HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/14/1997MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 14, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. in the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by River Mclntoush.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad, and
Commissioners Fong, Goldenberg and McManus
Also Present: Deputy City Manager James DeStefano, Senior
Planner Catherine Johnson, Associate Planner
Ann Lungu and Planning Technician Susan Cole.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: Bob Zirbes, Diamond Bar
Improvement Association, asked the Planning Commission to
reschedule its October 28, 1997 meeting in order for the
Commission's three City Council candidates to participate in the
"
Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce forum.
Sam Saffari spoke about the withdrawn SunCal project (agenda Item
6.1). He asked the Planning Commission to establish a moratorium
on single, family residential developments in the City of Diamond
Bar.
Chair/Ruzicka asked that the record reflect that Mr. Saffari was
allowed additional speaking time for purposes of this item.
River Mclntoush talked about the large amount of traffic on the
City's streets.
Gary Neeley, Executive Director, Diamond ,Bar Caucus made the
following statement: "Good Evening. My name is Gary Neeley. I'm
the Executive Director of the Diamond Bar Caucus. Our offices are
at 1155 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Suite R, Diamond Bar, CA. It
came to my attention recently that, well, first of all, there's an
item on your agenda, number 6.2 that discusses a project in Tonner
Canyon that I understand is going to have a continuance on it this
evening. But before that happens, before you get to that agenda
item if you are going to have' a continuance I'd like to'discuss
that at this point in time, much like they're discussing SunCal
because there's going to be a continuancethere. Is that okay?"
r-, C/Ruzicka: "Fine with me, Mr. Neeley."
Mr. Neeley: "Recently I received some information that said that
one of the wives of one of your colleagues is working for that
l developer. I know for a fact that this particular Planning
Commissioner, Mr. Schad, has, in fact, participated in the
I
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
discussion regarding this project. This project is the only
development in Tonner Canyon. Mr. Schad of course, is well known
for his ""save Tonner Canyon"" diatribes. The gentleman before me;'
talked about the problem that we're having with traffic. I think
we all know, who have been around for awhile, that if we were
fortunate enough to get a regional bypass road around Tonner Canyon
that it would, in fact, and it has been professionally documented,
that it takes 30,000 cars a day off the surface streets of Diamond
Bar. We're talking Diamond Bar'Boulevard and Grand Avenue, the
very problem this gentleman (Mr. McIntoush and Mr. Saffari) was
just talking about - 30,000 cars a day. If, in fact that road Was
built in or around Tonner Canyon, .it would have to be financed
through developer fees. Developer fees for those developers who
are developing in Tonner Canyon. The very same people that are
employing one of your board member's wives. The very board member
who has spoken against not "only building in Tonner Canyon but
building this road. I see a direct conflict of interest here. A
prosecutable conflict of interest here. I'd like to know whether
this particular Planning Commissioner's wife does truly work for
this developer. I've asked him in a public forum on city on-line
and he's refused to answer me. I find myself, I don't normally
like to come down to the microphone and participate in this manner,
but I can't get an answer any other way. Mr. Chairman, could you
determine an answer to that question and whether or -not your
colleague there has a conflict of interest. I think it is that
important. We need to solve the traffic problem and having
somebody whose wife is being paid by the only developer in Tonner
Canyon stand up and stop the solution to our traffic problem and
piously cry ""save Tonner Canyon"" in his next breath is just
appalling to me. Could you'find out the answer to that question
for me, Mr. Chairman?"
DCM/DeStefano responding to public comment, stated that the SunCal
project has been withdrawn by the applicant. If the applicant
chooses to reapply, property owners surrounding the proposed
development will be noticed via the public hearing notice,
procedure.,
DCM/DeStefano indicated that issues related to traffic impacts
effecting Diamond Bar are largely a result of neighboring city
buildouts. The City continues to mitigate the cumulative effect of
projects within adjacent. communities such as Chino Hills and the
City of Industry.
DCM/DeStefano stated that from time to time, Planning Commissioners
and City Council Members may have a conflict of interest on a
particular project. They are responsible for disclosing the
conflict of interest with legal counsel and for recusing themselves
from any discussion and decision making process related to the
project. Commissioners, Council Members and staff receive regular
updates regarding the status of the law regarding conflict of
interest issues. Questions should be forwarded to the City
���"
Attorney.
