from the Commission, CE/Myers, stated that the issue of reduction in density/grading is addressed in his memo 'to CDD/DeStefano dated April 20, 1995. He further stated that since there has been no five to ,fifteen, lot proposal submitted to the City, he is not in a position to state conclusively., that a smaller project would involve less grading,disturbance. with regard to the shear strength, CE/Myers stated that it is his understanding .regarding the lower parameters used in analyzing the reports on the adjacent tract, that there is no more information contained in the reports other,than that those parameters were assumed. This project incoporates a body of work and tests which recommend higher parameters than are being used in the,anaiysis. The applicant was pressed to stand by his earlier conservative assumptions in reviewing this project. CE/Myers asked for further clarification of C/Fong's concern for clarification of the definition of Smectite and Bentonite. In staff's opinion, the relevant information is being utilized in the geotechnical analysis and the definition of the material is academic. CE/Myers stated that the vesting status of this project map gives the City limited ability to require compliance with the Hillside ordinance. Staff feels that the applicant has attempted to comply with -the Hillside Management ordinance at the perimeter of the project. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the meeting open to public comments. Lydia Plunk stated that in her opinion, when dealing with a sensitive area the idea of donating property to a Conservancy 1 . _111.1,. m ,.,.. i�.._..r. _� .. ., ,.. -_. �.m . 1111. 1 .__� � -,__ i.:,.' I �_ 1 9•. vm__ i fir.""', May 8, 1995 Planning Commission is good. She requested that the Commission recommend to the Council that the criteria would assure that any property set aside would be used for the purposes stated in perpetuity and in good repair. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public comment portion of the meeting closed. RECESS: RECONVENE: Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Chair/Flamenbaum reconvened the meeting at 8:27 p.m.. Kurt Nelson, Diamond Bar Associates, stated that as a result of conversations with CDD/DeStefano and the City Council, the "Buyer Awareness Package" originally prepared for Tract No. 47851 has been revised and upgraded for Tract No. 47850. He further stated that if the oak tree plantings have survived for five years, they would have reached their full native state, thereby allowing them to survive on their own from that point. The homeowners association that is being established will be charged with further custody beyond the five year program. Regarding annexation, Mr. Nelson stated that, as a result of recent discussions with the board of directors of "The Country Estates", an agreement is forthcoming.. Diamond Bar Associates paid "The Country Estates" in excess of $300,000 in the mid 1980s in settlement of a legal action concerning the back country tracts which included Tract No. 47850. In addition to the lump'sum payment, the lots must pay $3000 for access rights as they are built out. There is an optional payment of $4,500 per lot that the owner must pay if they wish to avail themselves of "The Country Estates" recreational facilities. Mr. Nelson stated the applicant has offered to make the $4,500 mandatory for uniformity of annexation. In lieu of the $4,500, the applicant has offered to meet with the board of directors of "^he Country Estates" to determine what figure would be agreeable. Mr. Nelson further stated that as a result of project alternative studies conducted in 1987, the EIR states that a 15 lot subdivision would not significantly lessen the remedial grading. Given the studies and the fact that the 57 lots were 50 percent of the allowable number of lots under the ordinances in effect at the time the map vested, no further consideration was given to a 15 lot subdivision. May 8, 1995 Page 12 Planning Commission Mr. Nelson indicated Management Ordinance, Horst Shore in 1990. Planning Commission is by the engineering accommodate a large Ordinance. that, in the spirit of the Hillside the tract is completely redesigned by The project alternative before the the result of a radical tract redesign firm of 'Hunnsaker & Associates to portion of the Hillside Management Responding to VC/Huff, Tom Smith, Michael Brandman Associates, stated that the replacement ratio for oak ,trees is 4:1 and for walnut trees is 2:1. The intent of the monitoring program }s that at the end of the monitoring period there will be as mar_y living trees as there are planted. Mr. Smith agreed that the wording could be clarified to'indicate this outcome. Mr. Smith stated, in response to VC/Huff, that a condition of approval is that a specific mitigation plan is to be developed to determine where the buffer areas are in .relation to other requirements, such as, fuel modification, and biological restoration and habitat. There are a number of areas that are overlain by a number of different requirments. VC/Huff requested that the language be revised to limit the non-native plants to the pad. Referring to Page 28 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, VC/Huff read that "all trash and manmade materials shall be removed from natural open space areas on a regular basisn and he asked to know who would remove the trash. Mr. Nelson responded that the homeowners association would have the authority to