HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/12/1997MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 12, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 6:07 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 Ron Pflugrath of The Planning
and Zoning Alliance.
ROLL CALL:
Present:
Also Present:
Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad,
Commissioners Fong, Goldenberg and McManus
Deputy City Manager James DeStefano, Senior
Planner Catherine Johnson, and Associate
Planner Ann Lungu.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Don Gravdahl asked what the current code allows with respect to
-_„ concrete and brick work within residential front yard setbacks and
whether the Diamond Point Homeowners Association CC&R's allow
j, homeowners to concrete and brick their entire front yards. He said
it is his understanding that the City's Property Maintenance
Ordinance allows only 40 percent of residential frontage to be used
for parking. He spoke about his concerns regarding circular
driveways.
Mr. Pflugrath stated the "Offstreet Parking and Loading Standards"
require that driveways that provide access to garages having a
setback of less than 24 feet from the property line shall not
exceed the width of the garage door opening plus two feet. The
Development Code does not address circular driveways. Generally,
circular driveways are determined by the width of the lot and what
curb cuts are allowed by the City's Engineer. He suggested this
matter could be added to the Residential Parking section of the
code.
Mr. Gravdahl responded to VC/Schad that the homes in question
include two car garages.
CONSENT CALENDAR - None
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS - None
" CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Draft Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 97-1)
Article III - Site Planning and General Development
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 2PLANNING COMMISSION
Regulations.
Mr. Pflugrath presented -Chapter 3, Fences, Hedges and
Walls, of Article III.
C/McManus asked for clarification of the third section of
Table 3, Page III -20 and whether a maximum height limit
of 30 inches would be imposed',for open fencing.
Mr. Pflugrath 'responded that grill work and wrought iron
fencing is not limited to a height of 30 inches.' He
indicated the information will be added to the chart.
Mr. Pflugrath responded to VC/Schad that swimming pool
fencing is addressed in the Uniform Building Code. He
referred VC/Schad to 'Special Wall and Fencing
Requirements, A. on Page III -22'.
C/Goldenberg suggested,that "Building" be inserted in A.
Swimming pools, spas and similar features under Special
Wall and Fencing Requirements an Page III -22 to designate
the applicable City Code.
Mr. Pflugrath indicated he will check to determine
whether it is contained within'the•city code or specific
building code section.`!''
I
Chair/Ruzicka asked that an example be sited under
Authority to Waive or Modify Requirements on Page III -23.
C/Goldenberg again asked for consistency regarding
references to Hearing officer and Director throughout the
document.
Mr. Pflugrath stated the Director and Hearing Officer are
not necessarily the same person.
C/Goldenberg asked' that. both terms be "included in the
glossary.
Chair/Ruzicka asked that a statement be included to
indicate that although the Hearing officer and Director
are currently the same person, in the future these
positions may be held by two individuals.
Mr. Gravdahl spoke about a six foot block wall in the
front yard setback of a home"in his neighborhood.
C/Goldenberg requested that Mr. Gravdahl provide him with
a property address so that he may inspect the property in ".
question.
,
i
Bob Zirbes reiterated his concern that a definition of
"view" be contained in the document. He asked that
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
"temporary lighting and holiday lighting" be addressed in
Article III.
Mr. Pflugrath indicated the code does not address
residential lighting. Other temporary uses such as
Christmas tree lots and pumpkin lots are required to
obtain temporary use permits. Residential holiday
lighting could be addressed under the Property
Maintenance section.
Mr. Zirbes asked if areas for affordable housing are
defined within the City's General Plan.
SP/Johnson stated that the General Plan addresses
density. The State requires that affordable housing be
disbursed throughout ttia City and not concentrated in any
one area.
HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT
C/McManus asked that "elide" be corrected to "slide" in
the fourth line of Paragraph I. under Purpose on Page
III -25.
rY VC/Schad asked that "streams" be added to Paragraph E.
under Purpose on Page III -24. n
C/Goldenberg asked if a project site slope five (5)
percent or greater requires a handicap ramp.