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
C/McManus stated the following: "If since Mr. Schad has already
sat through two hearings on the Windmill Development project, I
believe we have a right to know if, in fact, there is a conflict of
` interest or not, and if his wife is in the employ of JCC or one of
their associates, then we have a right to know."
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of September 23, 1997.
2. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-3, A REQUEST
TO ALLOW THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING MINI-14ART AT
t THE CHEVRON GAS STATION AT 21324 PATHFINDER ROAD, DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA.
C/Goldenberg moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve Consent
Calendar Items 1.1 and 1.2. The motion was carried 5-0 with
the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Goldenberg, McManus, Fong,
VC/Schad, Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
�TT Following discussion regarding the October- 28, 1997 Planning
Commission meeting, .the Commission concurred to continue unresolved
matters to October 27, 1997.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS: - None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. General Plan Amendment No. 96-2, Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 52267, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52308,`
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-13, Conditional Use Permit
No. 96-16, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-3 and Oak Tree Permit
No. 96-5. Pursuant to Code Sections Title 21 -
'Subdivision, 22.56.215 -Part 1, Hillside Management Area,
Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1992) and 22.26 -Part
'16 -Oak Tree Permit, the project request consists of the
following:
a) VTTM No. 52267, Conditional use Permit No. 96-13 and
Oak Tree Permit'No. 96-3 is proposed for 130 single
family detached residential dwelling units clustered on
approximately 65 acres of a 339.3 acre site. The
development is proposed as a private, gated community.
Lots will range in size from 6,000 square feet to 26,000
square feet. The gross proposed density is 0.4 dwelling
units per acre with a net density of approximately 2.06
dwelling units per acre; and
i
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
b) VTTM No. 52308, General Plan Amendment No. 96-2,
Conditional Use permit No. 9.6-16 and Oak Tree Permit No.
96-5 is proposed for 610 single-family detached '4'4
residential dwelling units clustered on approximately
36.7 acres of the 86.3 acre site. The development is
proposed as a private, gated community. Lots will range
in size from 8,000 square feet to 41,750 square feet.
The gross proposed density is 0.7 dwelling units per acre
with a net density of approximately 1.63 dwelling units
per acre.
Additionally, the project includes a General Plan
Amendment to allow additional residential development,in
excess of 130 dwelling units within General Plan Planning
Area 2, and the removal of deed and map restricts and the
potential for acquisition of publicly owned property
adjacent to Pantera Park.
Property Address: VTTM No. 52267 is generally located
east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and
north of Grand Avenue. VTTM No.
52308 is generally located northeast
of Pantera Drive and south of
Bowcreek Drive. City of Diamond
Bar, California.
Applicant: SunCal Companies, 550 W.
Orangethorpe Avenue, Placentia,
California 92806
The Developer has requested that the project be
withdrawn. Staff recommends that the letter of
withdrawal be received and filed.
CjMcManus addressed Mr. Saffari's comments regarding this
project as follows: "Yes, Mr. Safarri, you started out
talking about the honesty, candor and forthrightness of
the City. I have a flyer here that was printed up and
passed out in your neighborhood that has some gross
misrepresentations in it. It says here ""last chance -
last hearing I'll and it keeps hammering on that same thing
- last chance, last hearing and that was for the last
meeting which is, in fact, the first chance and the first
hearing. Some people who live up there also told me that
they understood SunCal bought that property for $150,000.
I will tell you right now that if you can get that
property for $150,000, I will buy it and donate it to the
City. No problem. So there's a lot of gross
misrepresentations that are going on within your own
group. Also, you asked why the announcement was sent out
- the yellow sheet - since there was no announcement that ,_„
it was being continued. It was announced here at a
public meeting. Therefore, we had to send that
announcement out. The City had to send to send that
announcement out. And I believe, and Mr. DeStefano can
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
�- confirm this, the piece of property that you're talking
about, the big piece of property, at the point in time
j that it was sold, was sold with a Memorandum of
=� Understanding in place.which means that whoever bought it
had a right to develop it under certain constraints. You
said something about 65 homes. The one I read said 130.
I will defer to Mr. DeStefano to answer that. But they_
have a legal right, when they bought the property it was
already approved, to develop that part of it. And the
property is in private hands. Would you want somebody to
come in and say okay, we're going to take your land away
and destroy your home because we want a park here. Think
about that. I happened to have lived here for 18 years.