respond to such conditions. C/Schad commended the applicant for attempting to developlia project that is aesthetically balanced with the existing environment by gathering seeds for approximately 5,000 plants from the project site, and having nurseries develop plants that are indicative to the area. Again responding to C/Fong's concern regarding the reduction of the number of units for the project, CDD/DeStefano stated that the City Council retains full discretion with respect to approval or denial of this project and if the Council feels that it is appropriate to reduce the number of dwelling units, it has the authority to impose such conditions.. C/Fong recommended that the number of building lots be reduced to 34 thereby, in his opinion, significantly reducing, the amount of necessary remedial grading; that these lots be removed from the westerly and southerly portions of the property where the ti4 ':F4�8� t - 1 _�____1 _JW .x,«I..r-.o-*ii alN xwu aa..a.--..—' fyh.'� _ _ .�e xxr„ro- mu.e. mn u•...m.vw nx+n e. - - _ - - - - — _ - __ .______-_ May 8, 1995 Page 13 Planning Commission most complicated geotechnical problems exist; development should be confined to the easterly portion of the site in those areas most generally covered by lots 1 through 12, 27 through 36 and 45 to 57 where the geotechnical conditions are most favorable. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum to recommend that the City Council approve the project subject to the 33 conditions from the Community Development Department, the 52 conditions recommended by the City's Engineering Department, the five (5) conditions recommended by CE/Myers in a 'memorandum dated March and addressed to the Community Development Director, the recommendations contained in Resolution No. 91-23, consideration of the Quimby Act, as well as other recommendations stated by the Planning Commissioners at this meeting. GENERAL COMMENTS: VC/Huff stated, that, in his opinion, if a developer came before the Planning Commission today with this project he would be shownithe door. The rights were granted to this project some time ago. Yet, it has been returned to the Planning Commission for recommendations. He further stated that he has difficulty recommending this project because he does not like the standards under which project approval might be granted. The residents have been clearly stating they want more open space, and less housing. In spite of the fact that development does not stop, it should be shaped to the needs of the City. He indicated he would like to see the project go back to the developer. The fact that the developer does not want to do a project of 34 units does not mean he cannot do it and still make a profit. He stated he believes there will be significant impact to the project site. In response to VC/Huff, C/Meyer commented that the Commission is dealing withi standards that were set in 1988 and 1989. The applicant applied for the map and had it veszted in 1989. The proposed density was over double of that now proposed. The project is consistent with the three draft general plans that the Commission has looked at. Special Counsel Robert Owen reminded the Commission they are free to make any recommendations they desire to the Council, but the Commission is not free to take a formal vote of approval or denial of the subdivision map, as is normally done for every subdivision map in the City, because it is not a noticed publicjhearing. May 8, 1995 Page 14 Planning Commission C/Fong suggested with respect to lots 3, 4 and 5 that the designer and consultants recheck their design on the shear keys. It appears that the geotechnical condition's on lots J, 4 and 5 are rather favorable and there is no need for a shear key as it is shown on the grading plan. He suggested the change is to not impact' the adjacent existing grove.of oak trees in the area. He stated it is a matter of changing a few lines on the map. C/Schad called for the question., C/Fong recommended that the Hillside Management Ordinance be implemented for this project. C/Fong recommended that the lots be staggered to have clear areas between the structures so a passerby or someone driving down the street can see between the houses down to the open areas. Chair/Flamenbaum restated the motion. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve all the conditions as presented by staff and transmit -all comments and recommendations stated at this meeting tonight. The motion was approved 5-0 with the following roil call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Huff, Schad, Fong, Meyer, Chair/Flamenbaum _NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None RECESS: Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:17 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Flamenbaum reconvened the meeting at 9:27 p.m. CDD/DeStefano introduced the new Assistant City Attorney, Mike Estrada, with the law firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon. NEW.BUSINESS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 95-1 and Development Review No. 95- 1. A request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 1634(1) in order to approve construction of a two story sanctuary structure with a cellar and two temporary modular units; and to ensure compliance with applicable design standards. Property Location: 3255 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar 0 `-_�'�i ,c,;� a a,:4_�.i. a •� May 8, 1995 Page 15 Planning Commission Property