Mr. Pflugrath responded that he will check the UBC.
VC/Schad asked that "with native or indigenous
vegetation" be added to the end of.the paragraph entitled
natural slope on Page III -26.
Mr. Pflugrath indicated this requirement is stated
further into this seuti.on of the document.
Chair/Ruzicka asked that "to" be deleted from the third
line of Paragraph 1 under B. Exceptions on Page III -31.
He requested rewording of the first sentence in Paragraph
2 under B. Exceptions. Suggested wording: "The
Commission may approval a Variance from the standards of
this Chapter in compliance with 22.xx(Variances) for
parcels that are too small in size or of a configuration
that would ... etc."
«Chair/Ruzicka asked that subparagraphs D. and E. of the
Landform Grading and Revegetation Standards be re -
lettered to subparagraphs C. and D. -respectively.
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
C/Goldenberg stated his concerns about Slope Category 4.
within Table 3 on Page III -33. He asked that the
standards be identified.
DCM/DeStefano indicated the City's current code outlines
the provisions contained within Table 3 on Page III -33.
The Commission may wish'to modify the conditions. He
cautioned the Commission not to restrict the property
owner's ability to develop his/her property. The current
categories allow the City to look at each case on its own
merits.
C/Goldenberg indicated he would prefer tighter language
which would still allow for freedom of development.
DCM/DeStefano explained to VC/Schad that the City's
Public Works Division regularly monitors the bench drains
in the City in accordance with current codes and
ordinances. Notices are routinely sent to property
owners that the drains must be cleaned and maintained.
C/Fong asked for definition of "certify" under 4. Use of
variable slope ratios b. 1).
DCM/DeStefano responded that the developer's geotechnical
engineer submits a certified soils and geotechnical
report and project design for the City's geotechnical
review.
C/Goldenberg asked the consultant to provide a graphic
for Item 5. under B. Grading standards on Page III -35.
C/Goldenberg asked for clarification of the seemingly
conflicting height requirements contained in Item 7. a.
and b. under B. Grading standards on Page III -35.
Mr. Pflugrath responded that he believes the statements
are correct. He will check for accuracy.
C/Goldenberg asked that a graphic be added for Item 4
under C. Grading guidelines at the top of Page III -36.
a VC/Schad asked that "the use of pumps or other systems"
be added to Items 3. and 4. under A. Drainage Standards
on Page III -37.
DCM/DeStefano stated the developer's technical
consultants certify the type of mitigation measures
utilized to dispose of drainage which is approved by the
City.
C/Goldenberg stated that with respect to the chapter
entitled Access, Trails, and Roadways A. Access, trails
and roadway standards. 1. and 2. on Page III -38, he
�i
.........
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
believes the fire department requires a maximum of 15
- percent is allowed for driveway grades. He asked that
"and turnarounds" be inserted in the last sentence of
subparagraph 1. so that it reads: "Parking landings and
turnarounds shall be utilized on all drives over 10
percent grade.
DCM/Destefano stated the City has been operating under a
code that allows up to 15 percent of a limited stretch of
a street and up to 20 percent within a drive. This is a
policy issue the Planning Commission may wish to
reconsider.
C/Goldenberg stated he is concerned about the ability of
emergency vehicles to traverse certain areas.
The Commission asked Mr. Pflugrath to present his
recommendation.
VC/Schad asked that "Wildlife Migration Corridors" be
inserted in Item 4. under B. Access, trails, and roadway
guidelines on Page III -39.
C/Goldenberg asked for an explanation of Item 5 under A.
-, Architecture standards on Page III -40. He asked that the
second sentence be changed to read: "Decorative shielded
lighting to highlight a structure is allowed."
C/Goldenberg recommended that Item 3. under A. Fences and
landscaping standards refer to Page III -43 Item C.
C/Goldenberg recommended that Item 4. under A. Fences and
landscaping standards refer to Page III;- 44 Item D.
Chair/Ruzicka expressed concerns regarding the use of
wood shake roofing materials.