And I live right off Grand Avenue. So Mr. McIntoush, you
talk about the traffic, I hit it every morning. And it
takes me sometimes - I have a business here in Diamond
Bar - and it's less than a mile away from my home. It
sometimes takes me 15 minutes to get home in the evening.
When they wanted to broaden that corner - widen Diamond
Bar and Grand - I was unalterably opposed to it. I feel
if you build wider lanes then you bring more traffic and
sure enough, it did. But most of that traffic does come
from out of the community. Now we need to work on
something to resolve that specific problem - to get that
traffic from other communities off of our streets. And
long before we became a City, a bypass cut -through Tonner
Canyon was proposed. And I remember the Highway'Patrol
coming down to a municipal advisory counsel meeting that
they had done a study that (concluded) the minute Grand
Avenue was opened, it would be at 110 percent capacity.
So we knew it before we were incorporated. So, as Mr.
Fong is pointing out, a lot of that flows from past
leadership - the mistakes they made, shortsightedness,
all that sort of thing. And we don't want, and I don't
want those hills developed either, in all candor. I
would rather see it all remain open space. But, somebody
has invested money in it. And if we can't reimburse them
for it, we need to find an amicable solution. Some way
to work it out."
C/McManus continued: "And I do believe with all my heart
and soul that Mr. Schad owes an explanation to the
Community of Diamond Bar about his wife working for a
developer that has a project down here."
The Commission concurred to receive and file the
applicant's letter of withdrawl.
2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use
Permit No. 96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change
96-1 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21, and Title
22.56.215, 22.26 Part 16 and 22.16 Part 2) are requests
to approve a 15 lot subdivision on approximately 44
acres. The average lot size will be 2.92 acres. Six of
the proposed lots are part of two approved tracts.
�'•Gz?: ry app-_. NmmvTlFmAma*���-.=�n3�..w�'flan£.-�.u':_r-"���rs.-M'a•.. �-vs-.. �•`•a�w.. ...HMT'I^ ,,ti T'^I'•- .r.�.i s. a .�� sem- -r a .....
OCTOBER 14, 1997
PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
Therefore, VTTM 50314's development will, result in a net
increase of 13 residential lots. The project site is
within Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area No.
15. The Zone Change will convert the current zoning of
R-1-20,000 and A-2-2 to R-1-40,000. Continued from
August 26, 1997.
Project Address: Southeast of the most southerly
intersection of Steeplechase
Lane and Wagon Train Lane.
Project owner/Applicant:-Kurt Nelson, Windmill
Development, 3480 Torrance
Boulevard, Suite 300, Torrance,
CA 90503
Due to the applicant's request for a continuance to
October 28, 1997, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission continue the public hearing to October 27,
1997.
Chair/Ruzicka reopened the public hearing.
Gary Neeley: "I'm just amazed that first of all, Mr.
Schad, you haven't answered the question. Does your wife
work for the developer or doesn't she work for the
developer? If she doesn't, just lean forward to the
microphone and say no, she doesn't." .'
VC/Schad: "NO. Is that it?"
Mr. Neeley: "She does not work in any way, any capacity,
in any way shape or form, she's not on the payroll for
JCC, Jack Cameron, any of his derivities? Is that right?
Never has been."
VC/Schad: "Paul, turn up the volume. This man's having
trouble hearing."
Mr. Neeley: "I take it that's a "no"? We'll look into
that. We'll have the district attorney look into that,
Mr. Schad. Thank you very much."
Chair/Ruzicka: "Thank you, Mr. Neeley."
C/McManus moved, C/Fong seconded, to continue Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use Permit No.
96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change 96-1 to
October 27, 1997. The motion was carried 5-0.
3. General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Tentative Parcel Map No.
24646, conditional Use Permit No. 96-14 and Oak Tree
Permit No. 96-4 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21- `
Subdivision, Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1992)
and Part 16-22.26 Oak Tree Permit). The subject request
OCTOBER 14, 1997
PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
proposes to change the General Plan land use designation
for 5.88 acres within a 132 acre parcel located in a
gated community identified as "The Country Estates". The
land use designation will change from Open Space to Rural
Residential. The remaining 126.12 acres will continue as
Open Space. The proposal includes: subdividing the 5.88
acres into four lots, each a minimum of one acre, for the
eventual development of four single family custom homes;
the removal and replacement of oak and walnut trees; and
the removal of a map restriction.