Owner/Applicant: Evangelical Free Church of Diamond Bar, 3255 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar VC/Huff announced that he would be recusing himself from this agenda item and left the dais. Ann Lungu stated the applicant is requesting approval to construct a two story sanctuary structure with a cellar and install two temporary modular classroom units. The modular units will be removed when the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the two story sanctuary structure. The applicant's request also includes lifting the time constraints and deleting irrelevant conditions of approval in the original Conditional Use Permit. The project site is a 2.37 acre triangular shaped lot. The project site is zoned R-1-7,500 and has a draft General Plan designation of Commercial (C). Since this facility is located in a residential area, a Conditional Use Permit is required to insure that the development of this church is well integrated with the existing development in the area within -the residential zone. The reason for the applicant's current request is twofold. First, the applicant desires to lift the time constraints of the original Conditional Use Permit. Since the Council's approval for the extension, of time, Phase II was completed. Consequently, it is reasonable to suggest that substantial construction and completion of the project has, occurred. Once substantial construction occurs within a grant's specified time limit, a grant is in full force and effect. Additionally, land use entitlements, which meet this requirement remain with the land. Therefore, the Commission could nullify the time constraint. The applicant wants the nullification in order to accumulate enough money to construct a debt free sanctuary structure. The applicant hopes to begin Phase III's construction at the end of 1997 or the beginning of 1998. Since the applicant is applying for revisions to the original 'Conditional Use Permit grant by the County, staff feels it is appropriate to delete conditions of approval which are no longer relevant. These conditions restrict the construction of a tower and/or spire and limits evening activities to twice a week. The applicant is not applying for a tower or spire, so that condition is no longer applicable. In the evenings, the Church provides community services by allowing Cub Scouts and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, as well as church activities. Therefore, it is not in the community's best interest to eliminate these services. May 8, 1995 Page 16 Planning Commission In December 1994 the City Council approved on -street parking along southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard from 100 feet south of the curb return at Crooked Creek Drive to the northerly driveway of the project'site. The permitted time for parking along Diamond Bar Boulevard is Sunday from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. However, the on -street parking is only permitted until installation begins for double left turn/intersection modification on southbound 'Diamond Bar "Boulevard at Brea Canyon Road. Presently;the project site -maintains' '41 on-site parking spaces, two of which are handicapped spaces. The code allows a ratio of one parking space for every five occupants based on the largest assembly area of the Church. The largest assembly area of the sanctuary structure will have an occupancy of 390 persons. Therefore,! based on code',' 78 parking spaces are required, ',two of which are required to be handicapped spaces. AstP/Lunge pointed out the current plan which allows for 76 on-site parking spaces.' Compact"parking spaces could be added to allow for the additional two on-site parking spaces needed to meet the code. The Fire Department is reviewing the proposed plans and their comments will be a requirement for this project. The parking lot construction causes the removal of three Aleppo Pine trees and one Canary Island Pine tree. The applicant is proposing to replace three of the four trees within the parking lot area. Proposed grading quantities for the sanctuary excavation for the 'cellar includes 2,960 cubic yards of soil. 172 cubic yards of the excavated soil will be deposited in the western portion of the parking lot. Exported soil quantities will be 2,788 cubic yards. Due to the expected excavation, the applicant is required to make'an application for a grading permit and submit a grading plan prepared by a Civil Engineer for review and approval by the City Engineer. An application for Development Review is required for this project because it is an institutional type use 'and the applicant is adding more than 10,000 square feet to the existing structure. The proposed project's development standards comply with the City's development standards. The architectural style of the proposed sanctuary structure will match the existing structures on-site. The colors and material utilized will match the existing structures which have red tile roofs and off-white colored stucco. As such, the proposed sanctuary 1_1� 1 , s "ip r May 8, 1995 Page -17 Planning Commission i structure will be compatible with existing on-site structures and other structures in the area. The applicant is also requesting to install two -24 feet by 60 feet temporary modular classroom units to be utilized until construction of the sanctuary is completed. Before the issuance of the sanctuary's Certificate of Occupancy, the temporary classroom units will be removed. In