DCM/DeStefano responded that strict standards are set
forth by the City's Building official regarding the
percentage of roof that can be replaced with certain
types of materials. He advocated avoiding disallowance
of certain types of materials.
VC/Schad asked that "historical plant materials" be
included in D. under Evaluation of Development Review
Application on Page III -44.
DCM/DeStefano stated that before the term "historic" is
-. inserted into the document, a definition should be
determined.
The Commission concurred to determine a definition for
"historic" in the Tree Ordinance with reference to Item
D. on Page III -44.
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
Craig Clute asked if the Development Code calls out arir"'f'u"'a`"
architectural review committee.'''""
Mr. Pflugrath stated the Development Code does not refer
to a special architectural,review committee. Staff would
continue this process.
Responding to Kerry Garza, SunCal Companies, 550 West
Orangethorpe, Placentia, C/ McManus asked that "Where
feasible" be added to the beginning of the third sentence
of Item 2. under B. Grading standards on Page III -34 so
that the sentence reads: "Where feasible, top soil shall
be stockpiled during rough grading and used on cut and
fill slopes."
Mr. Garza stated his concerns regarding the term
"prominent" ridge as called out in the first sentence of
Item 5. under B. Grading standards since he believes he
is positioned to construct residences which conflict with
the proposed code.
DCM/De5tefano suggested the paragraph refer to the
definition of Ridge as stated on Page III -26.
Chair/Ruzicka asked for further discussion of Mr. Garza' s
concern by the consultant and the Commission.
Mr. Garza stated he is concerned about the maximum of 130
dwelling units allowed for a cul-de-sac (see Item '7.
under A. Access, trails and roadway standards on Page
III -38.
DCM/DeStefano stated he believes 30 dwelling units was
specified in the Fire Code and Planning and Zoning Code
at the time the document was crafted.
C/McManus asked that ''S_ingle family" be inserted prior to
dwelling units in Item 7. under A. Access, trails, and
roadway standards.
Chair/Ruzicka asked that 1130" refer to the code 'as
applicable.
Responding to Mr. Garza's concerns, Chair/Ruzicka asked
that -Item 1 under A. Fences and landscaping standards
provide reference to the Noise Control chapter.
Mr. Garza pointed out that "ion" should be eliminated
from Item D. under Fire protection standards on Page III -
43.
LANDSCAPING STANDARDS
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
VC/Schad recommended that "fire sensing devices" be
b considered under g. Drip irrigation on Page III -50.
Mr. Pflugrath suggested that fire sensing devices are
recommended by the City's Building Official and may not
be appropriate for the Development Code.
C/Goldenberg asked for explanation of the last sentence
under paragraph B. Final Landscape Plan on Page III -46.
C/Goldenberg asked if the requirement (E. Statement of
surety on Page III -46) for posting of a performance bond,
letter of credit or certificate of deposit for a two year
period is useful.
C/Goldenberg recommended improving the language of
Paragraph 2. Unused areas under Landscape Area
Requirements on Page III -46. He stated he believes the
current language may present development problems where
landscaping is required in the event that trees covered
under the Tree Ordinance were planted and then had to be
removed or replaced.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the intent of this item is
to not create a dirt pad area but to provide some sort of
landscaping to eliminate appearance, to deal with dust
yw control and the like such as the Gateway Corporate pad
previously used by the Ranch Festival.
Mr. Pflugrath responded to Chair/Ruzicka that he will
attempt to improve the language of the item for improved
understanding.
C/Goldenberg asked that "unless a bond is posted" be
added to the end of the last sentence of Paragraph B.
specific zone landscaping requirements on Page III -47.,
Mr. Pflugrath responded that the inclusion of such
language would be appropriate.
C/Goldenberg, referring to the last sentence of Paragraph
C. New single-family residences on Page III -47, asked how
the 50 percent figure was determined.
C/Goldenberg said that some of the percentages indicated
on Table 3 on Page III -47 do not work.
C/Goldenberg stated that Item 6 and 9 on Page III -48
contain arbitrary figures.
DCM/DeStefano stated that with respect to Item 6, a five
foot wide landscape area is generally accepted as the
minimum width that can survive within an area that is
incorporated by curbing or some type of barrier that may
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
prohibit root growth. He suggested that wording could be 9`2
P g gg g incorporated to explain the different circumstances for
creating growth area.
Mr. Pflugrath stated the five foot wide minimum is a
standard that is ircorporated primarily to aid tree
growth. If no trees are involved, a smaller planter area
could be specified.
Mr-. Pflugrath commented that the three foot berms
discussed in Item '9 is typical.
C/Fong suggested that Item 9 include a statement that
when an earthen berm is required to screen parking, it
would not need to be a minimum of three feet "in height as
long as it accomplished the desired aesthetic effect.'
Mr. Pflugrath recommended Item 9 state that where earthen
berms are proposed without landscaping that they should
be: a minimum of three feet in height. If the berm is
proposed in connection with other landscaping features,it
could be less than three feet in height.
C/Goldenberg requested that "may" be used in place of
"shall" in the second line of Paragraph 5 on Page III -49.
C/Goldenberg suggested that in the event a 48 inch tree
was to be replaced, there could be difficulty with the
statement "in kind" near .the end of the third line lin
Paragraph 6 on Page III -49.
DCM/DeStefano suggested adding words that incorporate a
determination by the Director. The reason for the
current language is to prevent a developer from removing
a tree without reason or penalty.
C/Goldenberg asked for reconsideration of the languagein
Item 3 under section A. Director to approve on Page III -
50. He indicated that this may be the proper place to
look for circumstances or requirements in that area.
DCM/DeStefano explained the language and suggested the
statement may be further clarified.
RECESS: Chair/Ruzicka recessed the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
RECONVENE: Chair/Ruzicka reconvened the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
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
.....__ , -„m,_.I
Ts
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 9..,.:_ PLANNING COMMISSION
the proposed lots are part of two approved tracts.
Therefore, VTTM 50314's development will result in a net
increase of 13 residential lots. The project site is
within Los Angeles County's Significant Ecological Area
No. 15. The Zone Change will convert the current zoning
of R-1,200 and A-2-2 to R-1-40,000.
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
AP/Lungu stated the referenced project was presented to
the Planning Commission on July 22, 1997. At that time,
the public hearing was opened, comments were received on
the Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 97-1 (SCH 96-
071104) and the project entitlement. The public hearing
was continued to August 12, 1997.
The purpose of the continuance is to allow staff,•City
consultants and the applicant the opportunity to address
the Commissioners' concerns and respond to public
comments. The responses are presented in a
correspondence from the City's environmental consultant,
Michael Brandman Associates, dated August 5, 1997.
Additionally, a colored landscape exhibit has been
forwarded which delineates the landscaping on Lots 14 and
15, approved with Tracts 47851 and -48487 respectively.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend
approval for VTTM 50314, Zone Change No. 96-1,,
Conditional Use Permit To. 96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1
and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and recommend
certification of EIR No. 97-1 (SCH 96-0711104), Findings
of Fact and conditions as listed within the draft
resolution.
Mike Houllihan and Tom Leslie, Michael Brandman and
Associates, stated they are present to respond to
Commissioners' questions on their written responses.
C/McManus asked if, with respect to comment number 5. in
a letter directed to DCM/ DeStefano on August 6, 1997,
the consultants specifically looked for species and
specific signs.
Mr. Leslie responded that the survey encompasses an array
of items that are specifically sought. He concurred with
C/McManus that the statement should be extended to
indicate the items were looked for and not observed.
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
nil, Referring to Page 2, C/McManus asked why there is a
conflict with the U.S. Department of Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service regarding possible impacts of this
project on the Coastal Gnatcatcher and other items.
Mr. Leslie responded that one of the field biologists who
conducted the survey is a,Permitted Gnatcatcher Biologist
and the other field biologist has had over 200 hours of
supervised gnatcatcher, survey, work. The biologists
determined, based upon the field survey, that this tract
is potential gnatcatcher habitat. Therefore, they did
not recommend nor did they conduct,,protocol gnatcatcher
surveys.
C/McManus asked for comment on the statement in Paragraph
1, Page 3 which reads: "We agree that the impacts to
these habitats resulting from the proposed projects are
adverse and not mitigatible. However, the adverrse
impacts to these natural habitats likely will be far
higher than noted in;the DEIR due to indirect effects."
Mr. Leslie indicated the Fish and Wildlife Service 'is
looking at the region generally. He supposed that agency
personnel had not actually visited the property. If they
had visited the property and read the biological
assessment prepared -by Michael Brandman Associates,ihe+`'r;
believes they would concur with the report.
C/McManus pointed out that Paragraph 2 on Page, 3
indicates that "These habitats also likely serve as
movement corridors for wildlife in this area. The
mitigation that has been prepared for the loss of these
habitats is inadequate". He pointed out that there is no
equivocation in this statement.
Mr. Leslie pointed out that the statement indicates
"likely". He indicated his firm conducted a movement
corridor assessment on the property which is discussed'in
the two documents which indicates that the parcel is not
a part of the primary movement corridor, nor is it part
of the secondary movement corridor which would connect to
adjacent primary corridors.
C/McManus read from Paragraph 3, Page 3, which states:
"The measures that will be taken to manage and protect
the areas that would be left undeveloped are inadequate
and vague." He pointed out that there is no equivocation
in this statement.
Mr. Leslie stated that without having the author of the
letter present it is difficult to determine intent.
These are standard phrases used by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
}
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAIGE 11.. „ PLANNING COMMISSION
f
Responding to additional passages from the letter, Mr.
Leslie stated the mitigation measures have been designed
to minimize as much as possible the introduction of non-
native species into the adjacent natural open space
areas. In addition, :he mitigation measures replace the
walnut woodland and the coastal sage scrub at a
reasonable replacement rate in accordance with the City's
guidelines.
C/McManus suggested the consultant and the Fish and
Wildlife Service meet to reach a conclusion regarding
apparent items of disagreement.
Mr. Leslie responded to VC/Schad that as a result of
Michael Brandman and Associates' concerns about impacts
to various species, numerous mitigation measures have
been employed.
Chair/Ruzicka reiterated his understanding that this
project will fix a piece of land that is currently
subject to landslide activity.
Mr. Nelson responded to C/McManus that the Urban
Pollution Basin maintenance is provided for as part of
the Crystal Ridge Estates Homeowners Association budget.
Michael Brandman and Associates performs a, five year
mitigation monitoring program for the removal of
construction debris. Subsequently, an easement is
granted in favor of the homeowners association for
collection on all slope areas after that period of time.
The five year monitoring program includes preservation of
the understory. Certain invasive species may not be
introduced into the level pad yard areas so that seeds do
not become windblown.
C/McManus asked who is responsible for what period of
time for maintenance of signs discouraging human
intrusion in natural open spaces of Tanner Canyon SEA No.
15.
Mr. Nelson responded that he will include funding for
sign maintenance in the CC&R's, if necessary. Certain
sections of the CC&R's cannot be amended by the
homeowners without the City's consent. He offered that
any areas of concern could be covered within the
annexation document.
C/McManus introduced a photograph of an oak tree on the
proposed site which indicates the street slope is cut
underneath the drip line and as a result, the tree is
dying.
Mr. Nelson responded that the photograph depicts a
transplanted tree and is not one of the protected trees.
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION
ql ,,
Lex Williman stated a total of 136 walnut and 68 oak d'
trees will be removed by the project. The developer can
select and relocate certain trees that appear to be of
value. Mitigation measures call for compensation of the
removed trees.
Mr. Nelson explained that when the developer removes a
tree, he is required to replace it at a 2:1 ratio or 4:1
ratio. A survival rate of 2:1 must be assured. The
developer has every motivation to be certain the tree
survives. However-, the tree depicted in the photograph
is not subject to the revegetation plan.
Chair/Ruzicka reopened the public hearing.
Doreen Ferguson, Park Plan, Department of. Parks and
Recreation, State of California, said her department
represents the natural resource and the people Iof
California. She indicated that this project is adjacent
to Tonner.Canyon and SEA No. 15 which her department
feels is important to the preservation and future of the
bio -diversity in the State of California. She stated
that in her department's opinion, the DEIR survey was phot
adequate. She further stated that a major concern to her
department is the major loss of any more native walnut
woodlands. This development seeks to eliminate 23.2
acres of the approximate 1,000 acres left in Southern
California which 'greatly diminishes the chances of
survival of the wildlife that this habitat sustains. She
stated "we view this loss as unmitigatible". At the rate
the State is losing its native plants places the wildlife
of Southern California in serious jeopardy. She said her
department agrees with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
in the areas of mitigation concerns and further study.
In particular, she stated her department would like to
see specific areas revegetated such as the southern part
of Tonner Canyon..
Ms. Ferguson stated she is speaking in place of the
department's Resource Ecologist who was unable to attend
tonight's meeting due to illness.
Ms. Ferguson continued that her department is concerned
that there is no mitigation proposed for the loss of the
coastal sage scrub understory which supports the coastal
gnatcatcher. The department is concerned that this area
was not adequately surveyed. She further stated that'her
department feels the DEIR downplayed the impacts to
wildlife resources and lacked specificity for evaluating
the status of plant and animal species that may, be
present on-site. The DEIR does not prove that surveyors
were present for the appropriate number of hours. DEIR LJ
responses should be related to the fact that this project
is in a significant ecological area that has been set
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 13.1PLANNING COMMISSION
aside to be protected. Her department asks that
additional surveys be conducted to determine the presence
of the gnatcatcher, cactus wren, loggerhead shrike,
burrowing owl, grey fox and the San Bernardino mattenking
snake as well as the plant species previously discussed.
Ms. Ferguson responded to VC/Schad that she is not
involved with the Whittier/Chino Hills Wildlife Migration
Authority Research. However, her partner is involved.
C/Fong asked what amount of time Ms. Ferguson feels would
be adequate to survey the site.
Ms. Ferguson responded that she will refer Mr. Fong to
the department's biologist. She stated her department
agrees with the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife
Service that because of the project site's importance to
the area (adjacent to Tonner Canyon and the SEA No. 15)
it increases the level of concern.
C/McManus asked Ms. Ferguson if her department can
establish survey standards and parameters.
Ms. Ferguson suggested that the City's Planning
Department work with her department to coordinate
development efforts.
C/Goldenberg asked the applicant to reach agreement with
the State of California in order for the Planning
Commission to reach a decision based on'fact.
DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/Ruzicka that there has
been ample opportunity for agencies to speak with the
City of Diamond Bar regarding their issues of concern
throughout the tenure of this project. The project is
the last piece of development in a series of approved
projects. The same level of cooperation has existed
between the City and its environmental consultant
throughout the project. The City believes the project
meets the requirements of the General Plan as well as,
the standards employed by the Zoning Ordinance,
Subdivision ordinance, and good environmental practices
proposed as a result of the mitigation measures outlined
for the project.
Ms. Ferguson indicated to C/McManus that her department
recently went on-line with the State Clearing House and
learned of this project. In addition, there was no State
Planning Department staff for some period of time.
There was no further public testimony offered.
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION
C/Fong stated he believes the geology report should
reference potential impact to the east side of Windmill
Drive.
Mr. Willi -man said that Tract No. 48487 is a previously
approved tract. IIt was not ignored as part of the
evaluation of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314. IHe
referred C/Fong to a letter included within the report
that indicates that VTTM No. 50314 does not have an
adverse impact and does not change the proposed
mitigation for VTM Nc. 48487. VTM No. 48487 has out -df -
slope bedding and shear keys proposed along the entire
edge. The project has a City approved -geological report,
approved grading plans which are addressed in a letter
included within this project packet.
Chair/Ruzicka moved to approve VTTM 50314, Zone Change
No. 96-1, Conditional Use Permit No. 96-1, Oak Tree
Permit No. 96-1 and Mitigation Monitoring Program, and
recommend certification of EIR No. 97-1 (SCH 96-0711104),
Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the
attached draft resolutions. The motion died for lack'Iof
a second.
C/Goldenberg moved, C/McManus 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 August 26, 1997 and request the applicant to meet
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of
California Parks and Recreation Department
representatives to reach agreement. The motion was
carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-2 and Development Review
No. 97-6 is a request (pursuant to Section 22.40.430)i to
locate and operate an unmanned cellular
telecommunications facility at Peterson Park. The
proposal is to attached two microcell antennas to an
existing light pole and construct a freestanding
equipment cabinet, covered by a screening mesh enclosure,
adjacent to the pole. The project will be located at the
southern perimeter of Peterson Park, adjacent to the, SR
60.
Property Address: Peterson Park, 24142 Sylvan Glen
Road, Diamond Bar
Property Owner: City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar
Applicant: L.A. Cellular, 17785 Center Court
Drive North, Cerritos, CA
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 15,,,,,n, „ , PLANNING COMMISSION
jSP/Johnson presented staff's report. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use
Permit 97-2 and Development Review 97-6, Findings of Fact
and conditions as listed within the resolution.
DCM/DeStefano stated 336 surrounding property owners were
noticed with one letter of dissent received by the City.
DCM/DeStefano responded to VC/Schad that utility
connections will be provided to the site from Golden
Springs Road for telephone service and from Sylvan Glen
Road for electrical service. A lease agreement is
proposed by L.A. Cellular to lease the facility from the
City at a rate of $1,000 per month for a period of five
years, and up to 20 years if L.A. Cellular exercises its
options.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
Rob Searcy, Terra Firma Services, 4617 Willits Avenue,
Sherman Oaks, representing L.A. Cellular, stated the site
is proposed to complete a transmission gap along the SR
60. The site proposes to co -locate with existing
structures to minimize visual impacts. The eight foot
single directional antenna points down the SR 60 corridor
and will provide some service to adjacent residential
areas. He indicated the applicant's willingness to
consider modifications proposed by the Commission to
limit aesthetic impacts.
VC/Schad asked how power, will be brought to the antenna.
Mr. Searcy responded that power is run underground up
through the conduit contained in the light standard.
Bob 2irbes said he has not seen the proposed plans. He
remarked that he feels children will be closer to the
site in a park than they would be with an installation"on
the Stone's Darrin Drive property.
Craig Clute asked if the Darrin Drive applicants and this
applicant could co -locate at one of the two proposed
sites. He supports screening for the proposed chain link
fencing. He indicated he is concerned about the time
allowed for project completion.
VC/Schad asked what effect the proposed antenna will have
on wind drag.
Mr. Searcy responded that the engineering calculations
were completed and turned over to the ,City's Building
Official in order for the applicant to pull a permit.
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSI6N
C/McManus asked if L.A. Cellular and the Darrin Drive
applicants discussed the possibility of co -locating at
either the Darrin DrItre or the Peterson Park site.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/McManus that the Darrin
Drive applicants dismissed the Peterson Park site as an
inappropriate location for their system.
Mr. Searcy responded to C/McManus that L.A. Cellular
generally does not consider locating a free-standing
monopole structure in a single-family residential
neighborhood and therefore did not consider co --locating
at the Darrin Drive site.
Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing.
C/Goldenberg asked for indication of a realistic
installation time for this project.
DCM/DeStefano suggested that a minimum 10 month time
period be granted'for the CUP.
AP/Searcy requested the 10 month time period be granted
from date of lease or issuance of permits, whichever'is
later.