Property Address: Easterly side of Blaze Trail across
from the intersection of Timbertop
Lane.
Property Owner/ Diamond Bar Country Estates
Association,
Applicant: 22615 Lazy Meadow Drive, Diamond
Bar, California 91765
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue
! the public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 96-1,
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24646, Hillside Management
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-14 and Oak Tree Permit No.
96-4 to January 27, 1998.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
I Art O'Daly asked if the Planning Commission received the
requested information regarding "The Country Estates"
Homeowners Association survey. He asked if there is a
reason this item is being continued to January 27, 1998.
DCM/DeStefano explained that the applicant requested this
matter be continued to January 27, 1998.
AP/Lungu responded to C/Fong that the applicant indicated
that approximately 300 homeowners were surveyed. Of
those who responded, 80 percent were in favor of
proceeding with the development by obtaining revenue from
the project's sale to build new recreational facilities,
and 20 percent were in favor of a personal assessment.
Frank Shu spoke in favor of the project.
C/McManus moved, VC/Schad seconded, to continue General
Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Tentative Parcel Map No. 24646,
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-14 and Oak Tree Permit No.
96-4 to January 27, 1998. The motion was carried 4-1
with -the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, VC/Schad, Goldenberg,
Chair/Ruzicka
4_ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
== �—. _.__ - _ _.� �.Y�,_,�r+r�.,��, _,ron�mmmr�r»� .. �..,._-r:�=`�= it -•==W ` - '-� ui a iGi i`u�� .,�,��:�� _._ __ .__, . _
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
4. Draft Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment 2CA 97-1
and Negative Declaration No. 97-3). . Review of all gp
Articles of the Draft Development Code, Draft Subdivision
Code, and Draft Design Guidelines.
DCM/De5tefano explained that the Subdivision Code willlbe
presented at a future Commission meeting as a separate
document.
Chair/Ruzicka reminded staff that the following items
were discussed and agreed upon by the Commission: Adult
Businesses - the Commission concurred that the code
should be the most restrictive code permitted by law;
Signs - that signs should include the maximum amount'of
English permitted under the law; View Protection - the
Commission concurred that the Laguna Beach Ordinance was
appropriate to Diamond Bar; and, with respect to Tree
Preservation and Protection, Item A. under Exemptionsion
Page III -131 was revised to the following language (See
August 26, 1997 Planning Commission minutes): "Trees,
except those designated by the City Council as a
historical or cultural tree, and trees required to be
preserved, relocated or planted as a condition of
approval of a discretionary permit, located on all
developed properties prior to adoption of this
Development Code."
SP/Johnson presented the updated Draft Development Code
and explained the document revisions.
C/Goldenberg said he believes the Commission agreed to
require 4" inch digits with respect to address numbers
(Article III - Page 117, Table 3-X, Section I "Additional
Requirements").
DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/Ruzicka that the 4"
requirement does not effect any other portion of the
Development Code.
C/McManus asked about the standard required for curbside
digits.
Following discussion, the Commission concurred to require
910" x 1910" (nine feet by nineteen feet) commercial
parking spaces with no provisions for compact parking
spaces.
Bob Zirbes said he supports the Commission's
recommendation for larger parking stalls.
Ed MacDonald suggested that the Commissioner consider a
10 foot residential side yard setback to allow for
additional on-site parking.
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
DCM/DeStefano referred Mr. MacDonald to Page II -11 of the
proposed Development Code. The table suggests a minimum
residential side yard setback of five (5) feet on one
side and 10 feet on the other side with a minimum
requirement of 15 feet between dwelling units. In
addition, a minimum three (3) feet safety clearance is
required.
C/Fang asked that cross-references - pages to figures and
figures to pages - be cited in connection with (Figures).
ie, -Page III -13, 22.16.090 Setback Regulations and
Exceptions 4. b., last line (Figure 3-3).
C/Fong asked that dimensions be included in the Figures.
ie, figure at the top of Page III -14 appears to lack an
indication of a five (51) Imaginary Rear Property Line
setback.
C/Fong asked that the following be in Paragraph 4.under
B. Grading standards on Page III -44: "Exploratory
trenches and access roads should be properly backfilled
and erosiontreatment and revegetation be provided." The
Commission concurred.
C/Fong asked that ", except individual detached single-
family residences" be removed from the first sentence of
A. under Applicability on Page III -65. The Commission
concurred.
I
! C/Fong again discussed Paragraph A. under 22.38.060
t
€ Exemptions on Page III -148. Following discussion, the
Commission referred to the August 26, 1997 minutes which
state the Commission's concurrence that the language read
E as follows: "Trees, except those designated by the City
Council as a historical or cultural tree, and trees
required to be preserved, relocated -or planted as a
condition of approval of a discretionary permit, located
on all developed properties prior to adoption of this
Development Code."
f
VC/Schad asked that consistent with the General Plan,
"arroyo" be included in Paragraph B. under 22.38.030 -
Protected Trees so that it reads: "Native oak, walnut,
sycamore, arroyo willow, and naturalized. California
Pepper trees with a DBH of eight inches or greater."
DCM/DeStefano responded that staff will check the
paragraph and advise if the insertion is appropriate.
The Commission concurred with C/Fong to change the second
sentence of the second paragraph entitled DBH under D.
Definitions, "D". to read as follows: 'The diameter of
a tree trunk measured in inches at a height of 4.5 feet
at the average point of the natural grade, etc."
-
.�.omar.rwnF a�mm.m� n - •�.�--,-=.,4��"`�"" � �-`^'-r,'�I?r^"�'i;�T�"�h *ar"i^'� .__=..-_
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 10, PLANNING COMMISSION
VC/Schad again asked that Paragraph 3,' Item B. under
22.38.130 - Tree .ReplacementRelocation Standards be �`
changed to include certified arborist. :,;ci;'°
DCM/DeStefano referred VC/Schad to the Definitions
Chapter Article VI, Page VI -5 of the Development Code.
C/Goldenberg reminded the Commission that it had
requested staff to provide them with a copy of the Laguna
Beach View Protection Ordinance for possible adoption.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the matter was most recently
discussed by the Laguna Beach City Council on October 7,
1997 for first reading of the Ordinance. The council was
concerned that the proposed ordinance was a potential
"bureaucratic nightmare". He indicated staff will review
the matter and present the Commission with an update'at
its October 27, 1997 meeting.
VC/Schad moved, C/McManus seconded, to continue the Draft
Development Code, Draft Citywide Design Guidelines, and
Negative Declaration No. 97-3, and, if appropriate, adopt
the Resolutions recommending City Council approval, and
continue the Hearing Subdivision Code review to October
27, 1997.
PUBLIC HEARING - None
V'
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
DCM/DeStefano• responded to C/Goldenberg that due to VC/Schad's
request for information regarding the Department of Fish and Game's
Code 1600 Permitting Process, as is customary, copies were provided
to all Commissioners.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
DCM/DeStefano reported that at its October 7, 1997 meeting, the
City Council approved distribution of a bid package for
construction of traffic signals at Golden Springs Drive at
Calbourne Drive, and Diamond Bar Boulevard at Palomino Drive.
DCM/DeStefano stated he approved two new residential construction
projects for JCC Development and a residential addition within "The
Country Estates".
DCM/DeStefano indicated that the Traffic and Transportation
Commission is continuing to pursue the School Traffic Study.
DCM/DeStefano revealed that at its October 7, 1997 meeting, the
City Council agreed to appoint two City Council Members, two Parks }
and Recreation Commissioners, and two members from each school
district to a Parks Master Plan priority and funding implementation
plan subcommittee.
OCTOBER 14, 1997
PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION
DCM/DeStefano reported that the California Legislature approved and
the Governor signed Assembly Bill 1226 co-sponsored by Assemblyman
Miller which allows Diamond Bar to receive an additional two year's
- subvention which amounts to approximately $2,000,000.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS as listed in the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
'F There being no further business to come before the Planning
Commission, Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at -10:02 p.m. to
Monday, October 27, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District Auditorium.
Respectfully Submitted,
_
p
ri'
da- e:, DeStef:Elho,
secretary
Attest:
x
Y
Joe Ruz ickca._._,__
Chairman
t
e
-
n
F
rk
�S
i
- ""• �W<_ .. ._.....��_,� ,. ....-r—,. -. r- :'mss ..m.�m•.... , w a.:.......:.....2...........�u,.w....�..,ar....,..�t,.. �
� R!m .f '.- � ,--• ,u_" ,.% �-s" •-