addition, the area will need to be paved to accommodate the temporary modular classroom units. Pursuant to the Development Review Ordinance, an application approved or conditionally approved automatically expires if not exercised within one year. However, the Planning Commission, subject to appeal to the City Council, may extend any such approval for two successive periods not to exceed six months each. Since construction of the proposed sanctuary depends on the Church's financial status, staff recommends that the Commission consider granting a two year Development Review approval. If construction does not begin within this two year period and the design of the sanctuary structure is not altered substantially, staff recommends that the Commission require the applicant apply for an Administrative Development Review application to ensure compliance with current design standards and the Commission's approval. The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approval Conditional Use Permit No. 95-1, Development Review No. 95-1, and Negative Declaration No. 95-1, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the resolution. Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, AstP/Lungu stated that if the applicant does not exercise the CUP within two years the project will be referred back for Administrative Review. Staff is recommending that the time constraints be lifted. The applicant has made a substantial completion of the project and only one phase is left to be completed. The reason staff recommended Administrative Development Review is to assure that the applicant has complied with the conditions. Chair/Flamenbaum indicated that the lifting of time constraints appears to be granting the applicant special privileges that have not been granted to any other applicant in the past. AstP/Lungu responded that staff feels that the May 8, 1995 Page 18 Planning Commission applicant has substantially complied with the CUP. This agenda item is an amendment to the original CUP approval. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum, AstP/Lungu indicated the proposed 78 on-site parking spaces complies with the code for a ratio of 1 parking space for every 5 occupants. The sanctuary accommodates 390 occupants. Chair/Flamenbaum questioned whetherthe 78 spaces would be adequate. In addition, he indicated that the City has shied away from adding compact parking spaces. AstP/Lungu stated the applicant may be able to increase the parking area to accommodate the two additional required spaces to comply with the Code without .adding compact, parking spaces. CE/Myers responding to, Chair/Flamenbaum stated he did not feel it was necessary to conduct a traffic study for this Conditional Use Permit. AstP/Lunge responding to Chair/Flamenbaum stated she believes that the, Church has had conversations regarding parking with the owner of the adjacent commercial property located across the flood channel. At this time, she indicated she is not aware of, any agreement for parking. C/Schad commented that he believes in extending the.time for the applicant since they have made a good faith attempt to comply with the Conditional Use Permit. He suggested the mesa area could be "stepped" for future parking. He indicated that some of the older pines along the storm drain may represent a hazard and may need to be removed. He cited the,historical value of the property in the knoll area and suggested that the applicant should consult with the City's historical group to see if there is anything on the property that should be preserved prior to further construction. He stated that the trash on the northwest corner of the property adjacent to the residences should be removed without cost to the Church. C/Schad suggested a northerly left turn lane from the Church property. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing open and requested that those in opposition to the project approach the podium. Larry Fry, 3155 Cherrydale Drive, 'stated he has been a resident of Diamond Bar for 21 years and has lived on Cherrydale Drive for 11 years. He indicated he does not oppose the Church. However, he does have a concern about the knoll area and the trees which are situated on the site of the original Diamond Bar Ranch ranch house. If the trees are taken out, they cannot be replaced in kind. In addition, red May 8, 1995 Page 19 Planning Commission tailed hawks live in the trees. He suggested the area that is proposed to be used for office space by the Church could be converted to classrooms and sublease office space in another location. Responding to C/Meyer, Mr. Fry stated he has no problem with removing the night meeting restriction. He indicated he has no problem with the bell tower as long as it is not used in the night hours. He further stated that he has no problem with the sanctuary. His only concern is the knoll area. Ronald Jung, 3163 Cherrydale Drive, stated he has been a resident of the area since 1981. He indicated that when he bought his property in Diamond Bar. he was told by the developer that the area was protected and the trees would remain along with the country feel. He further stated he is not opposed to building of the sanctuary but he is totally against any building on the knoll area. In response to C/Meyer, Mr. Jung stated he is opposed to lifting the restriction on the evening meetings and on the bell tower. Nora Jean Jung, 3163 Cherrydale Drive, stated she would have a problem with meetings five nights