C/Fong moved, C/Goldenberg seconded, to approve
Conditional Use Permit 97-2 and Development Review 97 6,
Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the
resolution, amend Condition D. on page 7, completion of
the antenna and related equipment shall occur no later
than 10 months from date the lease is signed or City
Building and Safety permits are issued, and with the
condition that the applicant provide chain link fencing
with screening material and landscaping to obscure the
fencing. The motion was approved 5-0 with the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, McManus,
VC/Schad, Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
2. Development Review No. 97-4 is a request (pursuant to
Section, 22.72.020.A) to construct a 36,761 square foot,
two story industrial building to be utilized for
warehousing, assembly an associated office uses on a
78,442 square foot (1.1 acre) vacant site.
Property Location: Northeast corner of Lemon Avenue and
Lycoming Street
Property Owner: Lan Plus, Andy Teng, 17088 E. Green
Drive, City of Industry, CA 91745
i
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 17.:,, PLANNING COMMISSION
F -
Applicant: Kent Wu Architects, 1274 E. Center
„. Court Drive, Suite 211, Covina, CA
91724
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the
public hearing, receive comments, and continue this item
to the meeting of August 26, 1997.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this
item.
VC/Schad moved, C/McManus seconded, to continue
Development Review No. 97-4 to August 26, 1997. The
motion was carried unanimously.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Cont.
1. Draft Development Code.
Chair/Ruzicka asked for public comment on the Landscape
Standards Chapter of Article III - Site Planning.
Bob Zirbes asked if single family detached residences
could be included in Applicability A. on Page III -45.
Mr. Pflugrath suggested "tract development" be eliminated
from Item C. on Page III -47 and that the requirement be
limited to the front yard area. The "exception to
single-family detached residences will be eliminated from
Paragraph A. under Applicability on Page 45.
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE STANDARDS.
Mr. Pflugrath presented the Water Efficient Landscape'
Standards chapter beginning on Page III -51'.
C/Goldenberg asked if Diamond Bar is exploring the use of
Wind -sensing devices under Definitions on Page III -52.
C/McManus asked what triggers the "documentation package"
referred to in Item A. Submittal required under
Applicability on Page III -53.
Mr. Pflugrath responded that the Buyer's Awareness
Package for the homeowner or information provided by the
property owner for renters.
VC/Schad asked that "k. invasive plants to be removed."
be added following j. under 3. Landscape design plan
requirements on Page III -54.
_-
AUGUST 12, 1997 PAGE 18 PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. Pflugrath stated a list of invasive plants would need
to be provided.
DCM/DeStefano suggested that this request be studied'by
staff for proper placement such as the Landscape section.
With respect to the list of invasive plants, it may be
more appropriate to list a source of invasive plants be
cited.
Craig Clute concurred with VC/Schad regarding invasive
plants. He suggested recycled water be considered for
use on a wider basis throughout the City.
Bob Zirbes asked for a better definition of '?A.
Homeowner -provided landscaping at single-family and
residential projects;" under,Applicability on Page III -
52.
Mr. Pf lugrath responded that this statement is proposed
to separate it from the contract/ developer provided
landscaping which is required under the Landscape
section.
PLANNING.COMMISSION ITEMS:
C/Fong asked staff for an update with respect to Mr. Clute's
request concerning the cellular antenna site at the SR 57/SR 60
interchange.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the Walnut Pools cellular site is
being pursued by the second applicant. The applicant has not
submitted plans nor received building permits and therefore,
improvements required by the Planning Commission have not occurred.
There is approximately six to eight months left on the two year
Planning Commission approval.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
DCM/DeStefano stated he and AP/T=gu will be absent from the August
19, 1997 Development Code meeting. SP/Johnson will participate in
portions of the City Council meeting being held on the same
evening.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As presented in the agenda.
AUGUST 12, 1997
PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION
.'s ,
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Planning
Commission, Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. to
6:00 p.m. August 19, 1997 in the South Coast Air Quality Management
Board Room.
Respectfully/fubmitted,
Ja es DeStej�ano
eputy City kanager
Attest:
10e` Rini a "
Chairman