Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/24/1998MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR P REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION j 1 FEBRUARY 24, 1998 i CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:12 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 Vice Chairman McManus. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman McManus, and Commissioners, Fong, and Goldenberg. iCommissioner Tye arrived at 8:12 p.m. Also Present: Deputy City Manager James_DeStefano, Senior Planner. Catherine Johnson and Associate Planner Ann Lungu. i MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of February 10, 1998. VC/McManus moved, C/Fong seconded, to approve the minutes of t February 10, 1998 as submitted. The motion was carried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS - None r NEW BUSINESS - None PUBLIC HEARING: ' 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-1 .and Development Review No. 98- 1 (pursuant to Code Section 22.56 -Part 1 and 22.72.020.A) is a request to construct and operate an unmanned Bank of America Automated Teller Machine Kiosk in the Country Hills Towne Center within an area between the existing The Wherehouse music and video store and the Diamond Bar Boulevard entrance to the center. Project Address: Country Hills Towne Center, Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar v� Applicant: Bank of America, 600 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90017 FEBRUARY 24, 1998 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Property Owner: M & H Realty Partners, 1721 W. Imperial Highway #G, LaHabra; CA 90361 - 5801 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90040 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the project to March 24, 1998. C/Goldenberg moved, VC/McManus seconded, to continue the matter to March 24, 1998. The motion was carried 4-0 with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, VC/McManus, Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tye CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267, Conditional Use Permit NO. 98-03, Oak Tree Permit No. 98-01 and Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2, Volume I and II for VTTM No. 52267. VTTM No. 52267 -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 with an average lot size of 10,900 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. (Continued from the February 10, 1998 meeting.) Property Address: Generally located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and north of Grand Avenue. Property Owner: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership 5109 E. LaPalma Avenue, Anaheim, CA Applicant: Todd Kurtin, SunCal Companies 5109 E. LaPalma Avenue, Anaheim, CA Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive a presentation from the applicant, receive public comments, and continue the public hearing to March 110, 1998. Todd Kurtin asked that the proposed project be continued to March 24, 1998. He stated the applicant is currently working on an alternative plan to propose construction on Lot 6 only and does not feel that staff will have -adequate time to review the proposed project prior to March 10, 1998. Chair/Ruzicka asked if a new public hearing notice will be y advertised if the project is continued to March 24, 1998 FEBRUARY 24, 1998 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano responded that if the intent of the applicant to request a continuance to March 24, 1998 is to review a new alternative to the currently proposed project, it is advisable -N to renotice the project. C/Goldenberg asked for an opportunity to address the audience following their comments. At the last Planning Commission meeting, many inaccurate comments were made by the audience and need to be addressed in order to be fair to the City and staff. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. DCM/DeStefano responded that at the behest of the Commission, staff will answer questions that can be addressed with the information that is available. Don Guilette, 1027 Banner Ridge Road, said he is a 20 year resident of the City and he and his wife have grown to like the open space and the illusion of "country living" which is rapidly disappearing due to development. He said is there any wonder why there is so much contempt and distrust for the politicians and elected officials when you see projects like this proposal. He asked why the effected homeowners were not advised of the "impending destruction of the canyon". He said, he found out about this matter through a flyer he received on" Sunday afternoon. He indicated he resides approximately 1000� feet from the property and asked why he was not notified. He' - wanted to know why there is a discussion regarding deed restricted property. He stated the officials should have told the builder that there was no building allowed in the area. f He said this open space belongs to the people of Diamond Bar and it is not the City's property to give up. He spoke about his concerns regarding three years of construction and heavy trucks on already congested streets. He -•asked that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny this attempt to destroy the City's open space. Steve Lasser, 23403 Stirrup Drive, said the City has not done a good job in handling this matter like a business decision because only 300 flyers were sent out to people advising them about a three year massive grading project. He said he lives a block away from the project and he did not receive a flyer. He talked about the costs of the project and the liability exposure due to the potential of several class action lawsuits as a result of this construction. He said that because of Proposition 13, the proposed structures will not generate _sufficient revenue to support the infrastructure. He spoke about the benefits: SunCal's"offer to give the citizens six acres for a park out of the 340 acres they want to develop; they will replace 30 of the 600 plus oak trees that will be removed; the community will be located behind a guarded gate; and installation of one traffic light. These benefits are proposed in exchange for traffic congestion, diminished quality of life, and all of the things the residents moved FEBRUARY 24, 1998 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION here to avoid. Diamond Bar is not the place for development because the property is protected. The people want the property left as it is and they do not want the politicians getting money from developers. Dr. Chrishna'Goode, 624 Hoss Street, asked the Commission to comment on the Environmental Impact Report which she said she understands is groossly polluted. She said she believes that the dynamite blast's particle output will certainly lead to serious health problems in the area. She asked if the area schools are prepared to accommodatethe additional 200 or 300 middle school children of families who purchase property lIin this development. She said she does not understand why the City is discussing deed restricted property. Ken Martinez, 772 S. Farben Drive, said he does not understand why this project is before the City. The citizens do not want this project and he asked the Planning Commission,to make a decision tonight. George Davidson, 23426 E. Wagon Trail Road, asked for clarification of the notification process. He said he believes, a decision should be made tonight regarding this project. Henry Pourzand, 1008 Quiet Creek Lane, again commented on information contained in the EIR. Clyde Hennessee, a Diamond Bar resident, said the Planning Commission is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. He invited the residents to attend City Council meetings and voice their opinions because the Council will have the final decision regarding this project. He commented -that statements made by a citizen regarding Proposition 13 are not correct. Sam Saffari, 24075 Highcrest Drive, asked the Commission to make a decision tonight with 7 million respect to this property that that worth ect. I He asked why SunCal pal hundreds of millions of dollars and put the project in the City's General Plan when no one was looking. He said he wants the Planning Commission to propose a "no building" initiative. He indicated staff did not explain how .zany people have left messages at City Hall about this project. Gene Mullinax, 23424 Mane Drive, spoke about the EIR. He stated his concerns regarding the runoff and resulting damage that will be created by the proposed project. A citizen residing at 23646 E. Gold Nugget Avenue, said she does not want deed restrictions lifted. More houses mean more schools. Diamond Bar should not be dealing with problems like those experienced by Chino Hills. Ron Tehrany, 745 View Lane_, asked the Commission to request the applicant to provide a new EIR for the alternative 11li. �L'k1 I ., 7r ,.ttr9'C1N4<;u, FEBRUARY 24, 1998 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION- proposal. OMMISSION proposal. He requested the Commission to recommend an initiative against building in open space. Jeremy Bluto, 304 Navajo Springs Road, asked that if the project is continued to March 24, 1998, that notice be mailed to all Diamond Bar residents. Steve Swanson, 23966 Gold Nugget Avenue, said this project reminds him of the Raging Waters project. He wants to know why the Planning Commission continues to consider this project when the citizens are against it 999 to 1. Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. Responding to Chair/Ruzicka's request to speak to citizen's concerns, DCM/DeStefano stated the following: Some of the remarks require the response of the City's Environmental Consultant who is not present this evening. With respect to comments pertaining to the development, he presented a graphic showing 340 acres owned by the developer with about 65 acres being proposed for development. The developer proposes to build 130 dwelling units from the extension of Highcrest Drive down the existing hill to a proposed intersection opposite Tin Drive on Diamond Bar Boulevard. The developer has proposed to provide- the City with the balance of the 340 acres -, (approximately 275 acres) as permanent public open space in addition to the developer's holding (approximately 60-70 acres) that exists on a hill behind Pantera Park off of Pantera Drive. Commissioner Tye arrived at 8:12 p.m. DCM/DeStefano continued. The lot on which the developer proposes to build dwelling units is not map and deed restricted. The properties on either side of the proposed development have map and deed restrictions. The current proposal requests that the 130 homes be developed on a portion of the adjacent map and deed restricted property. According to the City's General Plan, if a developer or property owner wants permission to remove or modify map restrictions, they must go, through the type of process that is currently before the Planning Commission and ultimately, before the City Council with the Planning Commission's recommendation. In some cases the City' Council has lifted the map and deed restrictions, and in some cases it has not lifted the map and deed restrictions. According to the General Plan, the applicant must demonstrate that there is a significant benefit to the City in lifting map and deed restrictions. He pointed out that the project as presently proposed, not require the flattening or filling of all of the property owned by the applicant. The project is designed to be developed only along the ridgeline and the immediately adjacent property. On the Goldrush Drive side of the property there is a significant stand of trees and an 'ancient landslide. On the south side of the project near Steep Canyon Road there is a second ancient FEBRUARY 24, 1998 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSIQN, { i landslide. Both landslides need to be mitigated. He emphasized that Diamond Bar is fraught with landslides.' �u Nearly every project in the City has had to deal with the removal of this type of geological formation in order to render the area safe. The developer is not proposing that the area adjacent to Steep Canyon Road be filled as speakers have indicated. According to the developer's proposal, the canyon will remain intact and the north side of the canyon would be reconfigured to mitigate the existing landslide to secure the area for safety purposes. The proposed grading incorporates about 1.8 million cubic yards of earth. That amount of earth will generate the type of pollutants a previous speaker identified. The City's employed Environmental Consultant points out in the EIR that this level of air pollution cannot be fully mitigated during the construction phase which is not uncommon during a construction project of this size. This fact does not determine whether the project will be approved or denied. In addition, the EIR points out the loss of a virgin hillside to 130 homes which'is a factor that cannot be mitigated and it does not mean that this factor will result in approval of denial of the project. The Environmental Consultant has determined that factors such as impacts to schools, traffic, etc. can be mitigated to some degree which eliminates the project's impacts (ie: a traffic signal at Tin Drive). He explained that developers are required by law to pay to the school district $1.84 per square foot for school impact fees. DCM/DeStefano stated that with respect to public notice for the previous project, the Planning Commission directed staff ! to notice residents within 2000 feet of the proposed project radius. When the applicant withdrew the proposal, staff noticed everyone within 2000 feet of the projects. This r project is smaller in size and magnitude. This project was noticed within 500 feet of the perimeters of the 340 acre site - approximately 1000 people. In addition, public notices were placed in The Daily Bulletin and The Tribune as required by the City's current Code. Notices are also posted on the City's electronic bulletin board, the City library, South Coast Air Quality Management, and on the display board at City Hall. With respect to the comments made that this project should not be considered at all and that the project should not be approved because the property is "open space", DCM/D.eStefano has a right to "ask" that his explained that a property owner project be considered which does nvt necessarily mean that a property owner has a right to "receive" approval. Room additions are handled by technical staff at City Hall. A - project of this scale is reviewed by the Planning Commission which in turn makes its recommendation to the City Council. rte. Decisions for approval or denial are made based upon the facts of the case, the merits of the application, understanding the environmental impacts, understanding the detrimental effects, ;r understanding the positive effects with the Planning - -_. .... .... ....,_. _. .. .. ,.,.. ,..-.- ...•, .. .�_.r .• gar.. .�.:a-� ..• ,..�...J i.i_+ i� FEWARY 24, 1998 PAGE ,7 PLANNING COMMISSION Commission making its recommendation to the City Council and the City Council making factual and supportable decisions in compliance with State .law and local Codes that the project is either appropriate or unappropriated for Diamond Bar. This project has a long way. to go before it reaches the decision making .process. The Planning Commission is not in a legal position to take action tonight to either approve or deny the project. -Facts have not been presented to the Commission in order for it to support a recommendation to Council., Regarding the speaker's comment that staff did not reference any letters received from the public since the last public hearing; DCM/DeStefano explained that copies'of-all letters are transmitted to each Planning Commissioner. The City has received no correspondence since the February 10, 1.998 Planning Commission meeting. Responding -to C/Fang, DCM/DeStefano confirmed that the =- Planning Commission has the right to modify the project. vc/McManus moved, C/Goldenberg seconded, to continue the public hearing to March 24, 1998. C/Goldenberg stated he has heard a number of misleading statements during the public hearings. He pointed out that -- one of the, benefits --of this project is the opening up of about 300 acres to the public. He said he is concerned that the developer might propose -to reduce the size of the lots in order to build more homes'on Lot 6. He referred to a February 24, 1998 speaker who said, he would like to have the City remain as it was when he moved here three years ago. He said that. frankly, he would have preferred the City to remain as it was when he moved here. 22 years ago and there were 7,000 residents, no traffic lights and no traffic. Many residents protested the Pantera tract development which was built prior to cityhood ander Los Angeles County's jurisdiction. He said he thought a citizen's suggestion to buy back the property was a good idea.- He said he is concerned "about the lack of courtesy toward the applicant and staff. While this is an with emotional ue, the Planning Commission is charged- with all of the facts related to the proposed project. He stated the Planning Commission listens to the citizens and asks that the citizens extend the same courtesy- to the Commissioners who are residents of this community. He pointed out that the Commission did not hear the same type of community ad --pouring when two and -one-half million yards of dirt were mimed during the construction, 'of Diamond Ranch High School. C/Fong asked what the developer plans to propose as an alternate , DCM/Desi -reiterated Mr. Kurtin's previous statement that he intent bw propose an alternative to place the development entirely vfkbin Lot 6 which will not require map and deed FEBRUARY 24, 1998 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSIiON I restriction removal. The details of the proposal have not yet been provided to the City's Planning staff. C/Goldenberg called for the question. The motion was carried 5-0 with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, Tye, VC/McManus, Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS as listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: VC/McManus moved, C/Goldenberg seconded, to adjourn the meeting to March 10, 1998. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 8:42 p.m. Resp tfully Sub 'tted, James DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attest: Joe Uzi , Chairma i