a week and she is opposed to the spires. She further stated she is concerned with the wildlife that live on the knoll and she is opposed to any building on the knoll area. Christine Fry, 3155 Cherrydale Drive, stated that she is surprised that the staff report does not include a negative environmental impact. She indicated she is very concerned with the wildlife in the knoll area and is opposed to any building in that location. She further stated she has no problem with evening Church meetings and she has no problem with a spire/tower for the sanctuary. Seeing no one else who wished to speak in opposition to the project, Chair/Flamenbaum invited the proponents to speak. Mark Hopper, Pastor, Evangelical Free Church of Diamond Bar, 3255 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, referred the Commission to the original site plan for the project adopted under the Conditional Use Permit which included a two-story building in the knoll area. The original building was completed in 1983. In 1990 the Church received a five year extension and since the building has not been completed, an extension is being requested at this time. He indicated that approximately $100,000 building funds have been raised and with the estimated cost to be in excess of $1,000,o00, there are insufficient funds to complete construction. Pastor Hopper _711 111 ill 11 1 May 8, 1995 Page 20 Planning Commission stressed that the Church has a desire to develop the grassy knoll and that this should be reflected in the staff's report. He asked that the addendum'to the staff report be changed to read as follows: "In the event that future expansion of the Church facilities into the knoll is needed, the applicant shall protect and preserve and/or relocate and replace ..:" He stated that the building for the knoll has been reduced from two-story to one story which would be approximately the height of a residence. i He further stated the Church would be willing to help grade down the knoll to reduce the nuisance and visibility, whether for building or for the parking. In addition, most of the trees are located on the perimeter of the knoll area and would not be,disturbed. The two or three trees that would be disturbed would be replaced by the Church. C/Fong suggested that the proposed knoll area classroom structure could be redesigned to be built into the hill to preserve the terrain and aesthetic value for the adjacent residents. Ron Clark, 20940 Ambusher Street, requested that the Planning Commission favorably consider the recommendation by staff. Pamela Watkins, resident of Pomona and Church attendee, cited numerous Church sponsored programs which impact the facility. She stated the Church is currently renting space at a facility on the opposite side of Brea Canyon Road to accommodate the overflow. Al Smith, Church Elder, emphasized the importance of providing facilities for the youth.of Diamond Bar. Michael Beard, Associate Pastor, Evangelical Free Church of Diamond Bar, stated there are no written agreements for parking at neighboring locations. Mr. Fung entered photographs of the project site into the record. Jim Thayer, Architect for the Church, indicated the majority of trees at the site would be preserved. He stated the 5 to 1 ratio for parking appears to be inadequate and the ratio is closer to 3 1/2 to 1. Larry Fry ,stated that, in his opinion, the restriction originally imposed by the County should remain on the project and that the Commission should consider restricting further building in consideration of the areas adjacent to the project site. ._-�..'C'iP , .S;.jl! ^ .; "1 `_.��� ' ,�,k':�.`° Ilh '7..�du ��i , ,_�" r13 t.111 `S May 8, 1995 Page 21 Planning Commission Responding to Mr. Fry, Pastor Hopper stated that the Church has needs and that they are attempting to move forward in a responsible manner, with due consideration to the neighbors. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 95-1 and Development Review No. 95- 1 which prohibits development on the grassy knoll, removes the time constraints of the original Conditional Use Permit, removes the spire constraint, and removes the restrictions on evening meetings. The motion was approved 4-1 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Chair/Flamenbaum, Fong, Schad NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Huff I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None VC/Huff returned to the dais. RECESS: Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 11:05 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Flamenbaum,reconvened the meeting at 11:10 p.m. 2. Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 92- 1, and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. A request to subdivide one parcel into four residential lots. Property Location: 3000 Block (north side) of Steeplechase Lane, Diamond Bar Property Owner: Dolezal Family Limited Partnership, 4251 S. Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Applicant: Warren Dolezal, 4251 S. Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Applicant's Agent: Hunsaker and Associates, 10179 Huennekens Street, San Diego, CA 92121 CDD/DeStefano stated that staff has provided the Planning Commission with an extensive package on this item including a lengthy staff report, environmental documentation, mitigation monitoring program as part of the negative declaration, maps, etc. This is an application for a four lot subdivision behind the gates of "The Country Estates" located on a 2.55 acre site May 8, 1995 Page 22 Planning Commission.: directly across the street from the JCC project discussed earlier this evening. The four proposed lots range in size from about 24,000 gross square feet to a little more than 39,000 gross square feet. The pad sizes range from abou_ 5,600 square feet to about 6,500 square: feet. The zoning for the property is R-1-8,000. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the zoning. The project is consistent with the draft General Plan which permits up' to three dwellin units per,acre. The project requires a Conditional Use Permit because'it i within a Hillside Management area and technically withina significant ecological area. An Oak Tree Permit is required because there is one existing oak tree on site which is se: aside and designated for preservation. The property has smaller pads than some of the adjacent properties, the purpos of which is to serve as starter pads for future development for homes ranging in size from 4,000 to 8,000 square feet an to attempt to comply with the Hillside Management Ordinance guidelines. The units would be consistent with that which has been and is being developed in "The Country Estates". The property is technically incorporated within the Significant Ecological Area (SEA) No. 15. However, there is only one oak tree in the area. The property has been disked over the last 20 years. It is essentially a remanent piece ',from the Las Brisas Condominium project which was built several years ago. The old SEA boundary generally ran along the ridgeline. This property, according to the graphic that was provided to the City upon incorporation, indicates the property is included within the SEA. The City hired a biologist and environmental consultant to look at the property and, through 'this process, confirmed staff's suspicion that the property should'no longer be considered a part of the SEA as it has none of the qualities for which the SEA was originally created.!,' Approximately 185 property owners surrounding the site have been notified through the public hearing notification process. Staff requests that the Planning Commission recommend approval and forward the application to the City Council for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2. Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, CDD/DeStefano stated "The Country Estates" has no interest in a third gate (Hawkwood Road and Steeplechase Lane). Hawkwood Road homeowners, are not interested in the additional traffic that a third gate at that location might create. The third gate does provide an appropriate location for an "emergency only" access point. _�.,... r . �,- -r a May 8, 1995 Page 23 Planning Commission Responding to C/Schad, CE/Myers indicated that there is existing sewer at the Las Brisas Condominium for connection to these four parcels. Therefore, no pumping station is needed. In response to VC/Huff, CE/Myers stated he does not note any significant drainage swales or down drains proposed for this project. CDD/DeStefano responded to VC/Huff that the condition for annexation is consistent with that imposed upon recent developments in "The Country Estates" i.e., that essentially a good faith effort must be demonstrated toward annexation into "The Country Estates" and that the fees should not exceed those which Tract 47722,paid. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing open. Lex Williman, Planning Director for Hunnsaker & Associates, 10179 Huennekens Street, San Diego, CA 92121, stated he is �- representing the applicant for this project. It is the intent of the project to annex to "The Country Estates" homeowners association. The intent of the project is to take driveway access from Steeplechase Lane and offer the ability within a 20 foot maximum step to drop the house down the hill in order to minimize grading and disturbance of the area. Mr. Williman indicated the applicant does not have any problem with the conditions except with one issue which is specifically related to the Hawkwood Road/ Steeplechase Lane interface. Hawkwood Road currently deadends. In addition, there is an emergency access from the Las Brisas Condominium complex which connects into Hawkwood Road and onto Steeplechase Lane. The applicant proposes, as an alternative to the cul-de-sac turn around, a gate with fence in a motif and material that mimics the entrance to "The Country Estates" which would be used for emergency access only. A small turn- around would be retained. He requested that the wording regarding the cul-de-sac be eliminated and attach their rendering as the basis for fulfilling that condition. C/Meyer requested the applicant provide hillside development standards that would put a building envelope on the four proposed lots. He stated he is opposed to the development as ,. it is proposed. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by VC/Huff to continue the hearing for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 to May 22, 1995. The motion was approved unanimously. ------1-_-_1-___-_11 .- _ _-7 II __ _ �e�a ,a�°" -11 1FII l i May 8, 1995 Page 24 Planning Commission 19'2' INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS None ANNOUNCEMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: Chair/Flamenbaum declared the meeting adjourned at 11.40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, es DeStef no Community ity ommunity JDeelopment Director Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman A